An Argument for Modifications to Rules 26 and 27.

[Kyle Harris]

Rule 26 deals with Water Hazards and Lateral Water Hazards.

Rule 27 deals with Out of Bounds.

I'd like to discuss a proposal to add a distance only penalty to Rule 26 that allows the golfer to play from as near the original spot as possible when the ball comes to rest within a Lateral Hazards. This would be in lieu of the current stroke and distance option.

The amendment to Rule 27 follows a similar pattern, basically returning the OB Penalty to distance-only.

Why?

The return of some matter of temptation to these particular hazards and to also permit the architect to use these hazards in a more effective manner.

Let's consider two classic examples:

First, the 16th hole on The Old Course. Shooting the gap between the Principal's Nose and the OB stake right offers a much more appealing angle into the green. The safe play is obviously out to the left. As it stands now, the present risk of shooting the gap is potentially hitting 3 from the tee. Does not a distance only penalty retain a penalty commensurate with the risk and still allow the golfer the temptation of making par should the ball go OB?

The second example is the 13th at Augusta. Let's considering for a moment that a ball lands in the Rae's Creek tributary left of the hole. The golfer is no presented with hitting a second shot from the tee, or advancing the ball and dropping under the present rule. Depending on the point of entry, it may be more enticing and to take the distance-only option and hit the tee shot again - and in doing so facing the same options and temptations only being one shot behind instead of two.

I'd be curious what the tournament players on the discussion board feel about these changes and also discuss some potential new architecture ramifications. Would the softening of the OB Penalty and the new option for the Later Hazard allow the architect more tools in providing a strategic option for the golfer? Would such options make such architecture more acceptable to the public?

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Are you proposing a "distance only" penalty for Rules 26 and 27?

If so, that was once tried by the USGA (not the R&A) in 1960. The pros and cons of it are dealt with in Richard Tuft’s book “The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf” in a chapter entitled “The Noble Experiment.”

Tufts was considered to be one of the real Rules experts in the history of golf and he obviously was something of a purist. He went through that experiment which appears to be the same thing you are proposing and looked at the reason why it was proposed as well as why he ultimately did not agree with it.

I am not certain of it but I believe it was Tufts himself who first articulated various “Principles” behind the Rules of Golf and they are most interesting to consider. He articulated two “principles" that he called “The Two Great Principles” and another ten “principles” he called “The Working Principles.”

Two of the latter “working principles” are:

1. Like situations shall be treated alike.

2. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation.


Tufts felt that the aforementioned “Noble Experiment” of 1960 which appears to be basically the same thing you’re proposing, in various ways corrupted and weakened those two “working principles” I just quoted above.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

Are you proposing a "distance only" penalty for Rules 26 and 27?

If so, that was once tried by the USGA (not the R&A) in 1960. The pros and cons of it are dealt with in Richard Tuft’s book “The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf” in a chapter entitled “The Noble Experiment.”

Tufts was considered to be one of the real Rules experts in the history of golf and he obviously was something of a purist. He went through that experiment which appears to be the same thing you are proposing and looked at the reason why it was proposed as well as why he ultimately did not agree with it.

I am not certain of it but I believe it was Tufts himself who first articulated various “Principles” behind the Rules of Golf and they are most interesting to consider. He articulated two “principles that he called “The Two Great Principles” and another ten “principles” he called “The Working Principles.”

Two of the latter “working principles” are:

1. Like situations shall be treated alike.

2. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation.


Tufts felt that the aforementioned “Noble Experiment” of 1960 which appears to be basically the same thing you’re proposing, in various ways corrupted and weakened those two “working principles” I just quoted above.

I am going to have to mull this one over as I play Inniscrone this afternoon.

My first, knee jerk, reaction is to attack the salient point made in #2 - that hitting into Out of Bounds or a Lateral Hazards is some form of "violation" of the rules. Nae, I consider these areas are parts of the golf course from which the rules stipulate play more stringently from others. It is not a violation to be within them, but rather being within them simply brings a different set of actions to bear on the player as he maneuvers his ball from the tee to the hole.

To the first point, what are the "like" situations? The ball lies within an area of the golf course - my modifications alter the current situation for OB and change an option for the Lateral Hazard.

I'm not overly fond of the language in Tufts' arguments. Nothing has been violated by being within OB or a Lateral Hazard as the rules stipulate play from these areas. This is akin to considering playing the ball down as a penalty as the player is not permitted to tee the ball up from the fairway. Fairway, Out of Bounds and a Lateral Hazard are all areas of the golf course from which the rules stipulate certain actions from the player. Some areas are more stringent than others.

[Bill_McBride]

Kyle, is not OB by definition not "part of the course?"

[TEPaul]

"My first, knee jerk, reaction is to attack the salient point made in #2 - that hitting into Out of Bounds or a Lateral Hazards is some form of "violation" of the rules."


Kyle:

While I feel Tufts was a good and effective writer, I agree with you there that his use of the word "violation" in that particular "principle" probably wasn't the best word to use. A word such as "circumstance" may've been a better word for what he was trying to say.

[TEPaul]

"Kyle, is not OB by definition not "part of the course?"


Bill:

Yes, places defined by the Rules of golf as OB are places a golfer is not allowed to play from under the Rules of Golf. There are some technical distinctions involved however such as a player is allowed to stand in an OB area to hit a ball that is not OB. The only determination for being OB is whether or not the BALL is OB.

[Jason McNamara]

Tom Paul -

Did the experiment include treating hazards and OB the same?  You could then have golfers playing from OB without penalty, which I'd think was not the point of the exercise.  Or was it take mandatory relief from OB, automatic penalty stroke?

[Dan King]

Would your proposal include treating unplayable the same way? Would unplayables be distance only? Seems wrong to give a lighter sentence to hitting it OB or in a water hazard than having the ball unplayable? But then if you take away the stroke penalty, why not look for a better lie whenever you are faced with a bit of a sketchy lie?

What about non-liquid hazards, can you get relief without stroke penalty?

I hate that golf has become about touching the ball so much. But I also see this rule change encouraging touching the ball more often. Why would anyone ever try and hit a ball out of a water hazard? Assuming you treat all hazards the same, why would a poor sand player ever bother playing out of sand?

I think there should be penalties when you actually have to put your hand on the ball.

Cheers,
Dan King

You are meant to play the ball as it lies, a fact that may help to touch on your own objective approach to life.
 --Grantland Rice

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul -

Did the experiment include treating hazards and OB the same?  You could then have golfers playing from OB without penalty, which I'd think was not the point of the exercise.  Or was it take mandatory relief from OB, automatic penalty stroke?"


Jason:

I believe that 1960 Experimental Rule was to treat a ball lost or out of bounds as a distance only penalty.

[Anthony Gray]

  Kyle,

 You make a good point. Stroke AND distance seems too harsh than just plain stroke penality.

  Anthony

[Jason McNamara]

Tom, that seems to be the case.  Michigan State even has the document online in its turf library

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1959/591105.pdf

The spirit of softening life for the
golfer will have a special trial under the
USGA code only, and for 1960 only, in
these particulars:
(a) Ball out of bounds-loss of distance
only (not stroke and distance, as now).
(b) Ball lost-lost of distance only (not
stroke and distance, as now).

The interesting thing is that there is nothing about requiring the golfer to take relief.  As such, it does look as if it would be permissible to play from an OB area without penalty.

Editorial comment:  Of course I'll be burned as a heretic for this, but I am not necessarily averse to making OB more like a hazard, except with mandatory relief.  I.e. if your tee ball flew 150 yards before going OB, you get those yards, and hit 3 from there instead from back at the tee box.  But surely a golfer doesn't get to simply play out of an OB area without penalty.  

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, that seems to be the case.  Michigan State even has the document online in its turf library

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1959/591105.pdf

The spirit of softening life for the
golfer will have a special trial under the
USGA code only, and for 1960 only, in
these particulars:
(a) Ball out of bounds-loss of distance
only (not stroke and distance, as now).
(b) Ball lost-lost of distance only (not
stroke and distance, as now).

The interesting thing is that there is nothing about requiring the golfer to take relief.  As such, it does look as if it would be permissible to play from an OB area without penalty.

Editorial comment:  Of course I'll be burned as a heretic for this, but I am not necessarily averse to making OB more like a hazard, except with mandatory relief.  I.e. if your tee ball flew 150 yards before going OB, you get those yards, and hit 3 from there instead from back at the tee box.  But surely a golfer doesn't get to simply play out of an OB area without penalty.  

I don't understand this "play(ing) out of an OB area without penalty" talk.  Most times OB is over a fence or into a neighbor's private property.  Are you talking just about OB inside the course?

[TEPaul]

"The interesting thing is that there is nothing about requiring the golfer to take relief.  As such, it does look as if it would be permissible to play from an OB area without penalty."


Jason:

There has never been any need in the Rules of Golf to require a golfer to take "relief" for a ball that has gone OB simply because as long as OB has been in the Rules of Golf it has not been permissable under the Rules of Golf for a golfer to play a ball that lies out of bounds (a ball that lies OB is no longer considered to be a "ball in play" under the Rules of Golf). Therefore the OB Rule should be looked at simply as a procedure and not "relief." If a golfer plays a ball that lies out of bounds he has thereby played a wrong ball because he has played a ball that is not a "ball in play" and is consequently penalized for that.

[Kyle Harris]

I think there are several misconceptions here. Perhaps I was not clear.

First, for the lateral hazard. One may still drop under penalty of one stroke within two clubs lengths of the point of entry of the the hazard, no nearer the hole. I am not attempting to take away the penalty for dropping under the rule, just the stroke penalty from replaying as near as possible from the spot where the shot was taken.

Second, OB is a part of the course in the sense that the ball can find it when it is played from the course. It is a null zone, a zone which the ball may approach but may not cross without being "reset."

[Kyle Harris]

Dan King,

The penalty for OB would be having to replay from the original spot with one shot against you, not two. The only change is that one is playing their second shot from the tee and not the third.

Same with the lateral. The player is electing to negate the distance gained by the shot as a penalty and to face the same shot, and hazards et al., again.

As far as unplayable lies are concerned I hadn't really considered them. However, from my understanding the procedure under which one drops for an unplayable lie is more akin to a water hazard instead of the lateral hazard... or perhaps more accurately a hybrid of the procedures - however, I see a big difference in the sense that the Unplayable Lie exists in an area that is not part of a hazard and in an area most likely to be clearly unplayable as the player deliberates the shot...

Not sure yet though.

[TEPaul]

What Richard Tufts has to say about that 1960 Experimental Rule that allowed for a distance only penalty for a lost ball or a ball OB is quite interesting in that he clearly does not agree with it but it was also the Rule in effect when he wrote and published his book (The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf) which coincindentally was published in 1960!  

By the way, that book is still very much something of the USGA's little logic bible when it comes to some Rules questions referred to them. A friend of mine who is arguably one of the real Rules expert in the world actually rewrote and updated Tuft's book in the last ten years but there was some glitch involved in getting it officially published. I think the glitich may've involved something to do with the Tufts family or the rights of or to that particular 1960 book.

I think it has been reprinted again by the USGA (a second REprint) and is consequently not as hard to find as it used to be. For anyone interested in Rules questions I would strongly recommend they get themselves a copy of Richard S. Tufts "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf." It does take some time and some experience to get used to and fully understand some of the things it says but I firmly believe when one does truly understand what it says they will have a far better grasp and understanding of why the Rules of Golf are basically the way they are.

Tufts was pretty much the purist and believed in a certain simplicity within the Rules of Golf-----eg having the Rules of Golf essentially rely on twelve "principles" and consequently his book is only 102 pages.

I also believe that other than the first two principles that he refers to as "The Two Great Principles" and have been articulated for centuries, the remaining ten principles that he refers to as "The Working Principles" were actually articulated for the first time by Tufts himself.

[TEPaul]

"The penalty for OB would be having to replay from the original spot with one shot against you, not two. The only change is that one is playing their second shot from the tee and not the third."


Kyle:

That in effect involves no "penalty" shot. What you propose is known in the Rules of Golf as basically "distance only."

The circumstances whereby a player can actually nullify a shot he has played with a ball "in play" and then play from the same place are fairly rare and they are all specifically defined.

"Distance Only" was what that 1960 Experimental Rule was all about for a Lost Ball and a ball OB. I think it was considered to be too weak and was consequently dropped within a year or two (it very well may've been dropped because the likes of Tufts was not for it) and I do not think at that time (the early 1960s) the USGA and the R&A had yet unified to the extent that actual Rules changes were only made every four years as a result of USGA and R&A Joint Rules committee meetings and conferences as is true today).

Today there are no "distance only" Rules procedures in the book that I'm aware of. 

[mike_beene]

To bring this home a little,whatever the theories,I refuse to play three rounds of stroke play in our club championship for one reason:I am not going to ruin my labor day hitting provisionals plural on our course with a lot of OB.Call OB lateral and stroke play golf is fun again.But I guess we have plenty of players...

[TEPaul]

MikeB:

It seems to me that part of the problem or at least part of the question involved in these Rules issues on this website (or anywhere else) is not necessarily whether some of these Rules are completely right or fair or equitable or even make logical sense to anyone or everyone but more a matter of whether golfers are willing to play under a single unified set of Rules----ie "The Rules of Golf" as written by the USGA and R&A whether they like them or NOT? 

The apparent willingness of everyone to play under the very same rules or principles whether they liked them or not or even fully understood them seems to be the very thing that articulated and fostered some of what C.B. Macdonald referred to as the "Spirit of St. Andrews" or even the "Spirit" of the game itself in that early and perhaps far more innocent time!

[Dan King]

Kyle Harris writes:
The penalty for OB would be having to replay from the original spot with one shot against you, not two. The only change is that one is playing their second shot from the tee and not the third.

Same with the lateral. The player is electing to negate the distance gained by the shot as a penalty and to face the same shot, and hazards et al., again.

My mistake. I thought you were proposing eliminating the penalty, not the distance. This comes up now and then under the assumption it will speed up play. Your solution would actually slow down play, with more people going back to re-hit if their ball if in water. I'm opposed to anything that makes the glacial game of golf slower. The other way, keeping the distance, but eliminating the stroke penalty will at least speed up the game. I'd oppose it because it allows too much touching and changing of the ball, but at least it will speed up the game.

If your ball is hittable in a hazard would there be any reason to ever attempt to hit it? If your ball rolls into a lateral water hazard, aren't you getting a free drop outside the hazard? How would you handle non-water hazards? Will the golfer be better off hitting into a water hazard than a non-water hazard? Will we need a new designation for wet hazards to tell them from dry hazards?

Would you allow provisional for balls that go into hazards? That would at least speed up play, but then why would anyone ever try to hit a ball from inside a hazard?

Cheers,
Dan King

Hey, is this room out of bounds?
 --Alex Karras (to a startled bystander, after hitting a golf ball through the plate glass window of the clubhouse at the Red Run Golf Club in Royal Oak, Michigan)

[Jason McNamara]

There has never been any need in the Rules of Golf to require a golfer to take "relief" for a ball that has gone OB simply because as long as OB has been in the Rules of Golf it has not been permissable under the Rules of Golf for a golfer to play a ball that lies out of bounds (a ball that lies OB is no longer considered to be a "ball in play" under the Rules of Golf). Therefore the OB Rule should be looked at simply as a procedure and not "relief." If a golfer plays a ball that lies out of bounds he has thereby played a wrong ball because he has played a ball that is not a "ball in play" and is consequently penalized for that.

OK, back to the rule book for me.

So in 1960, a golfer hits it OB from the tee.  Then he plays his second stroke from the tee?

[TEPaul]

"How would you handle non-water hazards?"


Dan:

Non-water hazards? I'm sure you know that under the definitions in the Rules of Golf what is considered to be a "Water Hazard" does not necessarily have to have water in it. The only other type of "hazard" in the Rules of Golf that does not have water in it and is not considered to be a "Water Hazard" is called a "Bunker."  

[TEPaul]

"So in 1960, a golfer hits it OB from the tee.  Then he plays his second stroke from the tee?"


Jason:

That's right. It was the same in 1960 for a Lost Ball. That Experimental Rule (which was only the USGA's) only lasted for a year. But now I find the R&A (alone) experimented with the same thing in 1950 for a ball OB.

How all this stuff evolved within the Rules of Golf in and between the R&A and USGA over the years as to the Lost ball and OB Rule and Water Hazard Rule and the Provisional Ball Rule and whether or not you could actually "declare" a ball to be lost or play a provisional ball for a ball that "might" be lost in a water hazard is pretty danged interesting.

Not only is it interesting how they all evolved but how they evolved may even give massive credence to Tuft's two articulated "working principles"------

1. Like situations shall be treated alike (the basis for golf's "equity" philosophy).
2. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation (circumstance?).

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Non-water hazards? I'm sure you know that under the definitions in the Rules of Golf what is considered to be a "Water Hazard" does not necessarily have to have water in it. The only other type of "hazard" in the Rules of Golf that does not have water in it and is not considered to be a "Water Hazard" is called a "Bunker."  

I know. It isn't my rule change. I think that is one of the many problems with the proposal. Do you treat all hazards that same, or under this new rule do you need to differentiate between a wet and dry hazard? if you are a bad bunker player, wouldn't you just try hitting over that bunker again so as to not have to hit out of the bunker?

It will also give players a choice between two balls. If you hit into a hazard, you go ahead and hit a provisional. I assume the golfer will be the one to decide if he will play the ball from the hazard or not. So now he can pick one of the balls, the one with the poor lie in the hazard, or the one sitting on the green with a one-shot penalty. The penalty is too cheap, giving golfers often an easy decision.

In another post, TEPaul writes:
The apparent willingness of everyone to play under the very same rules or principles

The majority of golfers are not playing under the USGA or R&A rules. Many I have played with on public golfers don't have any idea about the rules or if they do they generally rely on what they have heard -- often times wrong. The ones that come close to trying to play by the rules still tend to modify the rules to work within their game.

Cheers,
Dan King

Dream golf is simply golf played on another course. We chip from glass tables onto moving stairways; we swing in a straightjacket, through masses of cobweb, and awaken not with any sense of unjust hazard but only with a regret that the round can never be completed, and that one of our phantasmal companions has kept the scorecard.
 --John Updike

[Jason McNamara]

That's right. It was the same in 1960 for a Lost Ball. That Experimental Rule (which was only the USGA's) only lasted for a year. But now I find the R&A (alone) experimented with the same thing in 1950 for a ball OB.

Got it, thanks.  In the bisque thread you said it's good to make oneself look stupid; unfortunately I have been doing that all weeekend.