Lost Ball Rule is Stupid

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

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?

So we've finally drilled down to the crux of the issue?

[dkolo]

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?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that no one in this thread has ever had a forecaddie. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Anyway, if they can afford it, awesome for them. They maybe won't lose one ball a round. But wealthy people can also afford more lessons. And new drivers that go 19 yards farther. And can play more often. To all of which my answer is "so what?" When they develop the ball finding technology that's reliable and approved, the average golfer probably won't be able to afford it at first anyway. In the end, you have to hit the ball to where you can find it. That's the entire game.

[Duff McGee]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that no one in this thread has ever had a forecaddie. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Anyway, if they can afford it, awesome for them. They maybe won't lose one ball a round. But wealthy people can also afford more lessons. And new drivers that go 19 yards farther. And can play more often. To all of which my answer is "so what?" When they develop the ball finding technology that's reliable and approved, the average golfer probably won't be able to afford it at first anyway. In the end, you have to hit the ball to where you can find it. That's the entire game.

But the technology shouldn't be outlawed is my point. You guys are reading way too much into my comments.

[iacas]

Why are you so focused on this disparity between pros and you? What if there are 10 people watching? 20? 40? Where's the line? Lost is lost. Found is found. [quote name="Duff McGee" url="/t/83618/lost-ball-rule-is-stupid/180#post_1187581"]But the technology shouldn't be outlawed is my point. You guys are reading way too much into my comments.[/quote] Your OP said nothing about technology.

[dkolo]

But the technology shouldn't be outlawed is my point. You guys are reading way too much into my comments.

I have no problem with the technology that would make it possible to find your ball, subject to how the rule is changed in response to the technology.

That said, I have to add that it does give me some modicum of pause: if I'm worried about a lost ball, I will make different decisions off the tee. If I know I'll find my ball, I may be less risk-averse because there's a lower penalty for a bad decision. I haven't thought through how that would affect the nature of the game.

[DrvFrShow]

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.

Of course if you don't want to find your ball, you can always abandon the ball and take S&D.; You know that, don't you?

[Duff McGee]

Why are you so focused on this disparity between pros and you? What if there are 10 people watching? 20? 40? Where's the line? Lost is lost. Found is found.

That there is such disparity between which balls are lost and which are found based on unnatural variables should be evidence that the rule is fundamentally unfair. That said, I agree that it is a question of degree. Not all rules can be 100% fair. I like to err on the side of a more universal fairness that could possibly be abused than by a rule that is less abused but less fair to the average golfer.

[saevel25]

That there is such disparity between which balls are lost and which are found based on unnatural variables should be evidence that the rule is fundamentally unfair. That said, I agree that it is a question of degree. Not all rules can be 100% fair. I like to err on the side of a more universal fairness that could possibly be abused than by a rule that is less abused but less fair to the average golfer.

What unnatural variables? You hit ball, you find ball, if you don't you go back and re hit. What's not fair about it? All other aspects are part of the game. Golf is an outdoor sport. All of nature is part of the game. There's nothing unnatural about it.

[Duff McGee]

Alright I will bow out of this discussion. I think I am in the major minority here and don't want people to mistake me for an arguer type.

[wadesworld]

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.

Excellent.  And since the technology will level the playing field with the PGA Tour, all players will now be required to play on greens rolling a 13, with PGA Tour-level pin positions, and rough so thick you'll be lucky to get it back on the fairway going sideways.

Sounds good to me.

[wadesworld]

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'm really looking forward to watching the group of 70 year-olds in front of me screwing around trying to get their RFID-locating technology to work.  Yeah, that will really speed up play.

[iacas]

That there is such disparity between which balls are lost and which are found based on unnatural variables should be evidence that the rule is fundamentally unfair.

I don't see any unnatural variables nor have I seen you list any. You've sloughed off the disadvantages of crowds, and you have ignored the idea that you're responsible for your ball. Others are under no obligation to help you find it. Someone else finding your ball is good luck if YOU lost it.

[dkolo]

I'm really looking forward to watching the group of 70 year-olds in front of me screwing around trying to get their RFID-locating technology to work.  Yeah, that will really speed up play.

Ok, I don't know if that's fair to @Duff McGee . Much like range finders and game golf, I'm sure such ball tech will be optional.

[Duff McGee]

I've heard there are examples where pros actually lose a ball that is in play. I've never seen it. So it rarely happens. Judging by the amount of golf balls I find in the rough, I'm pretty sure people are losing a bunch of balls where the creators of the course wouldn't assume people would be losing their balls very often. I don't care that I'm not a pro. We play the same game. I would rather have a bunch of people watching me play my rounds and talking and taking pictures but can find my ball. But again, maybe that's just me.

[iacas]

Judging by the amount of golf balls I find in the rough, I'm pretty sure people are losing a bunch of balls where the creators of the course wouldn't assume people would be losing their balls very often. I don't care that I'm not a pro. We play the same game. I would rather have a bunch of people watching me play my rounds and talking and taking pictures but can find my ball.

Watch where your ball goes. You're responsible for it.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Of course if you don't want to find your ball, you can always abandon the ball and take S&D.; You know that, don't you?

My point was that in the case of RFID balls, the RB's would likely require that you either find your ball or replay the shot, before leaving the previous spot, because it is certain that you will find the ball electronically.  In the interest of pace of play, when you go forward you forfeit the chance to take stroke and distance.  This is just a "what if" on my part, but it's a very possible result because the only good reason under the rules for the RFID is to save time.  You are not saving any time if you still have the option of returning to the previous spot.  Therefore that is no longer an option, and no matter how bad the situation, you have to either drop back on a line from the hole (27-1b), or two clublengths from the spot where the ball lies (27-1c).  This would be in keeping with the only logical reason I can think of for such a rule.

[wadesworld]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that no one in this thread has ever had a forecaddie. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Anyway, if they can afford it, awesome for them. They maybe won't lose one ball a round. But wealthy people can also afford more lessons. And new drivers that go 19 yards farther. And can play more often. To all of which my answer is "so what?" When they develop the ball finding technology that's reliable and approved, the average golfer probably won't be able to afford it at first anyway. In the end, you have to hit the ball to where you can find it. That's the entire game.

You'd be wrong.  I've had them twice.  Once when playing at a club that required any guests to have them, and another time when playing with some wealthy businessmen who use them every round.  They use them not just because they help spot balls, but because they also clean the ball, clean the clubs, rake the traps and read the putts.

But the assumption (not made by you) that a forecaddie prevents all lost balls is incorrect.  It certainly is possible to still lose one with a forecaddie, just as it's possible to lose one on the PGA Tour.  And of course the idea that "professionals always have huge galleries finding their ball" completely ignores the fact that LPGA events, Web.com tour events, Symetra Tour events, and the dozens of mini-tour events often have sparse spectators.  Heck, even the PGA Tour had an extremely sparsely attended event at the Barbasol Championship, which was played in 100-degree heat in Alabama.

So the argument that professional golfers have a huge advantage and never lose balls is simply invalid.

[pumaAttack]

Basically this thread comes down to everybody should have perfect vision to play golf. You have to be able to see a tiny white ball 300 yards down a fairway or rough. If you can't do that you are basically throwing away 2 shots.