Mini-tour simplifies rules for OOB and hazards, good idea?

[Golfingdad]

39 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Looks a lot like some nonsense that Peter Kostis would cook up. 

Well, perhaps if we take a look at his proposal more closely here on the Minolta Konica Nikon Cannon Swingvision Rules Forum Bizhub Super Slo-Mo Kodak Performance Fuji Enhanced Microscopic Camera Magnifying Glass presented by Mitsubishi and Mercedes then you'd see it differently.

[bkuehn1952]

Many leagues and casual golfers treat out-of-bounds AND lost balls somewhat like lateral waters hazards.  That is a major deviation from the Rules of Golf.  While it may make the game a bit faster in some cases and more "fun" for some, it is such a fundamental change that I can't support the idea.  Even just treating OB as "lateral" is too much for me but at least there is some ability to estimate the spot where a ball went OB if there are stakes and/or lines (or a road, fence, etc...).

Also, if those seniors are professionals, they really ought to be able to keep their ball in play.  If the courses really are that tight then find different courses.

[Braivo]

How much would the game of golf change if the rules were simplified like this tour has done? What if these were the rules in the first place, we wouldn't think any differently, would we? 

Sports change their rules all the time. I am genuinely curious with these questions btw, not being contrarian. 

What if every incidence of a ball being lost, in a hazard, OB, unplayable, etc. was simply treated as a one-stroke penalty with a drop at the nearest point of relief no closer to the pin? Don't know where it crossed? Make the best estimate with help of playing partners. Do I always know where my ball crossed into the swampy hazard at my home course? Nope, but I do my best. 

If we are all playing the same game with the same rules, then such a rules change would leave us all in the same boat again, no? With the added benefit of perhaps speeding up play and making the game more approachable for newbies. 

[Jeremie Boop]

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

How much would the game of golf change if the rules were simplified like this tour has done? What if these were the rules in the first place, we wouldn't think any differently, would we? 

Sports change their rules all the time. I am genuinely curious with these questions btw, not being contrarian. 

What if every incidence of a ball being lost, in a hazard, OB, unplayable, etc. was simply treated as a one-stroke penalty with a drop at the nearest point of relief no closer to the pin? Don't know where it crossed? Make the best estimate with help of playing partners. Do I always know where my ball crossed into the swampy hazard at my home course? Nope, but I do my best. 

If we are all playing the same game with the same rules, then such a rules change would leave us all in the same boat again, no? With the added benefit of perhaps speeding up play and making the game more approachable for newbies. 

It takes just as much or more time to approximate where you think you should drop, then drop, then hit the ball as it would if you just hit a provisional when in doubt. When I'm not sure that I'll find a ball I quickly say "I"m going to play a provisional in case I can't find that one" and hit another ball. It's pretty quick. This only saves time if people neglect to play a provisional when they should be. Are there still times when a ball is lost or found to be OB unexpectedly? Sure, but those are pretty rare in my experience. Honestly, I'm probably one of the people who would benefit from this type of rule change because my biggest issue is penalty shots from the tee, but I'm pretty much against a change like this still.

[bkuehn1952]

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What if every incidence of a ball being lost, in a hazard, OB, unplayable, etc. was simply treated as a one-stroke penalty with a drop at the nearest point of relief no closer to the pin? ...

If we are all playing the same game with the same rules, then such a rules change would leave us all in the same boat again, no? 

To me, changing the Rules to treat OB, Lost and Water/Lateral Hazards equally fundamentally changes the game.  Accuracy becomes even less important than distance when a player can just drop a ball wherever it may have disappeared.  Many suggestions to "simplify" the Rules generally tend to benefit less accurate players.  Golf requires a balance between power and accuracy; this balance is what makes the game so challenging to many of us.  Start tipping the scales and the game will just continue its devolution into a long drive contest.

[chspeed]

This is a little OT.

I'm amazed at how few golfers, even decent ones, either don't know the rules or can't remember them on the course. This most often comes to the treatment of OB, Water and Lateral hazards.

Even though I'm the most familiar with the rules in my group, and clearly understand the penalty differences, I have to admit it's hard to remember the different drop options, different treatments in stroke vs. match play, and any nuances when various situations come up (e.g. ball on the OB line). It's especially hard when everyone is trying to keep things moving.

I love rules, and know that most golf rules are rational and have reason.

BUT....I think that many of the rules of golf are just too complex for the recreational golfer and need to be simplified. Maybe this OB vs hazard rule isn't the best example of this, but I think the USGA should explore ways of simplifying the rules for recreational rounds. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Braivo]

30 minutes ago, chspeed said:

This is a little OT.

I'm amazed at how few golfers, even decent ones, either don't know the rules or can't remember them on the course. This most often comes to the treatment of OB, Water and Lateral hazards.

1

I recently played with a guy who claimed he was a 7 hdcp. After a few holes it was obvious he really didn't know or follow the real rules of golf. He was taking drops in the fairway or away from trees rather than in the required spot for drops. He did not count a lost ball as such and rather just dropped near where he thought it should have been. On and on. 

I have no problem if people play like this for casual rounds of golf, but it became clear that he was doing so and counting his score as accurate for hdcp purposes. He says he was a 7, but it was obvious he was more likely about a 16 if he was counting everything appropriately. 

[MrFlipper]

I'm amazed that the vote is close at all. There is a fundamental issue here of fairness and equity.

Perfect example (real life):

Par 4, Player A (me) hits a tee shot in bounds but a tree blocks any approach to the green. He chips out into the fairway, wedges on, 2 putts for 5.

Player B (my golf buddy) hits his drive OB on a line farther down the hole from where Player A drive came to rest. He throws a ball down where it went OB (the tree blocking Player A's shot is behind Player B's drop and thus not in play for him), declares he is hitting his 3rd shot, puts it on the green, 2 putts for bogey. He says we tie with bogeys. No, I don't think so!!!!!!!

So if you buy into this supposed rule change, the scenario I just described must seem fair and equitable to you. To me, it is completely unfair. I did not hit a ball out of bounds. My penalty for being blocked by a tree must be less than his penalty for hitting OB.

This proposal is wrong beyond words.

 

[metbid]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

 Why isn't it just a "bad design"? Why do the Rules of Golf have to be altered in a non-sensical (and far more "ludicrous") way? The ball is hit off the course's property and onto someone else's. That's the common sense and Rules of Golf (if marked) definition of things. 

You want the Rules of Golf to add verbiage that defines a "house" and "trespassing" and the areas which, by their nature, directly conflict with the definition for "water hazard"?

Someone's yard is not a water hazard. Not even their pool. It's out of bounds.

Your proposals open up 10x the silliness of what we have right now

 

I think it is a "bad design", made by developers to make money.

Trespassing I stated was a local rule, not a change in  the rules of golf.  I said 'house lined courses', not "house".  Again local rules.  And what I said in no way would impact local rules on OOB areas within a course as determined locally.

My statement about ludicrous is in light of all the articles and positions about Pace of Play being espoused today, because I have played on courses with houses on the fairways, and have seen a lot of delay when someone does not hit a provisional ball, only to determine their ball did go OOB after proceeding up the fairway.

[Braivo]

29 minutes ago, MrFlipper said:

I'm amazed that the vote is close at all. There is a fundamental issue here of fairness and equity.

Perfect example (real life):

Par 4, Player A (me) hits a tee shot in bounds but a tree blocks any approach to the green. He chips out into the fairway, wedges on, 2 putts for 5.

Player B (my golf buddy) hits his drive OB on a line farther down the hole from where Player A drive came to rest. He throws a ball down where it went OB (the tree blocking Player A's shot is behind Player B's drop and thus not in play for him), declares he is hitting his 3rd shot, puts it on the green, 2 putts for bogey. He says we tie with bogeys. No, I don't think so!!!!!!!

So if you buy into this supposed rule change, the scenario I just described must seem fair and equitable to you. To me, it is completely unfair. I did not hit a ball out of bounds. My penalty for being blocked by a tree must be less than his penalty for hitting OB.

This proposal is wrong beyond words.

 

 

This makes perfect sense, I agree 100%. Although, to be fair, the same scenario could happen with a hazard and the result would be the same as you describe. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

How much would the game of golf change if the rules were simplified like this tour has done? What if these were the rules in the first place, we wouldn't think any differently, would we? 

Sports change their rules all the time. I am genuinely curious with these questions btw, not being contrarian. 

What if every incidence of a ball being lost, in a hazard, OB, unplayable, etc. was simply treated as a one-stroke penalty with a drop at the nearest point of relief no closer to the pin? Don't know where it crossed? Make the best estimate with help of playing partners. Do I always know where my ball crossed into the swampy hazard at my home course? Nope, but I do my best. 

If we are all playing the same game with the same rules, then such a rules change would leave us all in the same boat again, no? With the added benefit of perhaps speeding up play and making the game more approachable for newbies. 

If a ball is lost by definition you don't know where to drop. Water hazards require virtual certainty. It's rare your virtually certain where exactly a ball is lost or you'd find it in a minute or two.

28 minutes ago, metbid said:

I think it is a "bad design", made by developers to make money.

Trespassing I stated was a local rule, not a change in  the rules of golf.  I said 'house lined courses', not "house".  Again local rules.  And what I said in no way would impact local rules on OOB areas within a course as determined locally.

My statement about ludicrous is in light of all the articles and positions about Pace of Play being espoused today, because I have played on courses with houses on the fairways, and have seen a lot of delay when someone does not hit a provisional ball, only to determine their ball did go OOB after proceeding up the fairway.

Local rules, of course, cannot change the fundamentals in the Rules of Golf. there are very few approved local rules. None involve trespassing or treating OB as a lateral.

[imsys0042]

I have no problem with any group, course or organization adopting something that changes the OB rule as part of me would love for it to not be as penal.   However to me the point of OB being a more severe penalty is that you are off the golf course, hence you are in a different situation than many hazards where you could potentially play the ball.  

I've played places where hitting OB is as easy as hitting into a hazard.  However the OB is where you are not allowed to play from.  That means if you have a hazard on one side of the hole and OB on the other, your miss is the hazard and having tiered penalty based on shot result is appropriate within the game of golf.   I'd prefer to not have anyone take a drop from OB stake, but for pace of play and deciding to play that way it's fine if all agree and don't post the score for handicap purposes.

[TourSpoon]

A few thoughts...

Out of Bounds is not to be confused with a hazard and one big reason is because you can play from a hazard. No property owner wants to see someone chipping out between two houses and taking a chunk out of their lawn. The same goes for OOB environmentally sensitive areas.  The white stakes and lines are there for a reason and have an increased penalty associated with them. 

For the guy who wants to play "I am OOB but will drop from here" routine I think the following. If we are in a match, it's not going to happen if the tee is open. If the course is busy then sure, but you drop and are laying 4 because you get stroke and distance. Better yet, you should have hit that provisional, but occasionally we do get it wrong especially when a ball just can't be found even when everyone saw it come down. 

For the casual guys in front of me, do what makes you happy. I don't want you to play like you are in the US Open anyway. Don't spend 5 minutes looking for your ball and then come back to the tee, just get out of the way! I know you are having fun, I just want you to have reasonably quick fun. 

For tournament play, I don't buy it. 

 

[Fourputt]

7 hours ago, Braivo said:

How much would the game of golf change if the rules were simplified like this tour has done? What if these were the rules in the first place, we wouldn't think any differently, would we? 

Sports change their rules all the time. I am genuinely curious with these questions btw, not being contrarian. 

What if every incidence of a ball being lost, in a hazard, OB, unplayable, etc. was simply treated as a one-stroke penalty with a drop at the nearest point of relief no closer to the pin? Don't know where it crossed? Make the best estimate with help of playing partners. Do I always know where my ball crossed into the swampy hazard at my home course? Nope, but I do my best. 

If we are all playing the same game with the same rules, then such a rules change would leave us all in the same boat again, no? With the added benefit of perhaps speeding up play and making the game more approachable for newbies. 

It was called "The Great Experiment".  In 1960 the USGA tried treating out of bounds and lost ball as a "distance only" penalty.  It took them less than 2 years to see that the experiment did not fairly penalize the player in most cases, allowing him too much of a recovery advantage for having played such a poor shot.  The experiment was ended and the penalty reverted to stroke and distance, and that is how it has been ever since.  

I don't see the ruling bodies even considering a change of that unless they find a way around the underlying principle that the severity of the penalty must be enough to at least offset any possible advantage gained by the player's mistake.

[Hardspoon]

Another important difference between a hazard, out of bounds, and a lost ball is the element of "design".  Golf course architects place hazards very specifically to be in play on specific shots, and in specific locations.  They are a part of the playing field in a way that OOB or a ball lost forever in thick rough is not.

 

 

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, Fourputt said:

It was called "The Great Experiment".  In 1960 the USGA tried treating out of bounds and lost ball as a "distance only" penalty.  It took them less than 2 years to see that the experiment did not fairly penalize the player in most cases, allowing him too much of a recovery advantage for having played such a poor shot.  The experiment was ended and the penalty reverted to stroke and distance, and that is how it has been ever since.  

I don't see the ruling bodies even considering a change of that unless they find a way around the underlying principle that the severity of the penalty must be enough to at least offset any possible advantage gained by the player's mistake.

Thanks for posting this. I see this experiment as sort of a mulligan. You have to replay the stroke, but get no additional penalty. It would allow players to swing for the fences with only a one stroke penalty. Stroke and distance makes you think twice.

With a lateral and unplayable, you lose a stroke dropping the ball. OOB should have more consequence because it is clearly defined as being off the course.

[Pete]

I get the idea but it basically makes it a different code of golf. You couldn't compare performance under full rules with performance under modified rules. Passing TDs in arena football aren't quite the same as passing TDs in NFL.

 

 

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

I get the idea but it basically makes it a different code of golf. You couldn't compare performance under full rules with performance under modified rules. Passing TDs in arena football aren't quite the same as passing TDs in NFL.

 

 

No more so than when comparing players that used persimmons and hickory to the high tech clubs of today.  

Games evolve, the passing game in football is significantly easier with the new QB and WR protection rules and changes to pass interference and defensive holding.