The Proposed New "Penalty Area" and Its Effect on GCA

[Ian_L]

Of all the proposed 2019 rules changes, the newly defined "penalty area" seems most relevant to golf course architecture. The idea is that red and yellow-staked areas (currently lateral water hazards and water hazards, respectively) can now be placed anywhere on the course, not just where there is water. Lava, jungle, long grass, and gorse could all be marked as "penalty areas," and a ball lost could be dropped under the applicable rule.


I am a big fan of this change. I can't think of a time where I enjoyed walking back to the tee or found more thrill in a golf shot because I knew the penalty might be stroke-and-distance. The one time I can think of a stroke-and-distance penalty as appropriate would be a situation so dangerous to people or property that golfers should be steered as far away from an area as possible.


With that said, a few questions for the group:


1) Thoughts on the proposed rule?


2) To the architects: might this rule change influence your design of a hole? For example, would you be more willing to place gorse closer to the line of play given the more lenient penalty?


3) Is there any reason why all areas with a high risk of a lost ball should not be defined as "penalty areas"? (Practical and aesthetic considerations of having so many red stakes come to mind.)


4) Should a local rule be allowed defining certain features (gorse, lava, unmaintained grass) as a penalty area without requiring stakes and/or paint all over the place?

[Pete_Pittock]

should be very helpful in housing tracts. right now three people can hit the same shot and one will drop out with no penalty, one will drop out under one stroke penalty and the third will walk back to the tee depending on their upbringing. I guess afourth would play it.

[jeffwarne]

should be very helpful in housing tracts. right now three people can hit the same shot and one will drop out with no penalty, one will drop out under one stroke penalty and the third will walk back to the tee depending on their upbringing. I guess afourth would play it.

!!!

[Sean_A]

Of all the proposed 2019 rules changes, the newly defined "penalty area" seems most relevant to golf course architecture. The idea is that red and yellow-staked areas (currently lateral water hazards and water hazards, respectively) can now be placed anywhere on the course, not just where there is water. Lava, jungle, long grass, and gorse could all be marked as "penalty areas," and a ball lost could be dropped under the applicable rule.


I am a big fan of this change. I can't think of a time where I enjoyed walking back to the tee or found more thrill in a golf shot because I knew the penalty might be stroke-and-distance. The one time I can think of a stroke-and-distance penalty as appropriate would be a situation so dangerous to people or property that golfers should be steered as far away from an area as possible.


With that said, a few questions for the group:


1) Thoughts on the proposed rule?


2) To the architects: might this rule change influence your design of a hole? For example, would you be more willing to place gorse closer to the line of play given the more lenient penalty?


3) Is there any reason why all areas with a high risk of a lost ball should not be defined as "penalty areas"? (Practical and aesthetic considerations of having so many red stakes come to mind.)


4) Should a local rule be allowed defining certain features (gorse, lava, unmaintained grass) as a penalty area without requiring stakes and/or paint all over the place?

Ian

I spose you could treat lost ball the same as a penalty area. That would solve the gorse, heavy rough etc  problem without markers all over the place.  I would like to see the same procedure in place regardless if the ball can't be found or played or the player doesn't want to play it situations.   

I am not sure gca will change much either way.

Ciao

[Wade Whitehead]

Regardless of the impact on architecture, scores, as a whole, will go down, right?

WW

[Thomas Dai]

I have seen this used in Spain in places where the terrain is severe and it seems to work. Seems to speed up play.
I wonder if OB will gradually be phased out and something like this take over? This might effect gca.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

I have seen this used in Spain in places where the terrain is severe and it seems to work. Seems to speed up play.
I wonder if OB will gradually be phased out and something like this take over? This might effect gca.
Atb

Thomas-I don't think you will see the concept of OB change. My two cents.

[Michael Felton]

3) Is there any reason why all areas with a high risk of a lost ball should not be defined as "penalty areas"? (Practical and aesthetic considerations of having so many red stakes come to mind.)

4) Should a local rule be allowed defining certain features (gorse, lava, unmaintained grass) as a penalty area without requiring stakes and/or paint all over the place?

The drawback to not having the red stakes out there is that it will become unclear where the edge of such an area is. Unless they change the rule to say that under any circumstances, you can add a shot and drop a ball underneath where the ball flew, so it doesn't matter where the edge is, I think things are going to be very up in the air without the stakes.


I like the concept though. It seems arbitrary that water should be required to have a penalty area. This would also mitigate the situation where you find your ball in amongst the trees (Kevin Na style) and wind up taking several shots to get back into play. For example, if you're more than two clublengths into gorse and the shape of the hole is such, you may have no choice but to go back to the tee right now. If that were a penalty area, you could take your drop up near where you are. That would speed up play (and over a long period of time also reduce scores).

[Kevin Lynch]

Of all the proposed 2019 rules changes, the newly defined "penalty area" seems most relevant to golf course architecture. The idea is that red and yellow-staked areas (currently lateral water hazards and water hazards, respectively) can now be placed anywhere on the course, not just where there is water. Lava, jungle, long grass, and gorse could all be marked as "penalty areas," and a ball lost could be dropped under the applicable rule.


I am a big fan of this change. I can't think of a time where I enjoyed walking back to the tee or found more thrill in a golf shot because I knew the penalty might be stroke-and-distance. The one time I can think of a stroke-and-distance penalty as appropriate would be a situation so dangerous to people or property that golfers should be steered as far away from an area as possible.


With that said, a few questions for the group:


1) Thoughts on the proposed rule?


2) To the architects: might this rule change influence your design of a hole? For example, would you be more willing to place gorse closer to the line of play given the more lenient penalty?


3) Is there any reason why all areas with a high risk of a lost ball should not be defined as "penalty areas"? (Practical and aesthetic considerations of having so many red stakes come to mind.)


4) Should a local rule be allowed defining certain features (gorse, lava, unmaintained grass) as a penalty area without requiring stakes and/or paint all over the place?

1) Long overdue.  I've seen too many courses in my area leave northern grasses grow into "mid-course OB" in an attempt to get that "links look."  Stroke and distance for unmowed vegetation has always seemed disproportionate to the penalty if that grass had been water.


2)  I certainly hope not. Absolute hazards with no chance of recovery should be reserved for the worst misses (with some exceptions sprinkled in for challenge).  In general, I'm not a fan of absolute hazards, whether it's a one or two stroke penalty.  The thrill of a potential recovery (even if a minimal percentage) is one of the best elements of golf.


3) No.  I agree that any of these should be treated as penalty area to speed up play and make consequences similar to if the area had been water.


4) Certainly.  You'd have some gray area, but it would certainly help speed up play if people just accepted the notion that stroke-and-distance is a bit harsh for many situations. 

[jeffwarne]

While it sounds good in theory, it could be very dicey.


I do like the idea of the occasional staked area, even affecting architecture in a good way being used/grown to create strategy/interest such as a Cape hole, and marked as a hazard
(example-an area of native(real unmaintained native wherte wildlife could actually exist-not high maintenance ever so perfect and you can always play it fescue-which is demanded but rarely exists) being used/grown to create strategy/interest such as a Cape hole, and marked as a hazard.

It gets dicey when it becomes expected and no one ever plays a lost ball again without dropping-often quite "generously" and often in a an easily playable lie, not the schmoo their ball has to be in or we would see it..
I've seen this when playing lateral drops on UK trips-Many game the rules and tend to drop far ahead of reality (i.e. a duck hook which hits deep wet fescue/bramble isn't out distancewise anywhere near where a downwind well struck drive with ample roll is)

[Ian Andrew]

Regardless of the impact on architecture, scores, as a whole, will go down, right?

WW

Wade,


I don't think so.


Other than tournament rounds ... people generally play this now ... and most post scores for handicap purposes using their own rules. The only time I see people playing by the rules is in a club event or for money. Even then, most don't actually know the rules.


I've seen a massive change in attitude from when I began playing in 1977 and today. People don't care near as much about the rules or posting a complete round (finish all your putts - play by the rules). As a junior I played by the rules and finished my putts. I no longer do so because I can't play well enough to qualify for anything where that matters. There's a lot more of that attitude in the game now ... I'm not even sure this is a bad thing because rounds are faster where this occurs.






Over the last 20 years I've seen golfers

[Ian Andrew]

2) To the architects: might this rule change influence your design of a hole? For example, would you be more willing to place gorse closer to the line of play given the more lenient penalty?

Ian,


Changes nothing ... it's only about presenting interesting holes.
Wouldn't do anything differently as a result of this.

[Keith Grande]

Issue of lost ball is problematic - we had one on a par 5, dogleg left, blind second shot, terrain is right to left downhill.  Player hit 3 wood down the right side, over the hill, never found the ball (likely picked up by another group). 


Do we drop: 


at the top of the hill where we last saw it?
at the bottom of the hill?  if so, on the left or right side?

[Kalen Braley]

I don't understand why more golfers don't use the Provisional Ball option currently in place.  If you're playing a hole and you know there's OB or lost ball potential and you see it go near that area, why not just hit the provisional? 


No walk of shame
No march back to the tee, where almost no one will do on a busy course anyways.
And you get an extra "practice shot"...on the house, if you find your original.


Does it just not occur to people to do this?

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't understand why more golfers don't use the Provisional Ball option currently in place.  If you're playing a hole and you know there's OB or lost ball potential and you see it go near that area, why not just hit the provisional? 


No walk of shame
No march back to the tee, where almost no one will do on a busy course anyways.
And you get an extra "practice shot"...on the house, if you find your original.


Does it just not occur to people to do this?

Kalen,
I think the vast majority of players who actually know the provisional ball rule use it, and for exactly the reasons you outline.  When it is not used, it is either by a player who just doesn't know, a group that has decided to play everything as a lateral, or a case where the player thinks everything is fine but then can't locate his golf ball.

FWIW, I play with a group of seniors that play tournaments most Mondays at a number of different courses, very few of which are familiar to the majority of players.  We typically have over 100 players, and pace of play in a stroke play tournament is always a problem.  Basically, we play the entire planet as if it had red stakes; lost, OB, hazard, whatever.  Drop a ball at a place agreed upon by the group, take a one stroke penalty, and play on.

And guess what?  It's simple, it's quicker, and it works just fine.  We don't even bother with provisional balls; just keeping moving forward.  I know to many of you that sounds like heresy, and I don't think you'll ever see the PGA Tour or the Masters adopt this, but it actually works quite well, especially on unfamiliar courses.  And guess what?  The best players still win!

[Kalen Braley]

AG,


I agree with everything you've said, I just don't know why a rule change is in order, if no one bothers to take the walk of shame anyways.  I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone actually take that walk. (other than on TV)


I guess my point is, if golfers don't bother heeding the rule of a lost ball or OB...(just like the countless other rules they break), why does the rule need to be changed at all?  Sand baggers will still be sand baggers and for the multitudes of weekend warriors who never post scores, none of the rules really "matter" anyways.

[corey miller]

I am not sure I agree with "rules" for us commoners that are designed to "speed play".  It is our responsibility irrespective of where my ball lands or where I need to legally play it from.

Even though I most always play fast and even though I will never play in over four hours (even if I walked back to re-tee) I would never do that as a common courtesy on the course.  Even in club events.

That said, I do find the whole concept of a "provisional" idiotic.  Why should I hit a provisional (and I do BTW) if when I hit it in the middle I then have a "choice" to look? or if I look and it is unplayable but found I then "by the rules" need to go back and hit a third ball? 

Keep the ball in play.

[Kalen Braley]

I am not sure I agree with "rules" for us commoners that are designed to "speed play".  It is our responsibility irrespective of where my ball lands or where I need to legally play it from.

Even though I most always play fast and even though I will never play in over four hours (even if I walked back to re-tee) I would never do that as a common courtesy on the course.  Even in club events.

That said, I do find the whole concept of a "provisional" idiotic.  Why should I hit a provisional (and I do BTW) if when I hit it in the middle I then have a "choice" to look? or if I look and it is unplayable but found I then "by the rules" need to go back and hit a third ball? 

Keep the ball in play.

Corey a few comments:


If the original ball goes OB, you don't need to take the walk...you just play the provisional.
And if you find it, and its unplayable, there are two other options before going back to the tee.


Keep the ball in play?  If the game was limited to single digits then we would certainly have an epic contraction...but last I checked even the best players in the world go astray from time to time... 

[corey miller]

Kalen

Since the "provisional" is often gamed, especially by better players "just following the rules", I would prefer to not have it.  That said, I am very aware of my three options and if the first two fail and I am unplayable...guess what (as my opponent stands mute while my provisional is in the fairway) I am not going back to hit three. That is out of courtesy to others. 

As for people not being single digits....the rule should not be changed based on difficulty of scoring but rather based on pace of play IMO.  That said, it would help single digits to score even better. 

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


I agree with everything you've said, I just don't know why a rule change is in order, if no one bothers to take the walk of shame anyways.  I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone actually take that walk. (other than on TV)


I guess my point is, if golfers don't bother heeding the rule of a lost ball or OB...(just like the countless other rules they break), why does the rule need to be changed at all?  Sand baggers will still be sand baggers and for the multitudes of weekend warriors who never post scores, none of the rules really "matter" anyways.

Like you, I rarely see anyone make the walk of shame, and I think that's the point; the USGA is trying to bring the Rules more in line with the way people actually play on Saturday mornings.  Drop a ball, take a stroke, and keep moving.  I think the reason people don't currently heed the rule is because it just isn't a practical rule outside of tournament play.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,


I agree with everything you've said, I just don't know why a rule change is in order, if no one bothers to take the walk of shame anyways.  I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone actually take that walk. (other than on TV)


I guess my point is, if golfers don't bother heeding the rule of a lost ball or OB...(just like the countless other rules they break), why does the rule need to be changed at all?  Sand baggers will still be sand baggers and for the multitudes of weekend warriors who never post scores, none of the rules really "matter" anyways.

Like you, I rarely see anyone make the walk of shame, and I think that's the point; the USGA is trying to bring the Rules more in line with the way people actually play on Saturday mornings.  Drop a ball, take a stroke, and keep moving.  I think the reason people don't currently heed the rule is because it just isn't a practical rule outside of tournament play.

AG,


That's a good point, but a bit of a slippery slope. If the USGA relents due to non-conformance, where does it stop? . 
[/size]....  All the more reason we need bifurcated rules, a detailed set for top AM and pro play and a simple set for everyone else.[size=78%]

[MClutterbuck]

Havenīt courses done this for a long time? I have seen red stakes in situations where it was probably a stretch to mark them as a hazard. Arenīt environmentally sensitive areas basically the same thing? This would basically allow committes more leeway in marking areas without an outside agency declaring them sensitive. I think it is an advance in rules, if well applied by courses.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Havenīt courses done this for a long time? I have seen red stakes in situations where it was probably a stretch to mark them as a hazard. Arenīt environmentally sensitive areas basically the same thing? This would basically allow committes more leeway in marking areas without an outside agency declaring them sensitive. I think it is an advance in rules, if well applied by courses.

Courses have done it, but as a course rater (the slope/rating kind, not for magazines), we're instructed to ignore it and measure it as OB/Extreme Rough or whatever it is. Which always seems like a bit of a joke because you know they're just going to leave the red stakes there, and nobody's going to post a score treating it as a lost ball if they hit into it and can't find it… so now, at least, the rating will more accurately reflect how people play the course as marked.

I'm ambivalent on this. I just hope that it's not abused.

[jeffwarne]

While I can think of many places where it could as easily be well used, as i think of it, I can't help but begin to despise the constant dumbing down of the rules-if this were to become a widespread practice in all situations.


Hitting a provisional takes an extra 15 seconds.


You're going to look for the ball anyway, so no time is actually saved, just strokes.
I can tell you, the most difficult thing about hitting a provisional is the thought that you might do it again....and again.
the average golfer has NO CLUE what that's like-especially in an event where you're posting a number.
Dropping laterally is just not the same thing-saves way more than a shot on average and is NOT a real score-or even close.


But in these days of everyone gets a trophy, is probably practical.

[Evan_Green]

I would not be a fan of this change - it would take out the randomness in golf that many on this site seem to relish.


It would also encourage more narrow playing corridors because the penalty is not as severe.


It could affect the strategy/play on the Old Course for example where you might be more willing to take on the right side of the course because the penalty of hitting into the gorse is not as severe.


All for fixing the flagstick rule and that kind of stuff, but would not favor in this circumstance.


Just my 2c