Lost Ball Rule is Stupid

[DrvFrShow]

Technology could easily solve the lost ball problem, but it's not being allowed.

[Duff McGee]

Arguing against a change based purely on tradition when we could have something more fair and that drastically speeds up the pace of play is folly IMO. But again, that is my opinion.

[iacas]

Arguing against a change based purely on tradition when we could have something more fair and that drastically speeds up the pace of play is folly IMO. But again, that is my opinion.

You've yet to demonstrate that it's "more fair."

Just dropping where you think your ball MIGHT be also violates some of the principles upon which the game is built. So there's that.

[Duff McGee]

You've yet to demonstrate that it's "more fair." Just dropping where you think your ball MIGHT be also violates some of the principles upon which the game is built. So there's that.

I think you might have missed my prior post before that. I was talking about the technology thing that is being debated lately on the forum. If a ball can be found using technology such as RFID or whatever else is out there, it would not only speed up play tremendously but it would answer all of the objections (except for tradition which is not actually an argument on the validity of anything if there is a better option). Argument based on tradition is akin to arguments that we should adhere to a certain religion without evidence based solely on the idea that it is tradition. If your ball is under a leaf, boom, it is found immediately. Then there is no discrepancy between people that can afford a spotter, have a gallery, playing solo vs. playing with a foursome, etc.

[DrvFrShow]

The "receiver" could be sold with the dozen golf balls and frequency keyed to that particular dozen.

[newtogolf]

I think you might have missed my prior post before that. I was talking about the technology thing that is being debated lately on the forum.

If a ball can be found using technology such as RFID or whatever else is out there, it would not only speed up play tremendously but it would answer all of the objections (except for tradition which is not actually an argument on the validity of anything if there is a better option). Argument based on tradition is akin to arguments that we should adhere to a certain religion without evidence based solely on the idea that it is tradition.

If your ball is under a leaf, boom, it is found immediately. Then there is no discrepancy between people that can afford a spotter, have a gallery, playing solo vs. playing with a foursome, etc.

RFID tagged golf balls will likely be more expensive than standard golf balls.  There would be a discrepancy if you used RFID balls during a tournament and your opponent couldn't afford to use them.   You handicap would also be based on using an RFID ball which places you at a disadvantage if RFID balls are not permitted during tournaments.

[Duff McGee]

RFID tagged golf balls will likely be more expensive than standard golf balls.  There would be a discrepancy if you used RFID balls during a tournament and your opponent couldn't afford to use them.   You handicap would also be based on using an RFID ball which places you at a disadvantage if RFID balls are not permitted during tournaments.

I agree but that is kind of a red herring if you think about it. A lot about golf is cost prohibitive when you look at it from a relativity standpoint. Some golfers can afford to rent carts every time whereas some golfers have to walk longer courses and they might lose a few strokes. Some golfers can only afford to buy the cheapest golf balls that bounce off the green when many other golfers can buy top of the line balls. Many can buy top of the line clubs whereas others can't even afford to get clubs fitted for them when they are very tall. Some can only afford to play on courses where the greens look like they were shredded by a giant cheese shredder and lose multiple strokes per round compared to golfers that can afford to golf nice courses. I would pay double the price for my golf balls if the RFID technology was sound and efficient.

[dkolo]

The "receiver" could be sold with the dozen golf balls and frequency keyed to that particular dozen.

[quote name="DrvFrShow" url="/t/83618/lost-ball-rule-is-stupid/180#post_1187407"]Technology could easily solve the lost ball problem, but it's not being allowed. [/quote] If it were easy, it'd have been done. I have no doubt that it will in the future, but for that technology to be cost effective and actually effective, while still being in keeping with other rules (so having a device to find your ball that isn't your phone / is tournament legal / whatever) may take a few years. And as was said in another post, stroke and distance will still be the rule for when you still inevitably can't find your ball. I know there's GPS golf balls on that crazy 19th hole shot in Africa, but that's the only time I've heard them being used.

[Duff McGee]

I'm just saying that when they work the kinks out this needs to happen. It is a perfect (well, near perfect) solution. Remember, there were "football purists" and still are that hate instant replay. How they would rather a call ruin a game when we have irrefutable evidence that a call was wrong is beyond me.

[Fourputt]

I'm just saying that when they work the kinks out this needs to happen. It is a perfect (well, near perfect) solution.

Remember, there were "football purists" and still are that hate instant replay. How they would rather a call ruin a game when we have irrefutable evidence that a call was wrong is beyond me.

I've had quite a few lost balls that I never wanted to find, and I knew from the tee that I didn't want to find it - I had one of those yesterday.  I don't want to be required to look just because the rules say that you are required to find it because it has a chip (a ball with a chip can never, by definition, be lost).  I can just about assure you that if this came to pass, the rules (probably a local rule like we have for electronic DMD's) would require you to either find and attempt to play the original ball or immediately play a ball from the original spot under stroke and distance (since the primary reason for this is to save time).

The provisional ball would then be relegated to only being used for possible out of bounds.  They would not give you a choice between two balls, similar to the current authorized local rule for a ball in a water hazard.  I would be adamantly opposed to such a rule.  I don't need that much structure in my game.  I prefer living with the unknown.

[Duff McGee]

I've had quite a few lost balls that I never wanted to find, and I knew from the tee that I didn't want to find it - I had one of those yesterday.  I don't want to be required to look just because the rules say that you are required to find it because it has a chip (a ball with a chip can never, by definition, be lost).  I can just about assure you that if this came to pass, the rules (probably a local rule like we have for electronic DMD's) would require you to either find and attempt to play the original ball or immediately play a ball from the original spot under stroke and distance (since the primary reason for this is to save time).   The provisional ball would then be relegated to only being used for possible out of bounds.  They would not give you a choice between two balls, similar to the current authorized local rule for a ball in a water hazard.  I would be adamantly opposed to such a rule.  I don't need that much structure in my game.  I prefer living with the unknown.

That's a lot of speculation and sounds a bit red herring-y to me. You sure you just don't want them because it isn't traditional?

[newtogolf]

That's a lot of speculation and sounds a bit red herring-y to me. You sure you just don't want them because it isn't traditional?

It's not a red herring, @Fourputt u with valid side effects to the technology and rule change.  BTW, RFID balls exist and have existed in some form since 2005.  Here's a link; http://www.prazza.com/prazza-golf-balls.htm

[Duff McGee]

You really think that "not wanting to look for your ball" trumps all the other benefits? It sounds a lot like an excuse to not allow change.

[Fourputt]

You really think that "not wanting to look for your ball" trumps all the other benefits? It sounds a lot like an excuse to not allow change.

Actually I'm trying to be logical and discuss the idea while keeping the principles behind the Rules of Golf in mind.  You, on the other hand are just wanting for the sake of wanting (because the game is too hard?), and since you have no apparent knowledge of the principles that the game is played under, it's not really possible to have a reasoned discussion about it.  You are making a suggestion out of frustration over a situation that you don't like.  Since you don't want to acknowledge the underlying motivation behind the rules, you find it easy to just call them stupid.

You tell me that I'm arguing my point of view solely from hidebound tradition, and that isn't the case.  I'm arguing from my knowledge of trying to study and understand the rules for the last 25 years.  I keep a copy of Richard Tufts pamphlet The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf on my desk, and I refer to it when necessary during discussions like this.  When you make changes like you want, you change the way the game is supposed to be played, and not in a good way, or in a way that is supported by the game's foundation.  You want to dumb it down, make it easier, and that's not golf.  Golf gets easier by learning to swing, learning to manage the course, by playing smart.  Don't hit driver if the likely chance is a lost ball.  Don't try the hero shot when the percentages are against you.  Still no guarantees, but you minimize the risk when you park at least some of your ego with your car.

Despite all of that, it's still hard, and we will mostly fail more often than we succeed, sort of like hitting in baseball.  With modern equipment, it's gotten a lot easier since I first learned the game, but there are limits to what should be done.  Modifying the rules to make it easier is simply not the way to go.  Those who would benefit most are those who mostly ignore the rules now, and they are just as likely to ignore any new rules.  Why change anything for them?

[isukgolf]

@Duff McGee did you take the challenge to rewrite the rule as think it should be written? I used to believe similar to your line of thinking, but after reading more than one of these threads i discovered I really just did not like the score ... but the rule is fair for competitive play. You simply can't drop where you think it was lost ... not sure how many times I have found the ball 20+ yards from where I thought. If we are talking recreational then do what pleases you and your group ... drop wherever you want and take whatever strokes you want to ... or not.

[newtogolf]

You really think that "not wanting to look for your ball" trumps all the other benefits? It sounds a lot like an excuse to not allow change.

I don't lose that many balls so the rule as it stands really isn't a problem for me.  Given you're a 14.6 I would think you lose even less than I do, so it seems you're making a pretty big issue out of something that probably doesn't impact you very often.

[Duff McGee]

1) I never said the rule is stupid in the title, someone changed it for some reason. 2) I have no idea why people are getting so worked up over this. As an attorney there is no "holy grail" where we bend to black and white law and things evolve. I love golf and am a stickler for the rules. But.....why is it so wrong to want to find a ball that is in play but just due to a different set of circumstances you can't find it when those same circumstances change based on prestige and $? I find it unfair that pros prevents with a big gallery people find lost balls where there is no way someone would have found it by him/herself. You can dismiss it with "so you think you're a pro?!" but that is a straw man which you were trying to talk about earlier. It is not either/or. I shouldn't be an outcast just because I find something unfair and think that technology can help. I already agreed that a solution would be tough and maybe impossible, then I offered one that would solve the issue but you come back with "well maybe I don't want to find the ball." You like it the way it is and don't want it changed. I do. I have not been confrontational about my opinions either and, again, I did not name this thread.

[Duff McGee]

I don't lose that many balls so the rule as it stands really isn't a problem for me.  Given you're a 14.6 I would think you lose even less than I do, so it seems you're making a pretty big issue out of something that probably doesn't impact you very often.

Stroke and distance is HUGE. If it happens to me once a round it is too often, especially when I am on the verge of breaking 80 just about every time I am out and that is my next goal. And again, I am not talking about a ball that you know damn well is out of play and then dropping. I'm talking about a ball you birdie the fairway that finds its way off the fairway and into tall grass or something where you would be 100% likely to find the ball if you had a spotter. If you want to talk about price disparity between normal golf balls or RFID balls, then how about people that can afford to pay a spotter?