Lost Ball Rule is Stupid

[arturo28mx]

This is what always bothers me about the lost ball policy.

If I hit a drive a few yards off the fairway, and there are a bunch of leaves on the ground, it may be impossible to find the ball.  Even though I know roughly were the ball stopped and is in bounds.

In that scenario, I just take a free drop instead of taking 5 minutes looking for it.  I don't have the benefit of large crowds, marshalls and tv cameras to find my ball.   Seems like an unfair rule for the causal golfer.

In my town we have torrential rains every august and september. The fairways are extremely saturated with water and very muddy. Several times my drive has gone straight down the middle of the fairway but when I get there the ball has totally sunk and is impossible to find. Not due to long grass but to very loose soil.

I just drop in the area where I saw my ball land and continue play.

[Martyn W]

In my town we have torrential rains every august and september. The fairways are extremely saturated with water and very muddy. Several times my drive has gone straight down the middle of the fairway but when I get there the ball has totally sunk and is impossible to find. Not due to long grass but to very loose soil.

I just drop in the area where I saw my ball land and continue play.

What other Rules do you ignore because you don't like them? :)

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumaAttack

This is what always bothers me about the lost ball policy.

If I hit a drive a few yards off the fairway, and there are a bunch of leaves on the ground, it may be impossible to find the ball.  Even though I know roughly were the ball stopped and is in bounds.

In that scenario, I just take a free drop instead of taking 5 minutes looking for it.  I don't have the benefit of large crowds, marshalls and tv cameras to find my ball.   Seems like an unfair rule for the causal golfer.

In my town we have torrential rains every august and september. The fairways are extremely saturated with water and very muddy. Several times my drive has gone straight down the middle of the fairway but when I get there the ball has totally sunk and is impossible to find. Not due to long grass but to very loose soil.

I just drop in the area where I saw my ball land and continue play.

So, we're to understand that your unwillingness (or perhaps, inability) to play the course as you find it is somehow the fault of the Rules? That being said, no one cares what you write on your scorecard, unless of course, it's your opponent or fellow-competitor.

[saevel25]

In my town we have torrential rains every august and september. The fairways are extremely saturated with water and very muddy. Several times my drive has gone straight down the middle of the fairway but when I get there the ball has totally sunk and is impossible to find. Not due to long grass but to very loose soil.

I just drop in the area where I saw my ball land and continue play.

Then don't hit it so high, or don't play when it's very soggy out.

Golf has rules for embedded golf balls and standing water. A lost golf ball is a lost golf ball.

[Elmer]

I think you will find that virtually all the 'writers' have been scratch players or better.

Are we talking about guys that played back in the 1860's?

They were playing scratch on different courses with different equipment. It is like comparing Cy Young to a modern day player. Sure the stats still count, but they were playing different games.

Consider the 1860 Open, The winning score was 55-54-53=162 by andrew Strath.

The course was Prestwick Golf Club a 12-hole course,  3,799 yards,

Sure they had to play well, but they were not playing Winged Foot or Oakmount!

I think we need to remember that the rules are written generally to cover the broadest of all situations. However they were written a long time ago and revised every few years. However much like a law or the constitution they are challenged by specific situations and amended if need be.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

I think you will find that virtually all the 'writers' have been scratch players or better.

Are we talking about guys that played back in the 1860's?

They were playing scratch on different courses with different equipment. It is like comparing Cy Young to a modern day player. Sure the stats still count, but they were playing different games.

Consider the 1860 Open, The winning score was 55-54-53=162 by andrew Strath.

The course was Prestwick Golf Club a  12-hole course,  3,799 yards,

Sure they had to play well, but they were not playing Winged Foot or Oakmount!

I think we need to remember that the rules are written generally to cover the broadest of all situations. However they were written a long time ago and revised every few years. However much like a law or the constitution they are challenged by specific situations and amended if need be.

And I believe that @Rulesman 's point is that all along the way the Rules were created, interpreted, and modified through the years by a process in which the participants were expert scratch golfers or close.

[Elmer]

And I believe that @Rulesman's point is that all along the way the Rules were created, interpreted, and modified through the years by a process in which the participants were expert scratch golfers or close.

I understand that,

What I dont understand is why we feel the need to justify the rules by indicating they were written by "scratch golfers". would they be any less debatable if they were written by a -5?

That just smacks of elitism to me. We have rules that were "created, interpreted, and modified" by people who are good at playing the game by those same rules.

I still maintain there needs to be a difference between rec and non rec, but I have a Suspicion many do that anyway!

I know if it not the same, but Is every Rules officially on tour an "expert scratch golfers or close"? or do we let hackers officiate and interpret the rules on tour?

[dkolo]

I understand that, What I dont understand is why we feel the need to justify the rules by indicating they were written by "scratch golfers". would they be any less debatable if they were written by a -5? That just smacks of elitism to me. We have rules that were "created, interpreted, and modified" by people who are good at playing the game by those same rules. I still maintain there needs to be a difference between rec and non rec, but I have a Suspicion many do that anyway! I know if it not the same, but Is every Rules officially on tour an "expert scratch golfers or close"? or do we let hackers officiate and interpret the rules on tour?

I think @Rulesman 's comment was in response to you saying the writers of the rules never drove the ball far and with accuracy on a difficult course, or at least that's how I, and I suspect he, interpreted your comment about never driving 280, etc. He was just saying that the rule makers tend to, in fact, be pretty competent golfers.

[Duff McGee]

This is one rule that is outdated. Yes that is my opinion. When Matt Jones hit a ball down by the water in massive rough and there were 20 people looking for it for 5 minutes and then the film had to be studied to finally find it, that is plain not fair to golfers that don't even have a spotter.

[dkolo]

This is one rule that is outdated. Yes that is my opinion. When Matt Jones hit a ball down by the water in massive rough and there were 20 people looking for it for 5 minutes and then the film had to be studied to finally find it, that is plain not fair to golfers that don't even have a spotter.

OK. You hate the rule. What do you propose to change it to? "Drop (under penalty or otherwise) where you think it's lost" is unworkable because if you knew where you lost it, it wouldn't be lost.

[Duff McGee]

OK. You hate the rule. What do you propose to change it to? "Drop (under penalty or otherwise) where you think it's lost" is unworkable because if you knew where you lost it, it wouldn't be lost.

We already gave our opinions and suggestions earlier in the thread. It is what it is and I play by the bad rule.

[dkolo]

We already gave our opinions and suggestions earlier in the thread. It is what it is and I play by the bad rule.

I understand that, and I've been following the thread. But I just don't agree with you calling it a bad rule when there isn't a better solution on the table to the problem of "I hit the ball and now I can't find it." It's the best rule we can come up with in accordance with the principles. Believe me, I hate being boned because I can't find a ball I would've sworn hit the fairway. But I can't go dropping in the fairway because, obviously, it's not in the fairway. Either I go back to rehit or my score is BS.

[Duff McGee]

I understand that, and I've been following the thread. But I just don't agree with you calling it a bad rule when there isn't a better solution on the table to the problem of "I hit the ball and now I can't find it." It's the best rule we can come up with in accordance with the principles. Believe me, I hate being boned because I can't find a ball I would've sworn hit the fairway. But I can't go dropping in the fairway because, obviously, it's not in the fairway. Either I go back to rehit or my score is BS.

When a ball hits your ball on the green, you have to put it back in the place you remember it being in good faith. There are other rules where discernment is used in good faith. They could make up a rule where you are somewhat penalized but don't lose stroke and distance.

[dkolo]

When a ball hits your ball on the green, you have to put it back in the place you remember it being in good faith. There are other rules where discernment is used in good faith. They could make up a rule where you are somewhat penalized but don't lose stroke and distance.

But you knew it was on the green and can probably get it to within a couple feet, if not a couple inches. With a lost ball, you're fundamentally start with the position of "the ball isn't here and I don't know why" then you don't have a logical basis for where to drop. My ball hit a tree this weekend on a duck hook into OB. I looked everywhere by the fence and tree and gave up but found my ball in the middle of the fairway on my way to my provisional. Never thought for a second it could be there but if I'd dropped where I thought it was, I'd have been off by almost 100 yards. So my point is anything but stroke and distance is fundamentally unworkable from a rules perspective because you're coming at the situation from a point of ignorance about facts. It's something that would lead to much worse results from a fairness perspective. The current rule is the least-bad option we have.

[Duff McGee]

There is so much "it's s gentleman's game" and "we are our own policemen" type of honor codes in golf that you could make a rule where if the ball is in the woods or in bushes or any possibility of being OB it would be on you to admit it and hit 3 off the tee whereas if you saw your ball go into the rough or taller grass with no OB near the area you could drop at the furthest distance in the worst possible place or something stupid like that. There are a lot of smart people working in the administration of the rules, I'm sure they could come up with something penal but not as penal as stroke and distance.

[dkolo]

There is so much "it's s gentleman's game" and "we are our own policemen" type of honor codes in golf that you could make a rule where if the ball is in the woods or in bushes or any possibility of being OB it would be on you to admit it and hit 3 off the tee whereas if you saw your ball go into the rough or taller grass with no OB near the area you could drop at the furthest distance in the worst possible place or something stupid like that. There are a lot of smart people working in the administration of the rules, I'm sure they could come up with something penal but not as penal as stroke and distance.

The rules are pretty clear; they don't really rely on the game being gentlemanly for interpretation. They're cut and dried in that respect almost always. The gentleman part comes in actually enforcing them. But there's still a right answer to be found if you work through the rules. The solution you seem to want to push towards would be impossible to work out in practice with any certainty or precision and that's unfair to the other golfers in your group or tournament who know where their ball is. I'd also add that the people who make the rules are really, really smart at what they do. If the solution were staring them in the face, it'd have happened already. It hasn't happened because you can't put forth an objective rule that anyone can read and implement the same way under the same circumstances. That violates the basic premises of equity in the rules.

[Fourputt]

There is so much "it's s gentleman's game" and "we are our own policemen" type of honor codes in golf that you could make a rule where if the ball is in the woods or in bushes or any possibility of being OB it would be on you to admit it and hit 3 off the tee whereas if you saw your ball go into the rough or taller grass with no OB near the area you could drop at the furthest distance in the worst possible place or something stupid like that. There are a lot of smart people working in the administration of the rules, I'm sure they could come up with something penal but not as penal as stroke and distance.

Come on guy.  This is a straw man.  Say you hit your ball and lose it in the air long before it lands, or never see it at all, but you "felt" it go right.  You really have no idea where it could be within even a 50+ yard arc.  Now you tell me that you get to just choose a spot and play from there.  Horse !

[newtogolf]

There is so much "it's s gentleman's game" and "we are our own policemen" type of honor codes in golf that you could make a rule where if the ball is in the woods or in bushes or any possibility of being OB it would be on you to admit it and hit 3 off the tee whereas if you saw your ball go into the rough or taller grass with no OB near the area you could drop at the furthest distance in the worst possible place or something stupid like that. There are a lot of smart people working in the administration of the rules, I'm sure they could come up with something penal but not as penal as stroke and distance.

The rules cover the situation so is your only issue the penalty stroke you have to take?