If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?

[Jeremie Boop]

(or lost, because the location of the ball is not known, so how can one know what distance was gained, or if the ball is still on the course?), so a stiffer penalty is required to balance the potential gain against the fundamental principle of only allowing the player to advance the ball by way of playing a stroke at a ball which lies on the course to another point on the course.

How about a lost ball *one that is not OB such as one hit in long rough or other course feature which prohibits you from finding the ball* being loss of distance only? If my ball is lost anywhere near an OB area I assume it went OB, however if there is no OB area near where my ball is lost I get the same penalty as hitting OB. There are several areas and times where I've not been able to find my ball because of these circumstances. I don't have a big problem with the rule as it is, but the penalty for a ball lost on the course *not in a hazard* being the same for a ball hit OB is annoying.

[saevel25]

Let me see if I can explain it to you then.  The penalties are not designed to be "punitive".  They exist to ensure that the player does not gain an advantage from breaking a rule, and that includes hitting the ball off the playing field.

The experiment of stroke only for a ball out of bounds was made and quickly discontinued for that reason, and that reason alone.  Stroke only did not balance the advantage gained versus the severity of the mistake of hitting his off the golf course.  It was more in keeping with the basic principle that the player should only gain distance toward the hole by way of playing his ball with strokes under the rules, and keeping it in play.   One of the two most fundamental principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it, and when you hit the ball off the course, you are no longer "playing the course".

The player whose ball is lost in a water hazard is given the benefit of the distance traveled outside of the water hazard because the hazard is still part of the golf course.  His ball still lies on the course, and if the water had evaporated, he would be allowed to play the ball.  This is not so when the ball is out of bounds (or lost, because the location of the ball is not known, so how can one know what distance was gained, or if the ball is still on the course?), so a stiffer penalty is required to balance the potential gain against the fundamental principle of only allowing the player to advance the ball by way of playing a stroke at a ball which lies on the course to another point on the course.

First I agree with the premise that a ball hit OB should be stroke and distance.

Second I disagree with your statement that a lost ball is not known to be on the course. I have played many of times were I would hit a ball between holes and not find it. It is on the course, it is just not found. I understand the whole Schrodinger concept here. I know the ball flew, I knew it is on the course somewhere, it is just not found. That does not dismiss that it is still on the course. I get that it simplifies the rules by just lumping them together as just lost ball. I would say that if to be fair by intent then there should be a distinction between knowing when the ball is potentially OB and one were it can no clearly be anywhere but on the course.

In that regard I wouldn't mind seeing stroke and distance for OB (white stakes only), and lost ball is classified as distance only.

[iacas]

In that regard I wouldn't mind seeing stroke and distance for OB (white stakes only), and lost ball is classified as distance only.

Your ball could also be in an unplayable situation.

What's to stop someone from "not finding" their ball if it's just distance only if they're almost certain it's in a lousy spot and they'll need to take stroke and distance anyway?

If you literally don't know where your ball is, you have to take the stiffer penalty, and that's stroke and distance.

[David in FL]

How about a lost ball *one that is not OB such as one hit in long rough or other course feature which prohibits you from finding the ball* being loss of distance only? If my ball is lost anywhere near an OB area I assume it went OB, however if there is no OB area near where my ball is lost I get the same penalty as hitting OB. There are several areas and times where I've not been able to find my ball because of these circumstances. I don't have a big problem with the rule as it is, but the penalty for a ball lost on the course *not in a hazard* being the same for a ball hit OB is annoying.

It's a popular question, but the problem lies in the basic principle that a penalty must be worse than the consequence of the poor shot.......i.e., you should not be able to accept a penalty for a bad shot and end up with a consequence less severe than the result of the poor shot itself.

As an example......  You hit a tee shot deep into the woods, or even horrible, nasty rough.  Not knowing if the ball will be found, you play a provisional and hit a great shot in the middle of the fairway.   Under a penalty of simple distance.  You're now only lying 2, in good shape, whereas even if you found your ball, you may not be able to advance it to a position nearly as good as that of your provisional.

It's also worth noting that in order to be consistent in the application of the rules, we can't "assume", or leave open to interpretation anything on the golf course and one reason that the penalty for OB and a lost ball are the same.

First I agree with the premise that a ball hit OB should be stroke and distance.

Second I disagree with your statement that a lost ball is not known to be on the course. I have played many of times were I would hit a ball between holes and not find it. It is on the course, it is just not found. I understand the whole Schrodinger concept here. I know the ball flew, I knew it is on the course somewhere, it is just not found. That does not dismiss that it is still on the course. I get that it simplifies the rules by just lumping them together as just lost ball. I would say that if to be fair by intent then there should be a distinction between knowing when the ball is potentially OB and one were it can no clearly be anywhere but on the course.

In that regard I wouldn't mind seeing stroke and distance for OB (white stakes only), and lost ball is classified as distance only.

But again, that would allow you to potentially escape the result of a poor shot with a consequence less than that of the shot itself.

Gotta agree though, there's nothing worse than losing a ball that you know should be found.  A real kick in the teeth.

Edited to note that @iacas and @Fourputt have noted all of this while I was compiling my post.....

[Jeremie Boop]

It's a popular question, but the problem lies in the basic principle that a penalty must be worse than the consequence of the poor shot.......i.e., you should not be able to accept a penalty for a bad shot and end up with a consequence less severe than the result of the poor shot itself.

As an example......  You hit a tee shot deep into the woods, or even horrible, nasty rough.  Not knowing if the ball will be found, you play a provisional and hit a great shot in the middle of the fairway.   Under a penalty of simple distance.  You're now only lying 2, in good shape, whereas even if you found your ball, you may not be able to advance it to a position nearly as good as that of your provisional.

It's also worth noting that in order to be consistent in the application of the rules, we can't "assume", or leave open to interpretation anything on the golf course and one reason that the penalty for OB and a lost ball are the same.

Gotta agree though, there's nothing worse than losing a ball that you know should be found.  A real kick in the teeth.

Edited to add that @iacas and @Fourputt are obviously quicker in explaining their thoughts than I am.....

Completely understandable, and clearly explained. Typically the lost balls that really drive me nuts are the ones that aren't in the crazy bad stuff, they just land out of sight because of trees/blind tee/uphill etc and if you could just FIND that damn thing it would be a perfectly playable shot. I deal with it just fine, it's what I get for not hitting the fairway. Only thing I question is aren't there certain rules that have "reasonable certainty" written in them which basically allows for assuming a ball landed in an area even if it's not found?

[boogielicious]

Name one.

Before 1968, you could leave the flag stick in while you putted.  Now you can't.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

(or lost, because the location of the ball is not known, so how can one know what distance was gained, or if the ball is still on the course?), so a stiffer penalty is required to balance the potential gain against the fundamental principle of only allowing the player to advance the ball by way of playing a stroke at a ball which lies on the course to another point on the course.

How about a lost ball *one that is not OB such as one hit in long rough or other course feature which prohibits you from finding the ball* being loss of distance only? If my ball is lost anywhere near an OB area I assume it went OB, however if there is no OB area near where my ball is lost I get the same penalty as hitting OB. There are several areas and times where I've not been able to find my ball because of these circumstances. I don't have a big problem with the rule as it is, but the penalty for a ball lost on the course *not in a hazard* being the same for a ball hit OB is annoying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Let me see if I can explain it to you then.  The penalties are not designed to be "punitive".  They exist to ensure that the player does not gain an advantage from breaking a rule, and that includes hitting the ball off the playing field.

The experiment of stroke only for a ball out of bounds was made and quickly discontinued for that reason, and that reason alone.  Stroke only did not balance the advantage gained versus the severity of the mistake of hitting his off the golf course.  It was more in keeping with the basic principle that the player should only gain distance toward the hole by way of playing his ball with strokes under the rules, and keeping it in play.   One of the two most fundamental principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it, and when you hit the ball off the course, you are no longer "playing the course".

The player whose ball is lost in a water hazard is given the benefit of the distance traveled outside of the water hazard because the hazard is still part of the golf course.  His ball still lies on the course, and if the water had evaporated, he would be allowed to play the ball.  This is not so when the ball is out of bounds (or lost, because the location of the ball is not known, so how can one know what distance was gained, or if the ball is still on the course?), so a stiffer penalty is required to balance the potential gain against the fundamental principle of only allowing the player to advance the ball by way of playing a stroke at a ball which lies on the course to another point on the course.

First I agree with the premise that a ball hit OB should be stroke and distance.

Second I disagree with your statement that a lost ball is not known to be on the course. I have played many of times were I would hit a ball between holes and not find it. It is on the course, it is just not found. I understand the whole Schrodinger concept here. I know the ball flew, I knew it is on the course somewhere, it is just not found. That does not dismiss that it is still on the course. I get that it simplifies the rules by just lumping them together as just lost ball. I would say that if to be fair by intent then there should be a distinction between knowing when the ball is potentially OB and one were it can no clearly be anywhere but on the course.

In that regard I wouldn't mind seeing stroke and distance for OB (white stakes only), and lost ball is classified as distance only.

If you can't find your ball you are making an assumption that it's still on the course.  The rules like to avoid assumptions.  And if you don't know where it is, then how can you establish a proper dropping zone?  I've known many times where a player, myself included, lost sight of the ball immediately on impact.  How can you approximate a location if you have no clue where the ball went.  The rule has to accommodate all possible scenarios.

[David in FL]

If you can't find your ball you are making an assumption that it's still on the course.  The rules like to avoid assumptions.  And if t=you don't know where it is, then how can you establish a proper dropping zone?  I've known many times where a player, myself included, lost sight of the ball immediately on impact.  How can you approximate a location if you have no clue where the ball went.  The rule has to accommodate all possible scenarios.

Worth repeating.......

[boogielicious]

Worth repeating.......

Schrodinger would approve.

[Jeremie Boop]

If you can't find your ball you are making an assumption that it's still on the course.  The rules like to avoid assumptions.  And if t=you don't know where it is, then how can you establish a proper dropping zone?  I've known many times where a player, myself included, lost sight of the ball immediately on impact.  How can you approximate a location if you have no clue where the ball went.  The rule has to accommodate all possible scenarios.

A ball in the middle of the course with no hazards or OB anywhere around can't be assumed to still be on the course? Again, I reference the "reasonable certainty" verbage that is in place in the rule book. Also, we aren't talking about a drop, just lost of distance. But, like I said, I'm fine with it how it is, just gives me more incentive to try to make it on the fairway. I know that it would take way too much to actually make a change like this and I'm sure it would be horribly over used so it's better off not actually being in there.

[David in FL]

Schrodinger would approve.

As would his damn cat!

[Rulesman]

Let me see if I can explain it to you then.  The penalties are not designed to be "punitive".  They exist to ensure that the player does not gain an advantage from breaking a rule, and that includes hitting the ball off the playing field.

The experiment of stroke only for a ball out of bounds was made and quickly discontinued for that reason, and that reason alone.  Stroke only did not balance the advantage gained versus the severity of the mistake of hitting his off the golf course.  It was more in keeping with the basic principle that the player should only gain distance toward the hole by way of playing his ball with strokes under the rules, and keeping it in play.   One of the two most fundamental principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it, and when you hit the ball off the course, you are no longer "playing the course".

The player whose ball is lost in a water hazard is given the benefit of the distance traveled outside of the water hazard because the hazard is still part of the golf course.  His ball still lies on the course, and if the water had evaporated, he would be allowed to play the ball.  This is not so when the ball is out of bounds (or lost, because the location of the ball is not known, so how can one know what distance was gained, or if the ball is still on the course?), so a stiffer penalty is required to balance the potential gain against the fundamental principle of only allowing the player to advance the ball by way of playing a stroke at a ball which lies on the course to another point on the course.

Excellent explanation.

[boogielicious]

Excellent explanation.

Yes it is.  When I was learning the rules and this was being discussed, @Fourputt 's explanation made it very clear why the rule was established that way.  I was convinced then that it should not be changed.

"The player whose ball is lost in a water hazard is given the benefit of the distance traveled outside of the water hazard because the hazard is still part of the golf course.  His ball still lies on the course ,

[Aguirre]

Alright, you convinced me.  You see?  Discussion.

EDIT--And  I didn't have to read some awful sounding pamphlet that only a complete tight ass would love.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Name one.

Before 1968, you could leave the flag stick in while you putted.  Now you can't.

Quite right, and most players welcomed that Rule change, just as they virtually all welcomed the end to stymies. However, a vocal 1% jumped up and down for five minutes when the notice of an impending ban on anchoring was announced.

Nevertheless, as you well know, the Rules are amended every four years. The RBs listen and act if they can. No Babe Ruth.

[boogielicious]

Quite right, and most players welcomed that Rule change, just as they virtually all welcomed the end to stymies. However, a vocal 1% jumped up and down for five minutes when the notice of an impending ban on anchoring was announced.

Nevertheless, as you well know, the Rules are amended every four years. The RBs listen and act if they can. No Babe Ruth.

Yes, you can't please everyone!

[liquor box]

Name one.

I have no idea but I guessing that there was some resistance to changing the rules for club head sizes that got limited to a certain size, the length of putters and the size of grooves in wedges.

All of these things might have been resisted as it would reduce the ability of the masses to score well but were deemed to be better for the game.

note- I have not checked a rule book in relation to these rules

[rogolf]

I have no idea but I guessing that there was some resistance to changing the rules for club head sizes that got limited to a certain size, the length of putters and the size of grooves in wedges.

All of these things might have been resisted as it would reduce the ability of the masses to score well but were deemed to be better for the game.

note- I have not checked a rule book in relation to these rules

The same might apply for many posts on this site!  Smiley :)