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

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

Yes, courses have done this for a long time.  The catch is that they do it for pace of play reasons, and often with the state golf association comes in to set up the course for a state qualifier or championship, the officials will require the course to remove red stakes that do NOT have water proximate.

And I agree with you that this is an advance in the Rules.  If an area PLAYS like a hazard, the fact that there is, or isn't, a tiny ditch with water in it is unimportant.  We've all seen stakes at the edge of a tree line with a stream or pond so far away that there is NO way a ball could ever get there, but that's been ok.  It hasn't been a logical rule, and this will help.

[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.

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? . 
....  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%]

Kalen,
I don't think it is so much that the USGA is relenting due to "non-conformance" as it is an honest attempt to simplify the Rules and make them more consistent, while also addressing pace of play issues. 

We all know that going back to the tee just isn't practical at most courses most days when we are confronted with a ball that is unexpectedly lost or OB; it just isn't.  So either the USGA could persist in having a rule that literally FORCES players to NOT play by the Rules, or they can attempt to rewrite the Rules to conform to what is reasonable and practical and the way the people actually play the game.

To me, the REAL slippery slope for the USGA comes when they encourage golfers to ignore the organization as THE rule making body.  The anchoring ban, the non-posting of solo scores, and the groove rule are, at least to me, examples of the USGA writing rules in a dream world consisting only of professionals, highly skilled amateurs that play tournament golf, and monied private clubs, with no eye at all toward the masses and the growth of the game.  Tell enough people often enough that you don't care what they think or what they want or what they do, and they'll eventually marginalize you and then ignore you; THAT is a slippery slope indeed, and the USGA has been sliding on it for some time now!

THESE rules, by contrast, seem to me to be a well-intentioned attempt to do exactly the opposite.  They won't have any impact on the way the game is played by professionals or highly skilled amateurs; the best players will still win.  But for the ordinary guys and ordinary courses, the Rules will be a little bit easier to understand and a little bit more practical.  I'm no fan of the USGA, but I applaud them in this case for trying.[/size]

[Pete Lavallee]

This will make it much easier to mark off canyon areas here in So. Cal. as hazard areas. We have all of our canyons, save one, marked off as red stake hazards at Balboa Park and it makes sense to not consider them as stroke and distance penalties. The rational is that water could collect at the base of the canyon. We have one area which slopes down to Pershing Drive. The SCGA made the club remove the red stakes and play it as through the green. The Men's Club ignores this ruling and plays it as a red staked hazard. You should see the looks on opposing team's faces when we tell them we are dropping with no stakes or red line present!

[John Kavanaugh]

Please stop justifying these changes with the fantasy that play will speed up. The slowest player in our group will never play faster as long as cigars and putter covers are allowed. He loses one or both every hole.


What saddens me the most about the possibility of this rule are the hard feelings it will cause amongst friends. I'm as sick and tired of telling people that their ball crossed a lateral 30 yds behind where they are taking their drop as them telling me the same. Stroke and distance is beautiful in the purity of its interpretation. The only thing I enjoy more is outright forfeiture.

[Jason Topp]

I am in favor of the idea. 

It seems goofy that, under the current rules, you can mark a desert wash as a water hazard but cannot mark a craggy rocky area simply because a desert wash carries rainfall once a year.

The proposal makes environmentally sensitive areas a more reasonable proposition as well.  Currently, they need to either be marked as having no penalty which seems too lenient, or as out of bounds which seems too harsh.  I have always thought the option of marking them as water hazards made sense and that the rules should be adjusted to allow for such a result.  Such an option might allow for the creation of more habitat on golf courses and reduce maintenance costs. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Please stop justifying these changes with the fantasy that play will speed up. The slowest player in our group will never play faster as long as cigars and putter covers are allowed. He loses one or both every hole.


What saddens me the most about the possibility of this rule are the hard feelings it will cause amongst friends. I'm as sick and tired of telling people that their ball crossed a lateral 30 yds behind where they are taking their drop as them telling me the same. Stroke and distance is beautiful in the purity of its interpretation. The only thing I enjoy more is outright forfeiture.

John,
While I agree with you that slow players will continue to play slowly, that has dead zero to do with the discussion at hand, which is about whether or not the Rules should match up better to the way the game is actually played by most well-intentioned golfers.

But I DO feel sorry for you having to be part of a group where guys routinely cheat by 30 yards on where they take their drop, yourself included!  There are NO rules, past, current, or proposed that can't be broken by golfers with evil intent; I'm sorry that you are stuck among such people, and equally glad that I'm not.

[John Kavanaugh]

We call them "Lemon Drops" in that no matter where you drop someone has a sour taste in their mouth.

[A.G._Crockett]

This will make it much easier to mark off canyon areas here in So. Cal. as hazard areas. We have all of our canyons, save one, marked off as red stake hazards at Balboa Park and it makes sense to not consider them as stroke and distance penalties. The rational is that water could collect at the base of the canyon. We have one area which slopes down to Pershing Drive. The SCGA made the club remove the red stakes and play it as through the green. The Men's Club ignores this ruling and plays it as a red staked hazard. You should see the looks on opposing team's faces when we tell them we are dropping with no stakes or red line present!

Pete,
You describe exactly the reason for the proposed change!  The game plays better when you treat an area such as you describe as a lateral (staked or not!), especially when it may not be evident from the tee that the ball has gone into the canyon.  Hitting endless provisionals and the like isn't a good solution; red stakes are.

My club has gone thru the same thing when we host a sanctioned event; red stakes are there, the state association makes them come out, the stakes come back, the state association makes them come out, and so on.  Silliness...

[A.G._Crockett]

We call them "Lemon Drops" in that no matter where you drop someone has a sour taste in their mouth.

Sounds like a fun bunch of guys. 

[John Kavanaugh]

It's all part of the game. Watching your buddy fume when you call "Lemon Drop"...sometimes three holes later, is like cutting the crust off a press sandwich.

[Michael Whitaker]

I like the new rule as I've never really understood the difference in penalty between a lost ball and a ball in a hazzard... if I hit it in a lake it's lost, is it not? I think a drop with a one shot penalty anytime you choose should be the rule... hazzards, lost, unplayable, whatever. It seems to me that when you hit a shot it's either on the course or it's not, and the penalty for "losing" that ball should be the same however it happens. It seems that's how AC's senior group plays. My senior groups do the same. Everyone agrees on the appropriate location to drop and we move on. Fortunately, no one in our group trys to take undue advantage of the drop location and everyone is generally happy with the outcome.


I'd really hate to be part of a group where everyone is trying to get away with stretching the rules just to win a few bucks or be king for the day.

[John Kavanaugh]

As each stroke nears 1% of your output for the day the interpretation of rules matters less. We could all be so lucky.

[Kalen Braley]

If we want to change a "common" rule, then why not introduce the "gimmie" rule.


Cause I can't recall ever playing a round, outside of an official club tourney, where several gimmies weren't cashed in multiple times over the round by everyone in the group.  Maybe some of you never ever take gimmies, but I can't recall playing with anyone who didn't do it...


It could be worded in one sentence, "If its inside the leather, its all good"


P.S.  John does make a terrific point on where the ball crossed over...30 yards is a good estimate compared to some of the nonsense I've seen first hand...

[Tom_Doak]

I do have concerns that if these "penalty areas" become commonplace solutions to looking for lost balls, that will lead to clubs and designers building ever more places for us to lose balls, when the essence of the game has always been to overcome the obstacles in your way.

[Michael Whitaker]

I do have concerns that if these "penalty areas" become commonplace solutions to looking for lost balls, that will lead to clubs and designers building ever more places for us to lose balls, when the essence of the game has always been to overcome the obstacles in your way.

I don't think of these as being "obstacles in your way" as much as lateral areas off the side of the course. But, I guess it could be open to a more expansive interpretation. 

[MClutterbuck]

I do have concerns that if these "penalty areas" become commonplace solutions to looking for lost balls, that will lead to clubs and designers building ever more places for us to lose balls, when the essence of the game has always been to overcome the obstacles in your way.

This might be controversial...


My friends and I play under competition rules every week-end on our home course. On our recent trip to Scotland, we decided to play a friendly competition across 8 rounds, medal play. This was our first visit to all 8 courses and we decided to alter one rule. We decided gorse would play as lateral.


It really only came into effect often at Dornoch. I think we all took a couple 1 shot penalties and dropped 2 clubs away from the point of entry into the gorse. On the margin, would we have taken driver less often and gone with 3-woods or irons of tees? Maybe. But I donīt think our decision had a meaningful impact on how we played the courses, or the architectural intent of the design. And it was fun and allowed us to keep up with pace of play.

[Carl Nichols]

I do have concerns that if these "penalty areas" become commonplace solutions to looking for lost balls, that will lead to clubs and designers building ever more places for us to lose balls, when the essence of the game has always been to overcome the obstacles in your way.

This might be controversial...


My friends and I play under competition rules every week-end on our home course. On our recent trip to Scotland, we decided to play a friendly competition across 8 rounds, medal play. This was our first visit to all 8 courses and we decided to alter one rule. We decided gorse would play as lateral.


It really only came into effect often at Dornoch. I think we all took a couple 1 shot penalties and dropped 2 clubs away from the point of entry into the gorse. On the margin, would we have taken driver less often and gone with 3-woods or irons of tees? Maybe. But I donīt think our decision had a meaningful impact on how we played the courses, or the architectural intent of the design. And it was fun and allowed us to keep up with pace of play.

That was the one rule modification that our caddies at Bandon pushed us to adopt. 

[A.G._Crockett]

I do have concerns that if these "penalty areas" become commonplace solutions to looking for lost balls, that will lead to clubs and designers building ever more places for us to lose balls, when the essence of the game has always been to overcome the obstacles in your way.

This might be controversial...


My friends and I play under competition rules every week-end on our home course. On our recent trip to Scotland, we decided to play a friendly competition across 8 rounds, medal play. This was our first visit to all 8 courses and we decided to alter one rule. We decided gorse would play as lateral.


It really only came into effect often at Dornoch. I think we all took a couple 1 shot penalties and dropped 2 clubs away from the point of entry into the gorse. On the margin, would we have taken driver less often and gone with 3-woods or irons of tees? Maybe. But I donīt think our decision had a meaningful impact on how we played the courses, or the architectural intent of the design. And it was fun and allowed us to keep up with pace of play.

Great example of how the rule might work, and why the USGA is making the change.  You guys played that way for good reasons, and the impact is basically nil if everybody is doing the same thing.  So either you have to intentionally violate a rule in order to play the game in a reasonable fashion (now the case for most of us) OR the USGA needs to change the rule to make better sense to golfers who want to play the game in the right way and follow the Rules.

It should have been done years ago, and, like Mike Whitaker, I hope that eventually the Rules will be standardized for ANY lost ball; this is a step in that direction, at least.

[John Kavanaugh]

That's what I did at St. Andrews on the fourth hole. The exception being that I took two strokes. Two strokes is a more equitable lost ball penalty. You can't lose a ball in the gorse, hit your next shot on the green and have a putt for par. It's just not right.


This rule is going to leave superintendents and owners with very little motivation to thin out the margins of the course where we all occasionally hit a ball. I guess it's going to save money leading to lower dues and fees. Yea...right after it speeds up play.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why are all the people who hate water lined fairways suddenly lining up in support of this new rule? It doesn't pass the smell test.

[MClutterbuck]

Why are all the people who hate water lined fairways suddenly lining up in support of this new rule? It doesn't pass the smell test.

Under current rules, Gorse lined fairways are worse than water lined fairways, are they not? I mean the really tee to greeen 60 feet deep gorse.

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes they are. At Victoria National we have water on 14 of the holes with lost ball fescue on the opposite side. The correct strategy is to miss, if you must, in the water because the penalty is less severe. Under this new rule all strategy is out the window as all misses are equal.

[A.G._Crockett]

That's what I did at St. Andrews on the fourth hole. The exception being that I took two strokes. Two strokes is a more equitable lost ball penalty. You can't lose a ball in the gorse, hit your next shot on the green and have a putt for par. It's just not right.


This rule is going to leave superintendents and owners with very little motivation to thin out the margins of the course where we all occasionally hit a ball. I guess it's going to save money leading to lower dues and fees. Yea...right after it speeds up play.

John,
The reason that it was more "equitable" to take two strokes for your ball lost in the gorse is because you were making up your own rules and, in effect, pretending that your second ball (be it a provisional or one hit after you pissed off a lot of Scots by trudging back to the tee) was NOT lost in the gorse so that you were lying three hitting four.  If the Rules then had allowed the gorse to be red staked, you would have been lying two hitting three, but so would everybody else in the same situation. 

And that is what "equitable' means, right?

[John Kavanaugh]

AG, in a real world sense given ESQ I believe a two stroke penalty was a more equitable score to use when asked by friends what I shot. After I lost my ball I took my drop, hit the next shot on and two putted for a double, the max allowed by ESQ. We have a large contingent that checks our scores as posted. It has become culturally acceptable to consider what is posted is what was shot. And it eliminates a ton of boring stories.

[jeffwarne]

I do have concerns that if these "penalty areas" become commonplace solutions to looking for lost balls, that will lead to clubs and designers building ever more places for us to lose balls, when the essence of the game has always been to overcome the obstacles in your way.

It really only came into effect often at Dornoch. I think we all took a couple 1 shot penalties and dropped 2 clubs away from the point of entry into the gorse. On the margin, would we have taken driver less often and gone with 3-woods or irons of tees? Maybe. But I donīt think our decision had a meaningful impact on how we played the courses, or the architectural intent of the design. And it was fun and allowed us to keep up with pace of play.

We added a further wrinkle to this on some of our UK trips.
If you look for one minute or less, and don't find, you can drop laterally.
After that, if you don't find the ball after a full search, you're out of the hole (which really sux if your opponent then loses a ball, but is smart enough to immediately drop [size=78%])[/size]