Lost Ball Rule is Stupid

[arturo28mx]

My view: the lost ball rule as it is (stroke and distance penalty) is fair and logical, but it is IMPRACTICAL in real life scenarios!!!

Subjectivity is already existent in golf rules!!! Yes. When your ball goes into a lateral water hazzard you have to determine where the ball crossed the line of the hazzard so you can drop there. Most times this is extremely difficult to do in an exact way and is therefore very subjective. All you know is APPROXIMATELY where your ball crossed the line using your best judgment and good faith.

Should be the same with lost ball. You know approximately where the ball was lost so you use your best judgment and drop there and take a two stroke penalty.

If "good faith subjectivity" is implicitly allowed in the water hazzard rule then it should also be allowed in the lost ball rule.

Hope I made sense.

[Duff McGee]

My view: the lost ball rule as it is (stroke and distance penalty) is fair and logical, but it is IMPRACTICAL in real life scenarios!!! Subjectivity is already existent in golf rules!!! Yes. When your ball goes into a lateral water hazzard you have to determine where the ball crossed the line of the hazzard so you can drop there. Most times this is extremely difficult to do in an exact way and is therefore very subjective. All you know is APPROXIMATELY where your ball crossed the line using your best judgment and good faith. Should be the same with lost ball. You know approximately where the ball was lost so you use your best judgment and drop there and take a two stroke penalty. If "good faith subjectivity" is implicitly allowed in the water hazzard rule then it should also be allowed in the lost ball rule. Hope I made sense.

I made this point earlier and it was rejected. They said "but you KNOW it is in the hazard whereas a ball that is lost is lost and therefore dropping where it entered might be an advantage."

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arturo28mx

My view: the lost ball rule as it is (stroke and distance penalty) is fair and logical, but it is IMPRACTICAL in real life scenarios!!!

Subjectivity is already existent in golf rules!!! Yes. When your ball goes into a lateral water hazzard you have to determine where the ball crossed the line of the hazzard so you can drop there. Most times this is extremely difficult to do in an exact way and is therefore very subjective. All you know is APPROXIMATELY where your ball crossed the line using your best judgment and good faith.

Should be the same with lost ball. You know approximately where the ball was lost so you use your best judgment and drop there and take a two stroke penalty.

If "good faith subjectivity" is implicitly allowed in the water hazzard rule then it should also be allowed in the lost ball rule.

Hope I made sense.

I made this point earlier and it was rejected. They said "but you KNOW it is in the hazard whereas a ball that is lost is lost and therefore dropping where it entered might be an advantage."

Because it didn't "enter" anything.  There is no way to even estimate a reference point because there is no margin line to refer to.  In some circumstances there is no way to tell if the ball is actually anywhere near the area where you think it is.  Tree branches and weird bounces send unseen balls in unexpected directions.  Unknown is unknown - there's no other way to treat this situation.

[Duff McGee]

Because it didn't "enter" anything.  There is no way to even estimate a reference point because there is no margin line to refer to.  In some circumstances there is no way to tell if the ball is actually anywhere near the area where you think it is.  Tree branches and weird bounces send unseen balls in unexpected directions.  Unknown is unknown - there's no other way to treat this situation.

I agree and that is what you guys convinced me of. I was just explaining why that argument was rejected. Although I would disagree about not knowing the entry point. You can see where your ball heads off of the fairway. The problem would be the fact that the ball might have bounced OB or even backwards and then the person would be getting the distance benefit without actually knowing if he should be punished.

[arturo28mx]

I would say the TWO stroke penalty would take care of any uncertainty of where exactly the ball was lost.

But never mind, I can accept the rule as it is.

[RGoosen]

My view: the lost ball rule as it is (stroke and distance penalty) is fair and logical, but it is IMPRACTICAL in real life scenarios!!! Subjectivity is already existent in golf rules!!! Yes. When your ball goes into a lateral water hazzard you have to determine where the ball crossed the line of the hazzard so you can drop there. Most times this is extremely difficult to do in an exact way and is therefore very subjective. All you know is APPROXIMATELY where your ball crossed the line using your best judgment and good faith. Should be the same with lost ball. You know approximately where the ball was lost so you use your best judgment and drop there and take a two stroke penalty. If "good faith subjectivity" is implicitly allowed in the water hazzard rule then it should also be allowed in the lost ball rule. Hope I made sense.

Somehow common sense gets thrown out sometimes. For me it would be selfish to go back to the tee for stroke and distance retee on a crowded course unless I was in a tournament or stroke play event. I just glanced at a couple of people arguing on this thread. Once again this enforces my opinion that rules threads can be lumped into political and religious threads as places to avoid. One group gets labeled cheaters another group labeled rules Nazi's. Bottom line...I don't care how anyone arrives at their score unless we are in a tournament.

[No Mulligans]

I too agree with the two stroke penalty as a practical work-around to the stroke and distance rule.  Especially when the ball is in the fairway and probably lost under a leaf or in some hole etc.  (I'm not a big fan of tee shots where you can't see the landing zone.)

[iacas]

But that is why the pros vs. amateur situation (or someone that can afford a forecaddy) is relevant. There is not an equal chance of finding a ball that does end up in a weird place away from where you thought it would be.

That doesn't mean the rule should be changed, but it is still relevant.

It's not relevant. You've repeatedly refused to tell us WHY it's relevant.

Are you playing in a tournament with PGA Tour pros and 10,000-person galleries while you have none? You play under the same conditions as the others in the events in which you play.

So how is a completely different tournament under completely different conditions relevant?

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

But that is why the pros vs. amateur situation (or someone that can afford a forecaddy) is relevant. There is not an equal chance of finding a ball that does end up in a weird place away from where you thought it would be.

That doesn't mean the rule should be changed, but it is still relevant.

It's not relevant. You've repeatedly refused to tell us WHY it's relevant.

Are you playing in a tournament with PGA Tour pros and 10,000-person galleries while you have none? You play under the same conditions as the others in the events in which you play.

So how is a completely different tournament under completely different conditions relevant?

I guess it's relevant in about the same way that it's not fair to a high school quarterback that he doesn't have five full-grown, 330 pound professional linemen to block/protect for him like Aaron Rodgers does.  Or that high school football leagues don't have the luxury of instant replay challenges like the NFL does.

That is to say, it's totally irrelevant.

High school football players don't play against NFL teams, and amateur golfers don't play against PGA Tour Pros.

[RGoosen]

I don't know why the majority of posters are crucifying @Duff McGee . I actually agree with most of his responses. Rules that can completely ruin pace of play should be addressed. Many of us would quit golf if our rounds had no chance of finishing in 4 hours. I do not play in tournaments other than the occasional scramble for several reasons: stress, bogus handicaps, pace of place, etc. I have been playing golf for 11 years, play 50-60 rounds a year, and friends that have handicaps ranging from 3 - 20. I can only think of one time where I have ever played with someone who went back to the tee for a stroke and distance penalty in a non-tournament round. It happened one time on an empty course...thank goodness. It may be the "cool thing" to do to say preserve the rule, but I could not play with someone that did that on a regular basis on a crowded course. The courses I am member of would not tolerate that either unless you are in tournament play.

[iacas]

I don't know why the majority of posters are crucifying @Duff McGee. I actually agree with most of his responses. Rules that can completely ruin pace of play should be addressed. Many of us would quit golf if our rounds had no chance of finishing in 4 hours.

a) No, they shouldn't.

b) Hit a provisional.

c) In casual play, drop a ball, add two strokes, and move on.

FWIW, I said "no, they shouldn't" because doing so would violate the very principles upon which the Rules of Golf are built.

Our rounds take how long they take NOW with the rule being what it is.

I can only think of one time where I have ever played with someone who went back to the tee for a stroke and distance penalty in a non-tournament round.

So then what's the problem?

[Duff McGee]

a) No, they shouldn't. b) Hit a provisional. c) In casual play, drop a ball, add two strokes, and move on. FWIW, I said "no, they shouldn't" because doing so would violate the very principles upon which the Rules of Golf are built. Our rounds take how long they take NOW with the rule being what it is. So then what's the problem?

You are accusing us of ignoring obvious problems with what we are saying, and I concede points, yet you turn around and say "so what's the problem" when you know one of our main concerns is that we DO follow the rules and the rules do not allow for us to take a two stroke penalty and drop for a lost ball. Plus you can't always know whether a provisional or a second provisional is necessary with how long the ball travels these days. Like I said, if seeing the ball was the requirement to not hit a provisional I would be hitting multiple provisionals every hole. So the reason I started this thread was to address the completely impractical requirement of walking all the way back to the tee box in non tournament situations. Dropping and taking two strokes off is not an option under the rules and I play by the rules. This the impasse. Sternly saying "don't lose your ball" or "hit a provisional" does nothing to solve the problem I addressed in my OP. Yet it's the best we have. And thank you for your kind words @RGoosen It's nice to know that you view things objectively and actually read what I say instead of just trying to read into what my "true intentions" are.

[RGoosen]

a) No, they shouldn't. b) Hit a provisional. c) In casual play, drop a ball, add two strokes, and move on. FWIW, I said "no, they shouldn't" because doing so would violate the very principles upon which the Rules of Golf are built. Our rounds take how long they take NOW with the rule being what it is. So then what's the problem?

I am confused. It sounds like you are agreeing with me? As far as hitting a provisional goes @Duff McGee seem to be pointing out that there are times that it seems pretty obvious your ball is in play but when you go to play your ball you can't find it. What would you advocate in non-tournament play?

[iacas]

You are accusing us of ignoring obvious problems with what we are saying, and I concede points, yet you turn around and say "so what's the problem" when you know one of our main concerns is that we DO follow the rules and the rules do not allow for us to take a two stroke penalty and drop for a lost ball.

Huh? I've repeatedly asked you what the "relevance" of PGA Tour players having galleries has to do with anything. You've still not answered. I have not accused you of anything.

Plus you can't always know whether a provisional or a second provisional is necessary with how long the ball travels these days. Like I said, if seeing the ball was the requirement to not hit a provisional I would be hitting multiple provisionals every hole.

So? I don't understand why that's a sticking point with you. Drop the ball, don't drop the ball - nobody really cares. In a tournament, follow the Rules. The rest of the time, do whatever you want.

So the reason I started this thread was to address the completely impractical requirement of walking all the way back to the tee box in non tournament situations.

It's impractical in your opinion . It's also 100% in line with what you have to expect because it honors and obeys the underlying Principles of the Rules of Golf.

You seek a solution to a non-existent problem. You want a solution that doesn't involve going back to the tee or whatever, but when they're given you talk about how it's unfair that PGA Tour players almost never lose a golf ball.

So in sentence what is the point of this thread? Because I don't even know that you know at this point. It's not what you say above: to address the "impractical requirement." That's already addressed thousands of times per day by thousands of golfers: they drop a ball and either add or don't add strokes. In tournaments, they walk back because that is the only option that honors and obeys the Principles.

And you've still not answered how the PGA Tour players are relevant.

Dropping and taking two strokes off is not an option under the rules and I play by the rules. This the impasse.

If you don't go back to the tee, you do not play by the Rules. Mark the hole as an unfinished hole and take par+handicap or your more likely score ( depending on where you fall on that discussion ).

You seem to be asking for a thing which is 100% impossible: you seem to be asking for a Rule that lets you not walk back to the tee but which lets you "play by the rules." Yet the Rules of Golf have certain Principles, and this would violate them. So you can't have such a rule.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/82295/par-handicap-for-holes-not-played-under-the-principles-of-the-rog

Sternly saying "don't lose your ball" or "hit a provisional" does nothing to solve the problem I addressed in my OP.

Let's stop with the word games. You've put words in people's mouths with the whole "apparently we are stupid" stuff, and you're doing it now with "sternly." I haven't even posted a ton in this thread. I'm stating my case, my opinion. Let's stop with the ascribing of tone to text that you can't hear, please.

Your problem is unsolvable. It's not possible to have a rule that violates the Principles. The principles demand you replay your shot. It's that simple.

Yet it's the best we have.

And thank you for your kind words@RGoosen

It's nice to know that you view things objectively and actually read what I say instead of just trying to read into what my "true intentions" are.

There you with the word games again. Just stop. The other person who agrees with you is not the only other person viewing things "objectively" or not assuming things or "reading into" things. I've directly asked you, for example, what the relevance of PGA Tour players is, and you've objectively refused to answer to this point. True statement?

As far as hitting a provisional goes @Duff McGee seem to be pointing out that there are times that it seems pretty obvious your ball is in play but when you go to play your ball you can't find it. What would you advocate in non-tournament play?

Asked and answered, repeatedly. And above, too: par+handicap or your most likely score, depending on where you sit in that discussion.

---

Now's as good a time as any to point out the " Do not take it personally if I disagree with you! If you like golf, it's all good." part of my signature. I like a good debate, but I don't care for the dramatics where one subtly accuses another of being "stern" or non-objective, or whatever. And at the end of the day, what is in my sig is true.

[Duff McGee]

I don't take disagreements seriously either. This is what I do for a living and I'm pretty dang accomplished in what I do so I have nothing to prove. Thanks for the discussion. Edit: by the way to anyone reading. Just because I complimented RGoosen on his objectivity doesn't mean I am calling anyone else not objective. It just shocked me that in a discussion like this where a group is against someone's views that he was able to resist just joining in with the status quo. I respect and value objectivity more than almost anything in life so I compliment it when I see it.

[RGoosen]

@Duff McGee and @iacas I feel like the discussion here is running around circles. It seems you guys actually agree more than you think you do. What I get irritated at is the appearance that someone is getting attacked or piled on by some people on this thread, and then it is defended by the typical line "don't take it personal." Maybe he wasn't getting piled on but sure as hell looked that way. It's just my observation. If you guys want to attack me then so be it, but I felt like @Duff McGee was getting piled on and I wasn't afraid to point it out. Is that wrong???

[Duff McGee]

@Duff McGee and @iacas I feel like the discussion here is running around circles. It seems you guys actually agree more than you think you do. What I get irritated at is the appearance that someone is getting attacked or piled on by some people on this thread, and then it is defended by the typical line "don't take it personal." Maybe he wasn't getting piled on but sure as hell looked that way. It's just my observation. If you guys want to attack me then so be it, but I felt like @Duff McGee was getting piled on and I wasn't afraid to point it out. Is that wrong???

Thanks. I am the same way when I think someone is being ganged up on, even if that's not actually the case. You're a good guy. :)

[iacas]

What I get irritated at is the appearance that someone is getting attacked or piled on by some people on this thread, and then it is defended by the typical line "don't take it personal." Maybe he wasn't getting piled on but sure as hell looked that way.

Nobody was piled on or attacked.

It's just my observation. If you guys want to attack me then so be it, but I felt like @Duff McGee was getting piled on and I wasn't afraid to point it out. Is that wrong???

Stuff like that is unnecessary.