Lost Ball Rule is Stupid

[Martyn W]

1) It doesn't need a rule. Those who think there should be probably just do it already.

2) A bit like over here. But the vibes from the UHS body suggests the movement may be the other way. God forbid.

I have administered both the CONGU and USGA handicap systems and I have to say, IMO the USGA system is better and more accurate provided players and committees fulfill their responsibilities:

" Two basic premises underlie the USGA Handicap System , namely that each player will try to make the best score at every hole in every round, regardless of where the round is played, and that the player will post every acceptable round for peer review . The player and the player's Handicap Committee have joint responsibility for adhering to these premises."

In my experience this is unfortunately the exception rather than the rule.

[Fourputt]

I don't think I am explaining myself properly so here is my opinion in a nutshell:

1) I don't think people questioning this rule should be viewed as the enemy and a threat to the traditions of the game. We follow the rules. That is why we care.

2) just saying "a ball is lost so it is lost" is being a tad bit disingenuous in my opinion. There are different levels of "lost." Not technically of course, but in equity. You can't just say "well pros have a gallery watching so they are at a disadvantage there." The fact of the matter is, whenever there are more people looking for your ball, the odds are better that you will find it. That is inherently unfair because the rule as applied depends not on the quality of shot or where the ball actually is many times, but who saw it and where and how many people (or cameras) located it.

Saying balls bounce back in play so it's a wash is irrelevant to the topic. Saying that pros have other hard things to deal with is irrelevant. Saying that technology can break is irrelevant.

We should all agree that the rules and principles of golf should support and encourage finding a ball in play.

The reason for the rule is so people don't get an unfair advantage by placing the ball where they think it should be. A lost ball means no one knows where it is. I get that.

But the policy values should always support the truth and if the ball is in play we should try everything we can to help golfers find the ball quickly.

You guys have demonstrated that there has not been a proposed rules change that can help with this. So you have succeeded in convincing me that this is the least harmful of a rule for a bad situation as can be CUURENTLY.

But I posit that if technology is proven to be effective AND at least somewhat cost effective to fix this problem AND help with slow play, that we should accept and encourage it.

Equity says just the opposite, that lost is lost and all cases of lost balls under Rule 27-1 will be treated the same.  Nothing more, nothing less.  When a pro loses a ball he suffers stroke and distance just the same as you and I do.  The fact that he loses fewer balls because he is a better player and he has more people helping him find his when it strays is irrelevant.  When you get on the tour, you will have those same conditions.  Until then you play under the conditions that all of us deal with every round.

I will never comprehend this mindset that the average player should have all of the same advantages that the pros have.  The whole idea is totally lacking in any sort of logic.  Then since we can't possibly have that, the rules must be changed to accommodate those shortcomings.  It's not going to happen.  As has been said several times, it's been tried, the experiment failed, end of story.

I lose fewer than one ball per round on average outside of water hazards.  If you are losing so many balls that it has a significant effect on your handicap, then maybe it's your course management that's at fault, not the Rules of Golf.    If it's a problem for an individual, then treat it any way you like as long as you aren't in a competition under the rules.  If you really want to play by the rules there are still outs for you.  As has been suggested, on a busy public course, drop and take the 2 strokes if you failed to play a provisional ball.  If that doesn't work for you, then there is simply not going to be any answer that you like.

[Duff McGee]

Equity says just the opposite, that lost is lost and all cases of lost balls under Rule 27-1 will be treated the same.  Nothing more, nothing less.  When a pro loses a ball he suffers stroke and distance just the same as you and I do. The fact that he loses fewer balls because he is a better player and he has more people helping him find his when it strays is irrelevant. When you get on the tour, you will have those same conditions.  Until then you play under the conditions that all of us deal with every round.   I will never comprehend this mindset that the average player should have all of the same advantages that the pros have.  The whole idea is totally lacking in any sort of logic.  Then since we can't possibly have that, the rules must be changed to accommodate those shortcomings.  It's not going to happen.  As has been said several times, it's been tried, the experiment failed, end of story. I lose fewer than one ball per round on average outside of water hazards.  If you are losing so many balls that it has a significant effect on your handicap, then maybe it's your course management that's at fault, not the Rules of Golf.    If it's a problem for an individual, then treat it any way you like as long as you aren't in a competition under the rules.  If you really want to play by the rules there are still outs for you.  As has been suggested, on a busy public course, drop and take the 2 strokes if you failed to play a provisional ball.  If that doesn't work for you, then there is simply not going to be any answer that you like.

I disagree that it is irrelevant. Why is it not relevant? Also, I don't lose that many balls either. What does that have to do with this discussion? Lost is lost. That is true. Someone on here has already admitted that he plays with a spotter. He still loses balls. Once in awhile a pro loses his/her ball even with camera crews and a crowd (very rare). Many of you find it fair that a person can hit a ball down the fairway and have to take 3 off the tee or, more importantly, have to walk all the way back to the tee again to hit another shot. I do not find that fair. Yet I agree that a solution is not readily available. So what are we arguing about?

[iacas]

But I posit that if technology is proven to be effective AND at least somewhat cost effective to fix this problem AND help with slow play, that we should accept and encourage it.

That has nothing to do with the rule, really: if your ball is lost it's still going to be lost whether it has a non-functioning GPS chip in it or whatever.

I disagree that it is irrelevant. Why is it not relevant?

How is it relevant? Do you want the Rules of Golf to allot you 5,000 person-minutes to search? If you have two people looking for your ball, you each get 2500 minutes? That way a crowd of 1,000 can search for five minutes each?

Do you want the Rules of Golf to require that a crowd follow you around?

How is it relevant? You play under the conditions under which you play. Sometimes PGA Tour pros don't have Tiger-sized galleries. Actually, almost never. Should the rules help those guys out too?

It's up to you to explain the relevance.

Lost is lost. That is true. Someone on here has already admitted that he plays with a spotter. He still loses balls. Once in awhile a pro loses his/her ball even with camera crews and a crowd (very rare).

Many of you find it fair that a person can hit a ball down the fairway and have to take 3 off the tee or, more importantly, have to walk all the way back to the tee again to hit another shot. I do not find that fair.

Define "fair"? Because, per the Principles, it's the fairest thing.

Imagine you hit two balls down the fairway (one your original tee shot, one a provisional). They finish two yards apart, both in the fairway. If you can't identify which is which, both are technically lost, and… you're hitting five from the tee. That's fair under the definitions used by the Rules of Golf, but I imagine you'd find that really unfair.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I will never comprehend this mindset that the average player should have all of the same advantages that the pros have.  The whole idea is totally lacking in any sort of logic.  Then since we can't possibly have that, the rules must be changed to accommodate those shortcomings.  It's not going to happen.  As has been said several times, it's been tried, the experiment failed, end of story.

Why should the average player get the "advantage" the pros get when we don't also get the disadvantages that come along with it?  A bunch of drunks following you around the course yelling "Bababooey!" and "Mashed Potatoes!" every time you hit the ball, herds of people moving and talking all around you while you're trying to swing, camera/cell phones going off in your backswing, etc.   If anything, maybe the pros could complain that it's not equitable that they have to compete under those conditions.  I'm sure they'd much rather have a nice quiet round without a huge gallery and people pestering the crap out of them the whole day.  Either way, it's completely immaterial - we don't compete with pros on the PGA Tour, so it's an "apples to watermelons" comparison.

Quote:

...If it's a problem for an individual, then treat it any way you like as long as you aren't in a competition under the rules.  If you really want to play by the rules there are still outs for you.  As has been suggested, on a busy public course, drop and take the 2 strokes if you failed to play a provisional ball.  If that doesn't work for you, then there is simply not going to be any answer that you like.

I think this solution has been suggested to the OP at least a hundred times in this thread by now, but apparently it's not good enough.  This whole thread is just going in circles now, over and over again.

[Duff McGee]

The reason it seems like it is going in circles is because someone will come on here, try to claim that the rule should change, then someone argues with him, then someone will say something I don't agree with in response to that person, and then I say something and we get off topic. I've already conceded that you guys are right about the rule not needing to be changed. Not is the fairEST rule. It's not inherently fair in my opinion but it's just semantics at that point. Sometimes there is no perfectly fair answer. The rule is the best that we have.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

Lost is lost. That is true. Someone on here has already admitted that he plays with a spotter. He still loses balls. Once in awhile a pro loses his/her ball even with camera crews and a crowd (very rare).

Many of you find it fair that a person can hit a ball down the fairway and have to take 3 off the tee or, more importantly, have to walk all the way back to the tee again to hit another shot. I do not find that fair.

Define "fair"? Because, per the Principles, it's the fairest thing.

Imagine you hit two balls down the fairway (one your original tee shot, one a provisional). They finish two yards apart, both in the fairway. If you can't identify which is which, both are technically lost, and… you're hitting five from the tee. That's fair under the definitions used by the Rules of Golf, but I imagine you'd find that really unfair.

Actually, you missed this one Erik.  Decision 27/11, Situation 4:

27/11

Provisional Ball Not Distinguishable from Original Ball

A player entitled to play a provisional ball from the tee plays it into the same area as his original ball. The balls have identical markings and the player cannot distinguish between them. Following are various situations and the solutions, which are based on equity (Rule 1-4), when the above circumstances exist and one or both of the balls are found within a search of five minutes:

Situation 1:One ball is found in a water hazard and the other ball is not found.

Solution 1:The ball that was found must be presumed to be the provisional ball.

Situation 2:Both balls are found in a water hazard.

Solution 2:As the player's original ball is lost in the water hazard due to his inability to identify it (see analogous Decision 27/10), the player must proceed under Rule 26-1 with respect to the original ball (estimating the spot where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, if necessary - see Decision 26-1/17); his next stroke would be his third.

Situation 3:One ball is found in bounds and the other ball is lost or is found out of bounds.

Solution 3:The ball in bounds must be presumed to be the provisional ball.

Situation 4:Both balls are found in bounds, whether in a playable or an unplayable lie, and (1) one ball is in a water hazard and the other is not or (2) both balls lie through the green or in a bunker.

Solution 4:One could argue that both balls are lost. However, it would be inequitable to require the player to return to the tee, playing 5, when the player has found both balls but does not know which is the original and which the provisional. Accordingly, the player must select one of the balls, treat it as his provisional ball and abandon the other.

[luu5]

I'm just a bit grouchy from a 6 hour round yesterday.

How much of that roughly 2 hour excess was due to rules and how much due to slow people playing slowly?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

Lost is lost. That is true. Someone on here has already admitted that he plays with a spotter. He still loses balls. Once in awhile a pro loses his/her ball even with camera crews and a crowd (very rare).

Many of you find it fair that a person can hit a ball down the fairway and have to take 3 off the tee or, more importantly, have to walk all the way back to the tee again to hit another shot. I do not find that fair.

Define "fair"? Because, per the Principles, it's the fairest thing.

Imagine you hit two balls down the fairway (one your original tee shot, one a provisional). They finish two yards apart, both in the fairway. If you can't identify which is which, both are technically lost, and… you're hitting five from the tee. That's fair under the definitions used by the Rules of Golf, but I imagine you'd find that really unfair.

Actually, you missed this one Erik.  Decision 27/11, Situation 4:

Quote:

27/11

Provisional Ball Not Distinguishable from Original Ball

A player entitled to play a provisional ball from the tee plays it into the same area as his original ball. The balls have identical markings and the player cannot distinguish between them. Following are various situations and the solutions, which are based on equity (Rule 1-4), when the above circumstances exist and one or both of the balls are found within a search of five minutes:

Situation 1:One ball is found in a water hazard and the other ball is not found.

Solution 1:The ball that was found must be presumed to be the provisional ball.

Situation 2:Both balls are found in a water hazard.

Solution 2:As the player's original ball is lost in the water hazard due to his inability to identify it (see analogous Decision 27/10), the player must proceed under Rule 26-1 with respect to the original ball (estimating the spot where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, if necessary - see Decision 26-1/17); his next stroke would be his third.

Situation 3:One ball is found in bounds and the other ball is lost or is found out of bounds.

Solution 3:The ball in bounds must be presumed to be the provisional ball.

Situation 4:Both balls are found in bounds, whether in a playable or an unplayable lie, and (1) one ball is in a water hazard and the other is not or (2) both balls lie through the green or in a bunker.

Solution 4:One could argue that both balls are lost. However, it would be inequitable to require the player to return to the tee, playing 5, when the player has found both balls but does not know which is the original and which the provisional. Accordingly, the player must select one of the balls, treat it as his provisional ball and abandon the other.

If I had Situation 4, I would just laugh out loud! For me, it would also be the best two drives of my day!  Thanks for posting Rick.

[iacas]

Actually, you missed this one Erik.  Decision 27/11, Situation 4:

Yeah. Long day. I think I meant the situation where two players hit balls but neither can identify them. They both have to retee even if the balls are a foot apart in the middle of the fairway. 27/10. But even hitting four in my example (not five from the tee) is punishing the player with no advantage gained because his ball is "lost" per definitions but not really "lost" in the common sense. Still waiting on @Duff McGee to make his case for relevance.

[wadesworld]

How much of that roughly 2 hour excess was due to rules and how much due to slow people playing slowly?

I can answer that: the latter.

The only thing rules related that actually slows up play on the average course is the fact that people like to search hard for lost balls.  Why?  Because they don't want to lose their $4 ball, and they don't want to take a penalty.  So even though they're going to drop where they think it was lost, they're darned sure going to look hard first. Unless you completely remove the penalty for a lost ball, this behavior is not going change.  Heck, even if you did remove the penalty, it's still not going to change much, because people still don't want to lose that $4 ball.

Slow play is not caused by the rules.

[Martyn W]

Yeah. Long day. I think I meant the situation where two players hit balls but neither can identify them. They both have to retee even if the balls are a foot apart in the middle of the fairway. 27/10.

But even hitting four in my example (not five from the tee) is punishing the player with no advantage gained because his ball is "lost" per definitions but not really "lost" in the common sense.

Still waiting on @Duff McGee to make his case for relevance.

The 'punishment' as you call it or 'adjustment' as Mr. Tufts would call it, is really a result of the player's failure to follow the recommendation in 6-5.

One of the most important principles to grasp and the biggest cause of cries of 'no fair!' is the concept that penalties are not assessed based on advantage gained but rather the potential for advantage, which is why we treat like situations alike. The penalty for building a stance (13-3) applies whether it is a towel or a ladder, for example.

[saevel25]

Actually, you missed this one Erik.  Decision 27/11, Situation 4:

Nice find ;)

Yeah. Long day. I think I meant the situation where two players hit balls but neither can identify them. They both have to retee even if the balls are a foot apart in the middle of the fairway. 27/10.

But even hitting four in my example (not five from the tee) is punishing the player with no advantage gained because his ball is "lost" per definitions but not really "lost" in the common sense.

Still waiting on @Duff McGee to make his case for relevance.

That is a kinda crappy situation there. Though I would still put the blame on the golfer for not putting an identifying mark on his ball. In the end if both players are hitting Titleist Pro-v1x #4 golf balls, then I'd think at least one of them should have taken out the sharpie. Yea, I get the point that in reality both golf balls are there. I would say just flip a coin and move on ;)

12-2. Lifting Ball for Identification

The responsibility for playing the proper ball rests with the player. Each player should put an identification mark on his ball.

If a player believes that a ball at rest might be his, but he cannot identify it, the player may lift the ball for identification, without penalty. The right to lift a ball for identification is in addition to the actions permitted under Rule 12-1.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Sorry, ignore this. I see now it was answered.

[iacas]

The 'punishment' as you call it or 'adjustment' as Mr. Tufts would call it, is really a result of the player's failure to follow the recommendation in 6-5.

I'm aware of that.

One of the most important principles to grasp and the biggest cause of cries of 'no fair!' is the concept that penalties are not assessed based on advantage gained but rather the potential for advantage, which is why we treat like situations alike.

I'm aware of that too, and made the case several times about the advantage potentially gained by dropping when you have a lost ball.

[Elmer]

I'm just a bit grouchy from a 6 hour round yesterday.

That is a lot of time looking for lost balls!

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumpter

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

Sure it'd be an improvement but good technology can still break, especially when it's repeatedly struck with a metal stick moving at high speeds.

Absolutely. Is there any other way to 'fix' technology?

Don't you think, though, that maybe the use of technology in this area is a little overkill?  I mean, you are literally suggesting that we use satellites in SPACE to find your golf ball.

A hard argument to make considering that we are using exactly the same satellites to tell us how far it is to the green.

Maybe the whole idea here is during your weekend round with your friends, since the courses are so crowded and we're playing 5-6 hour rounds as it is, is not to take the damned game so seriously. If you're out there shooting 100 or over, who the heck cares if you drop a ball at the approximate location and take a two stroke penalty? No one.

It is when they steal a stroke (not saying YOU do) by only adding one stroke.  We hear it all the time: drop a ball and take a penalty stroke - and every time we her it a stroke is stolen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumpter

Not at all. A player on tour can have 100 people looking for their ball or a thousand witnesses to see where it landed or a TV camera following the ball the whole way eventually pinpointing where it landed and stayed in that pine tree or a blimp able to see the shot from 10,000 feet in the air etc.. The average player is not afforded the same resources.

Apparently we are stupid for pointing this out.

We are also stupid for pointing out how the rule hurts pace of play

And finally, we are very stupid for wanting technology to help this problem.....

It's starting to seem like people just like tradition and want it to stay the same bc that's the way it is. Sounds a bit to me like the instant replay opponents.

No, the only thing at all that was stupid was the thread title.  Well, the notion that somehow rules shouldn't count if the pros have a better deal is probably one of the least effective arguments (i.e., kind of stupid) anyone has made.

You guys have demonstrated that there has not been a proposed rules change that can help with this. So you have succeeded in convincing me that this is the least harmful of a rule for a bad situation as can be CUURENTLY.

But I posit that if technology is proven to be effective AND at least somewhat cost effective to fix this problem AND help with slow play, that we should accept and encourage it.

And there you are - if something is the only currently viable solution, as the lost ball rule is, it can hardly be called stupid

[DrvFrShow]

How much of that roughly 2 hour excess was due to rules and how much due to slow people playing slowly?

You absolutely know that I have no data on that, so why did you even ask that question? That is not the point of being grouchy.