Too Soon to Begin Playing Proposed "Penalty Area" Rule?

[Fourputt]

I received an email from the Men's Club yesterday that stated that the course was instituting the "red stake" portion of the proposed rule.  We only have 3 areas now with yellow marked hazards, and the course and Men's Club has decided to simply eliminate those areas as they don't really have a large impact on the way that the course plays.  

I will have to ask at the spring banquet next week if they are still allowing the current rule for dropping on the opposite side equidistant from the hole, as there are several places where this has been a common practice.  We have an 8 foot wide irrigation ditch that provides most of the hazard issues on the course, and it is often preferred to cross over the ditch one way or the other before dropping because of patchy rough and hardpan in many locations near but outside of the hazard margin.  This causes some very weird and usually unfavorable bounces, resulting in some terrible lies on top of the one stroke penalty for taking relief from the hazard.

In any event I just thought I'd throw this out for discussion.  Is it premature to start putting rules in place that haven't actually been adopted yet?  Is 2 years early a bit too soon to be jumping the gun?

[iacas]

The USGA/R&A are encouraging golfers and courses to experiment with and begin playing under the new Rules so that everyone can provide better feedback.

[David in FL]

How can they encourage courses to not play by the rules?

What does that do to the validity and portability of the handicap system that is based on everyone playing by the same rules?

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, David in FL said:

What does that do to the validity and portability of the handicap system that is based on everyone playing by the same rules?

It would have virtually no effect. Especially if it's just three areas that are already hazards, just yellow.

In the broader sense the USGA is just asking you to play under the rules proposed as a trial, not commanding you to or requiring that you post your rounds. Technically a round ppayed under the proposed rules is not one played under the rules of golf and is ineligible to be posted. 

[Fourputt]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

The USGA/R&A are encouraging golfers and courses to experiment with and begin playing under the new Rules so that everyone can provide better feedback.

But this will be for tournament play, and the club has always prided itself on playing by the rule book.  I don't have any real issue with it, and as I said above, it will have minimal impact on how the course plays, but I was just surprised. 

They have also adopted the new local rule for ball moving on the green which, for a bunch of clumsy amateurs, is a good thing.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

But this will be for tournament play, and the club has always prided itself on playing by the rule book.  I don't have any real issue with it, and as I said above, it will have minimal impact on how the course plays, but I was just surprised.

Well, in that sense… everyone's playing those rounds under the same conditions, so… I can't be too outraged by it.

But… yeah, unless they specifically said "Let's try out the new rules in this tournament," I'd prefer them to stick to the actual Rules of Golf in official events and most sanctioned, "tournament-like" play (like leagues, small tournaments, official handicap rounds, etc.).

[David in FL]

I struggle with giving clubs/individuals the discretion to play by a different set of rules before they're actually implemented.

It's not all that different from those who choose to roll the ball out of a divot, or to forgoe the distance penalty for OB within their group.  Does it affect me?  Not really.  But it's still not golf by the rules.  I expected different from the USGA and R&A.

[iacas]

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

It's not all that different from those who choose to roll the ball out of a divot, or to forgoe the distance penalty for OB within their group.  Does it affect me?  Not really.  But it's still not golf by the rules. I expected different from the USGA and R&A.

That statement doesn't make much sense to me.

The rounds are not played under the Rules of Golf and are thus not to be posted for handicap. They're encouraging people to occasionally implement the proposed rules to provide better feedback during this feedback period.

It's that simple.

[David in FL]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

That statement doesn't make much sense to me.

The rounds are not played under the Rules of Golf and are thus not to be posted for handicap. They're encouraging people to occasionally implement the proposed rules to provide better feedback during this feedback period.

It's that simple.

I wouldn't expect the ruling bodies to encourage people to not play by the rules and not post scores for handicap purposes.

It's that simple.  

 

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I wouldn't expect the ruling bodies to encourage people to not play by the rules and not post scores for handicap purposes.

This is a big deal in the world of golf. I think it's perfectly reasonable to grant or even suggest we do some small but exceptional things in order to result in the best rules in the end.

These types of things do not occur even few years or even once a generation (20 years or so). They happen every 30+ years or so (http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/text/a-brief-history-1744-to-present.html):

Quote

Less frequent, but highly significant, have been the efforts to step back and review the overall philosophy, structure and presentation of the Rules of Golf. Such efforts have periodically led to revisions of a larger scope, as happened in 1899, 1934, 1952 and 1984 – and is happening now.

That's 35 years, 28 years, 32 years, and then 35 years (2019-1984).

So it's an exceptional situation which necessarily grants exceptions to the SOP.

They're encouraging people to take part in a once-every-30+-years event to get the best feedback. They're not "encouraging people to not play by the rules and not post scores" generally speaking. Only a little for these specific purposes.

[David in FL]

There are entire clubs enacting portions, potentially all of the proposals.  That just doesn't strike me as "only a little".  Do we really expect that the members/players of these clubs won't post any scores over the next 2 years?

Just doesn't seem right.  I get it that you disagree though.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, David in FL said:

There are entire clubs enacting portions, potentially all of the proposals.

Yeah, and I never said I thought that was okay.

3 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Do we really expect that the members/players of these clubs won't post any scores?

I don't know. They shouldn't. But probably most people don't know the rules right now and still post rounds, so… I also don't know how much things would actually change.

3 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I get it that you disagree though.

I don't disagree with that. They shouldn't post their scores if they play a round under what are not the current rules.

You could play a round and if 13+ holes are completed under the current rules, still post it even though you're also ostensibly playing under the "proposed" rules. They don't vary that much.

Except for taking the flagstick out, I bet the vast majority of my rounds last year were completed under both sets of rules and resulted in the same score.

[David in FL]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

You could play a round and if 13+ holes are completed under the current rules, still post it even though you're also ostensibly playing under the "proposed" rules. They don't vary that much.

That's a good point.  If you don't actually take advantage, or utilize one of the proposed changes, you really didn't "play" by the different rules.   

[Hardspoon]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

The USGA/R&A are encouraging golfers and courses to experiment with and begin playing under the new Rules so that everyone can provide better feedback.

How are they doing that...are they the ones encouraging courses to experiment?  Or is it somewhere on their website?  I ask because they have this note on their website, and my overall impression was that they are trying to encourage people NOT to change yet:

Players are reminded that the current 2016 Edition of the Rules of Golf remain in force when playing, posting scores or competing, until the new Rules are officially adopted by the USGA and The R&A in 2019. The Rules of Amateur Status and the Rules of Equipment Standards were not part of this review process.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I bet the vast majority of my rounds last year were completed under both sets of rules and resulted in the same score.

For me, the biggest "unknown" would be the rules on dropping, and how a lower drop would affect the lie...but I'm guessing you don't take as many drops as I do! 

It'd also probably hurt me that my caddy can't line me up anymore.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

How are they doing that...are they the ones encouraging courses to experiment?  Or is it somewhere on their website?  I ask because they have this note on their website, and my overall impression was that they are trying to encourage people NOT to change yet:

In several places, they encourage players to try them out. For example, on http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/text/overview-of-the-rules-modernization-initiative.html:

Quote

We encourage you to review the proposed changes, to try them out on the course over the next few months, and to let us know your thoughts.

So, there, for one.

4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

For me, the biggest "unknown" would be the rules on dropping, and how a lower drop would affect the lie...but I'm guessing you don't take as many drops as I do! 

Just drop from the shoulder height and save the new drop procedure for 2019. If you want, drop a second ball and pick it up if you want to "try out" the new rules without compromising your score.

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Just drop from the shoulder height and save the new drop procedure for 2019. If you want, drop a second ball and pick it up if you want to "try out" the new rules without compromising your score.

Yes, for sure...my point was just that of all the rules, the new drop rule would probably come into play the most.

I'll probably stick with the "old" rules even in practice rounds, but I'm definitely going to start thinking about the new dropping/relief procedures so I'm comfortable when they're released.

[Asheville]

Here's a notice to players:

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2017/rules-modernization/sample-notice-to-try-out-the-proposed-rules-of-golf-for-2019.pdf

[DeadMan]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:13 PM, Fourputt said:

I received an email from the Men's Club yesterday that stated that the course was instituting the "red stake" portion of the proposed rule.  We only have 3 areas now with yellow marked hazards, and the course and Men's Club has decided to simply eliminate those areas as they don't really have a large impact on the way that the course plays.  

I will have to ask at the spring banquet next week if they are still allowing the current rule for dropping on the opposite side equidistant from the hole, as there are several places where this has been a common practice.  We have an 8 foot wide irrigation ditch that provides most of the hazard issues on the course, and it is often preferred to cross over the ditch one way or the other before dropping because of patchy rough and hardpan in many locations near but outside of the hazard margin.  This causes some very weird and usually unfavorable bounces, resulting in some terrible lies on top of the one stroke penalty for taking relief from the hazard.

In any event I just thought I'd throw this out for discussion.  Is it premature to start putting rules in place that haven't actually been adopted yet?  Is 2 years early a bit too soon to be jumping the gun?

So all they're doing is changing the markings on all water hazards to lateral water hazards?

For what it's worth, I've been told by a CGA rules expert (who you probably know as well), that courses should go ahead and start doing this. The current rules allow the committee to mark hazards in the first place, and it gives them latitude in defining what are lateral hazards. So I understand the impulse, as long as these areas are actually water hazards in the first place.

The biggest difference in doing that is that sometimes you get an advantage that you wouldn't have with a water hazard if you get your ball past the hazard and it rolls back in. The rest of the time, I don't think changing it to a lateral water hazard makes much of a difference. You play at Foothills, right? There's probably two spot son that course where that would be an issue (holes 7 and 18), and I think it would be extremely rare for a ball to get past that hazard but then roll back in. It's not a significant advantage on 18 (like 10 yard difference), and I don't think on 7 the slope is extreme enough to have balls rolling back into the hazard. (EDIT: I forgot one hole, but it's the same situation as 18 in my opinion).

I think this is a non issue, really.

Edited March 20, 2017 by DeadMan