USGA/R&A Re-Evaluating All Rules, Top to Bottom

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I will fix pitch marks any time that I see them, whether walking onto the green, while waiting for others to putt, or when exiting the green.

Ditto. I fix two or three on most holes on days when it's possible to make them.

If spike marks were allowed to be fixed, people would turn into gardeners and groomers and play absolutely would slow down. Not sure how you believe otherwise @boogielicious. Even repairing the spike marks in a four-footer will take an extra 10-15 seconds… per player, per green…

[gblackwell]

OB is stroke, but not distance penalty. Have never understood this one. Lost ball makes sense, because you literally do not know where it is. On OB, the exact point it left the course can be determined. Proceed from that point as with lateral water hazards. They'll never change this one, but they should.

[Groucho Valentine]

I always thought the stroke and distance on OB was unnecessary. I would like to see the rule changed to allow the player to have the option to play the ball at the point of crossing or replay from previous spot. Similar to a lateral hazard.  It would be a good bit of streamlining. 

[Fourputt]

37 minutes ago, gblackwell said:

OB is stroke, but not distance penalty. Have never understood this one. Lost ball makes sense, because you literally do not know where it is. On OB, the exact point it left the course can be determined. Proceed from that point as with lateral water hazards. They'll never change this one, but they should.

As has been mentioned, they have experimented with this in the past, and rejected it as not carrying the assurance that the player might not be able to benefit from deliberately playing OB, or at least deriving more benefit from taking a risk that he wouldn't consider when the penalty is stroke and distance.

Take this example:  A par 4 hole with a sharp dogleg, and OB along the inside of the dogleg.  A player who plays the hole (as designed) to the corner but in the fairway has a 200 yard shot left to the green, while the player who takes the risk of OB has the chance of only a 120 yard approach, IF he clears the OB.  Even if he goes OB, the shot after the drop you propose wouldn't be more than 150 yards, so he is most often on the green in 3, while the player with the 200 yard approach is also on the green in 3 most of the time.  In such a  case the penalty does not fit the crime when the player can play OB and still have good chance of scoring no worse than the player  who played the hole as it was designed.  The rules reflect the philosophy that the penalty for hitting your ball off the golf course should be greater than that for keeping it on the course.

The 18th hole on my home course is exactly such a dogleg, only without the OB.  There are other features that serve to dissuade the player from trying to cut too much off the corner.

 

[disco111]

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

As has been mentioned, they have experimented with this in the past, and rejected it as not carrying the assurance that the player might not be able to benefit from deliberately playing OB, or at least deriving more benefit from taking a risk that he wouldn't consider when the penalty is stroke and distance.

Take this example:  A par 4 hole with a sharp dogleg, and OB along the inside of the dogleg.  A player who plays the hole (as designed) to the corner but in the fairway has a 200 yard shot left to the green, while the player who takes the risk of OB has the chance of only a 120 yard approach, IF he clears the OB.  Even if he goes OB, the shot after the drop you propose wouldn't be more than 150 yards, so he is most often on the green in 3, while the player with the 200 yard approach is also on the green in 3 most of the time.  In such a  case the penalty does not fit the crime when the player can play OB and still have good chance of scoring no worse than the player  who played the hole as it was designed.  The rules reflect the philosophy that the penalty for hitting your ball off the golf course should be greater than that for keeping it on the course.

The 18th hole on my home course is exactly such a dogleg, only without the OB.  There are other features that serve to dissuade the player from trying to cut too much off the corner.

OK, lets look at another example that would simplify. Par 5 dog leg right. Pond on the right and OB chain link fence on the left. Player 1 goes into the pond while player 2 is OB. Player 1 now drops from the pond and is hitting 3 with the possibility of getting to the green in 4 and hopefully 1 putting for a par. Mean while, player 2 hits 3 from back on the tee box and subjects himself not only stroke and distance, but the off chance that the pond or OB raises it's ugly head again. In this case, it's not only double but possibly triple the penalty. So while player 1 comes away with a possible par or a bogey, player 2 at best could have a double if he stays in play but could fair far worse upwards of a 10. In this instance the penalty far outweighs the crime.

If memory serves, didn't they change a ruling that there can be no internal OB's on a golf course. I know on a local course that had such a hole and when they had the state am qualifier there some years ago, that hole and the OB stakes were gone and are still gone.   

[Fourputt]

32 minutes ago, disco111 said:

OK, lets look at another example that would simplify. Par 5 dog leg right. Pond on the right and OB chain link fence on the left. Player 1 goes into the pond while player 2 is OB. Player 1 now drops from the pond and is hitting 3 with the possibility of getting to the green in 4 and hopefully 1 putting for a par. Mean while, player 2 hits 3 from back on the tee box and subjects himself not only stroke and distance, but the off chance that the pond or OB raises it's ugly head again. In this case, it's not only double but possibly triple the penalty. So while player 1 comes away with a possible par or a bogey, player 2 at best could have a double if he stays in play but could fair far worse upwards of a 10. In this instance the penalty far outweighs the crime.

If memory serves, didn't they change a ruling that there can be no internal OB's on a golf course. I know on a local course that had such a hole and when they had the state am qualifier there some years ago, that hole and the OB stakes were gone and are still gone.   

(I had to copy and paste to quote you.  You accidentally put your comment inside of the box you quoted from me)

Player One never left the golf course.  He is allowed to play a stroke from the water hazard if he has a fortunate lie.  Player Two hit his ball completely off the course, to a location from which the rules don't allow him to play even if he is able to recover the ball.  As I see it, and the rules agree, the player who kept his ball on the course deserves more consideration than the one who did not do so.

No such rule abut internal OB exists.  It is discouraged, but not disallowed.  Courses are encouraged to find other ways to to manage hole routing so that internal out of bounds is unnecessary.  On the 18th hole of my home course mentioned above, they planted a row of trees between the 9th and 18th fairways.  They did have the 9th as OB from the 18th tee until the trees matured, then the OB stakes were removed.  I can assure you that the trees provide plenty of incentive to keep the ball well right of them.  Playing to the 9th fairway, while in theory shortens the 18th hole by a considerable amount, leaves the player with a blind shot over a thick grove of trees and a pond, with 2 more spruce trees on the far side of the pond.  I have never seen anyone deliberately try to play that route.  There are ways to defend a hole without taking the easy way out by just putting up a few white stakes.

[disco111]

Sorry about the run on within your post. 

What is under discussion is what folks apparently want to see in the rules changes. As for the OB stroke and distance, even the pro's lobbied for that change some years ago, so we're not alone in that aspect. There is no real difference between going into the pond (balls under water and can't be played) and ball going OB. Both balls cannot be played, but one is offered a better resolution than the other. Granted, it's the rule and one of the original 13 from the 1700's, but again, folks would like to have that rule amended and most likely for the good of the game. 

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

Sorry about the run on within your post. 

What is under discussion is what folks apparently want to see in the rules changes. As for the OB stroke and distance, even the pro's lobbied for that change some years ago, so we're not alone in that aspect. There is no real difference between going into the pond (balls under water and can't be played) and ball going OB. Both balls cannot be played, but one is offered a better resolution than the other. Granted, it's the rule and one of the original 13 from the 1700's, but again, folks would like to have that rule amended and most likely for the good of the game. 

The rule was changed to what you want in the 1960s (if I remember correctly). It was tweeked and then changed back a few years later. It wasn't a success. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rulesman

[Rulesman]

There are four similar situations in golf in which the ball is
removed from play. They are: 1) when the ball is lost, 2) when it goes
out of bounds, 3) when it is lost or not playable in a water hazard and 4)
elsewhere on the course when it is declared unplayable by the player. It
is possible that all four and probable that at least three of these situations
can often occur in close proximity with one another. Therefore, under the
principle that like situations shall be treated alike, it would seem wholly
logical to apply the same rule to all four situations. In fact, from the
standpoint of equity it is almost impossible to defend any other treatment
of these four analogous situations.
All four situations provide for a ball to be put into play from where
the original ball was last played, adding a penalty of one stroke to the
score [Rules 26-1a, 27-1 and 28a]. However, the requirement to use the
stroke and distance procedure in all these situations is subject to two
exceptions. The first exception is in the case of a ball in a water hazard or
lateral water hazard. Under penalty of one stroke, a player may elect to
drop back of the hazard, keeping the point where the ball last crossed the
margin of the hazard between himself and the hole [Rule 26-1b].6 The
second exception is in the case of a ball declared unplayable by the
player. There, similar to the water hazard, under penalty of one stroke,
the player may drop back of the place from which the ball was lifted
[Rule 28c] or within two club-lengths of that place, but not nearer the
hole [Rule 28b].

These two exceptions, from the standpoint of equity, are
controversial. The player being allowed to take relief in this way saves
the full length of his stroke to the hazard or the spot where he judges his
ball unplayable as compared to the player whose ball is lost or out of
bounds who must under stroke and distance return to where he last
played. Thus the penalty for taking relief under the Rules from a water
hazard or an unplayable lie outside a water hazard is often less severe
than the stroke and distance penalty required when a ball is lost or out of
bounds.
These exceptions are justified because they occur on the course
[Definitions: Course] and quite often very much more in the normal line
of play than a ball out of bounds or in conditions that lead to its being
lost. Additionally each of these two exceptions have the great merit of
requiring that relief be measured from the point to which the ball has been
played or where it entered the hazard. Thus the player does not escape
from the results of a wildly or badly played stroke. As already discussed
in Chapter 10, these exceptions are also justified on the basis that by
dropping from the point of an unplayable lie or the point of entry in a
water hazard the player is by the expenditure of one penalty stroke
making the equivalent of a recovery stroke.
Because these situations can occur in close proximity to each other
and the penalties can differ, other qualifications and protections also must
be present in the Rules. Since it is often difficult to determine whether a
ball is lost in or out of a water hazard the Rules protect the use of the
potentially less severe water hazard penalty by providing that there must
first be reasonable evidence that the ball is lodged in the water hazard in
order to treat it as such. The play of a provisional ball is permitted only
in connection with a ball that might be lost or out ofbounds [Rule 27-2]. Because the play of a provisional ball permits the
player to play more than one ball, it in turn creates the risk that he will be
able to select the better of two situations. Except under conditions that
will not permit the player to have any choice about whether the second
ball is played or abandoned the play of a second ball can make golf a
game of negotiation. Since a ball can sometimes be played from within a
water hazard and the player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is
unplayable a provisional ball may not be played in connection with either
of those circumstances. Obviously, it is risky and complicated to tamper
with the principle that like situations shall be treated alike.
Appealing to that principle there has long been an interest among
golfers for similarly less severe penalties for balls lost or out of bounds.
Unhappily it is simply not possible to devise any rule which accomplishes
the desired results without doing real injury to the game. The difficulties
are two-fold; either the balance between the four situations in which a
ball is placed out of play is completely destroyed or else the means are
provided for a cheap escape from the results of a badly played stroke.
The principle that the penalty must not be less than the advantage which
the player could derive from the particular rule violation must be
preserved.
Applying the relief procedure discussed above to a lost ball is
impossible since no precise point can be fixed from which relief may be
taken other than the spot from which the previous stroke was played.
And since when a ball lies out of bounds it is in a place from which play
is prohibited it would no be proper to allow a player to add a penalty
stroke to his score as the equivalent of a recovery shot back onto the
course from a place where the Rules do not allow play.

R S Tufts

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

There is no real difference between going into the pond (balls under water and can't be played) and ball going OB.

What?

One is a ball hit into a hazard designed and placed there by the course architect. You could play the ball if you chose (shallow water, etc) and were able.

The other is a ball hit literally OFF THE GOLF COURSE, to a location where you would not be allowed to play it.

[Martyn W]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

The rule was changed to what you want in the 1960s (if I remember correctly). It was tweeked and then changed back a few years later. It wasn't a success. 

The Noble experiment, 1960

[Rulesman]

8 hours ago, Martyn W said:

The Noble experiment, 1960

As quoted above 

[disco111]

!960 - Interesting, did not know that, but have to wonder why it wasn't successful. At any rate, this is a rules change that people would like to see, so up and until that happens it's a moot point.

As far as the balls in the DEEP water and OB being the same, it's because neither can be played, which was the point of the comparison. Both were / are bad shots and just because one shot exceeds the boundaries of the course, why should the penalty be so much more sever for one over the other? This is the crux of the argument for the rules change. Just because it's a given rule, does not make it fair. When we look at the original one page 13 rules, they were seemingly covering the bases, but now we have a book. Rules can and have changed for the betterment of the game, remember when players were allowed to stymie the opponent. Again, it's a position that folks would like to see changed.    

[newtogolf]

I'd like to see a rule for ball searching that limits the search to 2 minutes for non tournament rounds.  

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, disco111 said:

!960 - Interesting, did not know that, but have to wonder why it wasn't successful. At any rate, this is a rules change that people would like to see, so up and until that happens it's a moot point.

As far as the balls in the DEEP water and OB being the same, it's because neither can be played, which was the point of the comparison. Both were / are bad shots and just because one shot exceeds the boundaries of the course, why should the penalty be so much more sever for one over the other? This is the crux of the argument for the rules change. Just because it's a given rule, does not make it fair. When we look at the original one page 13 rules, they were seemingly covering the bases, but now we have a book. Rules can and have changed for the betterment of the game, remember when players were allowed to stymie the opponent. Again, it's a position that folks would like to see changed.    

It has nothing to do with the depth of the water.  It only matters whether the ball is in a location where it could be playable if found.  A ball that lies out of bounds cannot be played, even if it's sitting in a perfect lie, because it is no longer on the playing field.  A ball in a water hazard still lies on the golf course, and it has the potential to be playable under the right circumstances, and thus it is treated with more leniency.

I can virtually guarantee that you will not win this fight.  It has been discussed up and down the chain of authority since the Noble Experiment was rescinded, and every time it is left as it is, because stroke and distance fits better with the severity of the crime.  If you can't keep your ball on the playing field, then logic says that you should have to play again from the last point where your ball was on the playing field.

[Rulesman]

2 hours ago, disco111 said:

 Again, it's a position that folks would like to see changed.    

Again, it was changed. It wasn't liked. So it was changed back.

Unlikely to happen again.

[disco111]

And again!...................Who didn't like it and why?................Between 1960 and now, the Pro's in the 80's, via Ray Floyd, when he was on the players board, lobbied for that change. In all honesty, I've been playing the game since the late 50's and never heard of the OB rule being lifted. Granted, I wasn't playing USGA events, but the adults that were teaching me the game, never referenced it. Not saying it didn't happen, but if it was changed once, it could be changed again.   

 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by disco111

[Jeremie Boop]

On 6/13/2016 at 2:10 PM, Fourputt said:

No such rule abut internal OB exists.  It is discouraged, but not disallowed.  Courses are encouraged to find other ways to to manage hole routing so that internal out of bounds is unnecessary.  On the 18th hole of my home course mentioned above, they planted a row of trees between the 9th and 18th fairways.  They did have the 9th as OB from the 18th tee until the trees matured, then the OB stakes were removed.  I can assure you that the trees provide plenty of incentive to keep the ball well right of them.  Playing to the 9th fairway, while in theory shortens the 18th hole by a considerable amount, leaves the player with a blind shot over a thick grove of trees and a pond, with 2 more spruce trees on the far side of the pond.  I have never seen anyone deliberately try to play that route.  There are ways to defend a hole without taking the easy way out by just putting up a few white stakes.

My league course is similar by reversed. On the 9th it's OB to go left of the cartpath onto the 18th hole. I used to think this was done for safety of golfers but I realized recently that it's only their way of stopping people from avoiding the large tree at the end of the fairway that guards the front of the green. The tree forces people to lay up unless they are able to drive the ball all the way to the end of the fairway or through the tree line and play from the 10th hole. This rule didn't used to be in effect, I can't remember exactly when they added it but it's been in probably the last 5 years. It's pretty stupid really, but I follow the rule.