wadesworld

There's a few things people are leaving out here: 1) While Shepard could have ignored the penalty, should Moon become aware of the penalty before teeing off on the next hole, either through something verbal or her own recognition, Moon would be required to call the penalty on herself and thus, lose the match. 2) The match had a referee assigned. Even if Shepard had chosen to ignore the penalty, it's quite likely the referee would have intervened before they teed off on the the next hole and assessed a penalty to Moon. 3) The true act of sportsmanship would have been for Moon to immediately concede the match once she realized her error. Technically, it was unnecessary, but that would have been the proper display of sportsmanship by the proper party.

This is just my personal opinion and I don't have a reference to back up my suspicion for it as a motivation, but I also believe the stroke-and-distance penalty will remain as it is for OB because it helps discourages risky play. In many places, OB protects an area where persons or property may be damaged by errant golf balls. Therefore, having the OB penalty be as severe as possible encourages people to hit away from those risky areas. Some players will even hit an iron instead of driver to reduce their chances of going OB. This is illustrated perfectly by a course I frequent which has water all down the right side and then dog-legs right to the green. How do most people play that hole? They grab a driver and fire away. Why? Because it's only a 1-stroke penalty if they go in the water and they get to drop where it crossed the margin. For most golfers with any kind of decent swing, they're using a pitching wedge for an easy third shot and walking away with bogey. I guarantee you if it were OB rather than a lateral hazard, people would be aiming WAY left, taking irons off the tee, etc. Yes, it is true that with some players, they're so wild that the color of the stake matters not. It's also true that sometimes players will hit one OB, and then hit another OB when they take stroke-and-distance. However, I think any kind of research would show the benefits FAR outweigh these more rare occurrences.

Upon further reflection, I think my statement about building a stance was incorrect. One would even be allowed to stand on an obstruction (movable or not) if it were already there, so bracing against one would be even less of a concern. However, if the marker moved, I do believe the player would be subject to penalty for purposely causing it to move.

I can see two potential problems: 1) He could be accused of "building a stance." 2) If the tee marker moves even the slightest bit, I would certainly rule he had intentionally moved the tee marker by placing his foot there, and thus he would be charged a two-stroke penalty.

Keep in mind in casual play, most situations are covered by about 6 or 7 basic rules. The vast majority of decisions and even rules don't affect your average golfer. Additionally, as FourPutt likes to point out, when rules situations get really complex is primarily when basic procedures aren't followed. When a mistake is made, that's when it gets complex to try to unwind the mistake within the rules (and where a LOT of decisions come from). Another great resource for education is the USGA's Rules Experience: http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-of-golf-experience/#/

A search is not required. Virtual certainty comes into play when deciding whether or not the ball is in the water hazard. You look at the conditions such as wind, dryness of the course, how well the ball is flying that day, thickness of the trees, etc. You also consider the trajectory of the ball. You look at the surrounding terrain. For example, some water hazards have nothing but tightly mowed grass around them, and in that case, if the ball isn't in the hazard, one would see it. Other water hazards are surrounded by deep grass, bushes, cattails, trees, etc. You might even consider the position of the sun - i.e. if you were looking directly into the sun, you might have a lot of doubt about how well you tracked the ball's flight. If you have others with you, you consider their opinions too. With all that information, you ask yourself one question: "Is there any place the ball could be other than in the hazard?" If the answer to this question is "yes," then your ball is lost. As a side note, given what you've described, there's likely no way I'd allow you to claim virtual certainty. A ball hit into the trees can literally go anywhere.

I agree with you on most things, but you're preaching about his preaching. He's perfectly within his rights to quote scripture from his social media account if he so desires, same as others are free to not do so, or complain about those who do.

Yep, I had Thomas at my last workshop. He's excellent. If you end up going, let me know so we can meet each other.

Late to this conversation, but certainly the AMCC has a competition committee to which you could complain. I certainly would.

Since there's one in my town this year, I'll be attending the one in Nashville, TN.

However, it doesn't hurt to check with the tournament organizers. Not all tournament organizers have an understanding of the rules and they can make up some strange rules.

Good luck with that.

Just FYI, I'm watching the replay of the first round of The Barclays on my DVR, and on several holes, there is practically nobody. I'm sure on the weekend there will be thousands of people. Does someone want to argue the pros should lobby the USGA to alter the lost ball rule for poorly attended tournaments? Or should the pros be complaining to the PGA Tour that competing in any tournament with fewer than 10,000 spectators is inherently unfair?

I'm with you Rick. I believe that absent any other notification, a player has to play the course as marked. After all, think of how many incorrect judgements could be made. "This doesn't look like a water hazard to me - I'm not going to follow the markings," says the player, not realizing that 10 feet away under the heavy brush is a spring which is currently dry. However, if there is legitimate doubt, the player would be justified in playing another ball under 3-3. If you're a school coach, it's on you to create a "hard card" for your team to let them know about the improperly-marked areas. If it's a course you haven't played before, it should be part of your preparation to call the head pro ahead of time, ask if there are any improperly-marked areas, and then come to an agreement with the opposing coach before the match begins. It's frustrating that you'd have to do this, but with "pace-of-play" markings becoming more and more prevalent, I see little other option.