USGA/R&A Finalize 2019 Rules of Golf

[iacas]

44 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

There's a certain logic to that argument.

Not really. It's LOST. You don't know where it is. Golf is about doing one thing: hitting your ball from the start of the hole into the hole.

It's the same justification as stroke-and-distance (effectively a two-stroke penalty).

And… there are a number of times I've played a ball in a water hazard. Can't do that if the ball is lost. When it's in a water hazard, you know where it is.

44 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

We also have some “native grass areas” that the golf club doesn’t want people traipsing through and so those are considered hazards, so it’s a one stroke penalty for balls hit there but balls just off the fairway that can’t be located incur a worse penalty? That’s a hard thing to explain and satisfactorily justify.

I don't think it's hard to explain and justify.

Have you read the Tufts stuff on lost balls?

44 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

At this time, I’m not certain how this is all going to shake out. There is one group who wants to make their own set of "local rules" and then there are some of us who post scores for handicapping purposes and want them to be legit.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If they don't like the two-strokes-and-drop-in-the-fairway option, keep playing stroke-and-distance.

[Missouri Swede]

57 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

A furious debate has recently arisen among members of my league regarding the stroke & distance rule replacement for next year, specifically the part relating to lost balls, and even more specifically, balls lost in the rough.  The argument has been, if a ball is underwater in a lake, or in any other hazard (red or yellow stakes) it’s a one stroke penalty but if it has just disappeared in the rough and hasn’t been stumbled over, it’s two strokes?  This is the part that’s meeting with strong resistance. As one long-time member said, “the original ball is equally unplayable so why then should there be unequal penalties?” There's a certain logic to that argument.

We also have some “native grass areas” that the golf club doesn’t want people traipsing through and so those are considered hazards, so it’s a one stroke penalty for balls hit there but balls just off the fairway that can’t be located incur a worse penalty? That’s a hard thing to explain and satisfactorily justify.

At this time, I’m not certain how this is all going to shake out. There is one group who wants to make their own set of "local rules" and then there are some of us who post scores for handicapping purposes and want them to be legit.

Why would this debate have arisen recently?  Under the current rules, it's stroke and distance penalty for losing a ball (in the rough, or even in the fairway) or for "strategically positioning"  it OB, while just a 1-stroke penalty for a water hazard.

If I understand correctly, the new rules for lost/OB balls allow for a local rule to put a new ball into play up where the original ball is lost (instead of going back to the tee).  But to keep the scoring the same, it takes 2 strokes to keep the penalty the same.

Current: Tee shot lost/OB (1), penalty stroke (2), re-tee shot (3), and now hitting 4th shot approaching green.

New local rule: Tee shot lost/OB (1), dropping in area according to new local rule with penalty strokes (2 and 3), and how hitting 4th shot approaching green.

So if they don't like the new rules, they also should be even more upset about the current rules.

Edit: (After reading what @iacas posted):  A lost ball or OB ball is worse than one in a hazard.  The penalty reflects that.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Missouri Swede

[Hardspoon]

49 minutes ago, xrayvizhen said:

We also have some “native grass areas” that the golf club doesn’t want people traipsing through and so those are considered hazards, so it’s a one stroke penalty for balls hit there but balls just off the fairway that can’t be located incur a worse penalty? That’s a hard thing to explain and satisfactorily justify.

You're thinking about it all wrong...you're trying to connect quality of the shot ("ball just off the fairway") with expected results.  Sometimes, in golf, the perfect approach shot hits the flagstick and spins into the water, while the topped shot bounces off a rock wall and lands on the green.

Golf isn't supposed to be fair - it's just supposed to be equitable.  Losing a ball in a hazard, since you know exactly where it ended up, lets you play a new ball according to a specific set of options.  Having absolutely no clue what happened to a ball forces you to play by another (more penal) set of options.  That's equitable.

The quality of the shot ("just off the fairway" versus "way offline into the native grass") is totally irrelevant.  

[HJJ003]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

. If they don't like the two-strokes-and-drop-in-the-fairway option, keep playing stroke-and-distance.

And it’s a very generous option as it is.

Edited September 18, 2018 by HJJ003

[billchao]

44 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

If I understand correctly, the new rules for lost/OB balls allow for a local rule to put a new ball into play up where the original ball is lost (instead of going back to the tee).  But to keep the scoring the same, it takes 2 strokes to keep the penalty the same.

I don't remember if this was brought up anywhere, but is this local rule applicable for handicap purposes? Or would you post par + handicap for the score on the hole?

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, billchao said:

I don't remember if this was brought up anywhere, but is this local rule applicable for handicap purposes? Or would you post par + handicap for the score on the hole?

It's a Rule of Golf. It's all good.

[Missouri Swede]

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

I don't remember if this was brought up anywhere, but is this local rule applicable for handicap purposes? Or would you post par + handicap for the score on the hole?

They say not for "higher levels of play, such as professional or elite amateur level competitions," so if they wanted to exclude casual rounds as well, I think they would have specified that as well.

I tried looking up the local rule in the 2019 RoG app, but didn't see it in rule 18.  Must be somewhere else.

[Asheville]

Look in 2019 Committee Procedures, Model Local Rules.

[billchao]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's a Rule of Golf. It's all good.

Cool, this will save me some golf balls next year and maybe the occasional stroke.

[iacas]

A comparison of the old rules book and the new Player’s edition.

The new is 168 pages. The old is about 235.

[Jeremie Boop]

It's astonishing to me how many comments I saw on a youtube video today about the changes thinking that leaving the flag change is the best rule and how few understood the point of changing the drop height. Some guy tried to tell me that leaving the flag in on putts will hurt as often as it helps....

[iacas]

42 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

It's astonishing to me how many comments I saw on a youtube video today about the changes thinking that leaving the flag change is the best rule and how few understood the point of changing the drop height. Some guy tried to tell me that leaving the flag in on putts will hurt as often as it helps....

People still actually think that is true.

[Jeremie Boop]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

People still actually think that is true.

I was told " R&A says, they've looked at the stats (and I guess they might be a bit more comprehensive than yours) and found that there's no advantage nor disadvantage to leave the flag in, hence the change."

It's fine, people can believe whatever they want, but I bet they leave the pin in even though it "provides no advantage".

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

It's fine, people can believe whatever they want, but I bet they leave the pin in even though it "provides no advantage".

No, think about how many people take it out when they have a chip shot or something. They actually think it's a disadvantage.

[Jeremie Boop]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, think about how many people take it out when they have a chip shot or something. They actually think it's a disadvantage.

You are probably right, I had a long discussion with a guy we were playing against in league about how it's better to leave the pin in when off the green. He started talking about the "confidence" it gives to take it out, how he got screwed too many times from not taking it out, etc... Even though, that same night, I proved it was a benefit because had a much shorter put after a chip because the ball hit the pin. He just kept saying, that was lucky, it doesn't usually happen that way. I just shook my head.

[Missouri Swede]

1 minute ago, Jeremie Boop said:

He just kept saying, that was lucky, it doesn't usually happen that way.

Yeah, it's nice when laws of physics step aside momentarily so luck can take over.

[Jeremie Boop]

2 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Yeah, it's nice when laws of physics step aside momentarily so luck can take over.

Yup, I can't count the number of times that hitting the pin has saved me, and can't remember the last time it screwed me.

[HJJ003]

7 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

He just kept saying, that was lucky, it doesn't usually happen that way. I just shook my head.

Selective memory at its finest.