Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Braivo
Note: This thread is 2739 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Would you like to see OOB, lateral, and water hazards all treated the same?  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see OOB, lateral, and water hazards all treated the same?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

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

Good point but NFL rules changes are for safety and to make the sport better to watch. I don't think either of those apply here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

Pretty much irrelevant to the situation in golf.  In football the primary reasons for rule changes are for safety, and for giving the less knowledgeable majority of fans the higher scoring offenses they want so that they don't have learn or understand the finer nuances of the game.  They get action and that's all most of them want.

In golf, rule changes come from a perceived need in the actual playing of the game.  Safety is presumed to be maintained in the design and management of the course, and scoring is also a factor of design and maintenance of the course.  The rules don't factor into that.  They are more concerned with adherence to the underlying principles which the game has evolved from.  

Two of the most fundamental of those principles are that you play the ball from tee to hole without touching it and you play the ball as it lies.  As long as the ball lies on the course, it is potentially still possible to play under those principles.  When the ball lies off the course, you can no longer play it as it lies.  You have played a stroke which left you in a location where play is disallowed.  When the ball lies out of bounds it is no longer in play.  The only logical recourse under those fundamental principles is to play again from the last location where the ball was still in play.

It must be understood that the principles govern and determine the structure and maintenance of the rules.  This is why it's so important to read Tufts pamphlet and get that basic understanding before just lashing out at a rule simply because it doesn't seem to be fair for this or that particular situation.  The rules have to apply over a broad spectrum of courses and conditions.  You don't rewrite a rule just for a small number of poorly designed courses.

  • Upvote 4

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

GD article that popped up on my facebook feed ... http://www.golfdigest.com/story/hating-golfs-out-of-bounds-rule-has-a-long-history?mbid=social_facebook

Gene Sarazen is apparently another big name who didn't like the OB rules:

Quote

The California revolt had some prominent supporters -- among them Gene Sarazen, who told Golf Digest, "Golf is a game of luck. The stroke and distance penalty gives luck extra value. A guy gets into trouble at the wrong time or on the wrong hole and it is the equivalent of two strokes added to his card. The population is growing and taking up more space, so out-of-bounds holes are increasing. The double penalty rule is entirely unnecessary."

 The "California Revolt" he's referring to would have softened the penalty for OB to something closer to hazards without introducing the conundrum of not knowing where to drop.  Instead of eliminating the "distance" portion of the S&D penalty for OB or lost balls, they eliminated the "stroke" portion of it.

Of course, this doesn't really help the argument of most people, because you still have to go back and re-tee if you didn't hit a provisional, but it was still an interesting read. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 weeks later...

I think for this or small leagues, if for some reason they dont want to hit provisionals, then +2 penalty for OB more closely resembles the shot mistake.

My group of friends dislikes provisionals so I go along with them, but at the same time I dislike when they hit it OB, drop a ball where it crossed, and only give a +1 penalty. (I personally dont think hitting a provisional takes much longer, but when its 3vs1 and you're being called the rules nanny, your just shut up and move on)

Edited by cutchemist42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, cutchemist42 said:

I think for this or small leagues, if for some reason they dont want to hit provisionals, then +2 penalty for OB more closely resembles the shot mistake.

My group of friends dislikes provisionals so I go along with them, but at the same time I dislike when they hit it OB, drop a ball where it crossed, and only give a +1 penalty. (I personally dont think hitting a provisional takes much longer, but when its 3vs1 and you're being called the rules nanny, your just shut up and move on)

I still play the provisional ball.  I've been playing that way for more than 20 years, so I don't see any reason not to just because I'm playing with someone who doesn't understand the rules.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

This for me is not the simplification I'd like to see. There are other ways to streamline the rules and hitting a provisional is a marginal time cost vs. searching for the likely lost ball.

The comments about OOB making you think twice are spot on for me. Does OOB on both sides of the course effectively narrow the driving area, yes. But a better golfer would still pull driver knowing they could keep in in bounds while the poorer golfer would wisely club down where it's very tight. This is the same scenario if there were trees, gorse, or internal hazards framing a tight driving hole.

OOB is often defined to keep good relations with neighbors (trespassing, property damage from divots / broken windows) as well as safety (places where unsuspecting people may be and highways or roads e.g.). I think it has to be different and more penal for that reason. But I think folks should penalize greedy developers who don't design in sufficient buffer from the fairway in order to maximize housing plots by just not playing the course or buying into the development.

Could a better simplification might be to treat all water hazards the same as far as location for the drop so there was only one hazard boundary rule / drop procedure?

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 2739 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...