Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mark Brown on March 17, 2005, 08:43:52 PM
-
I play a lot but am in noway a student of the rules of golf, but wondered if it would be feasible to treat Out of Bounds the same way as a lateral hazard. Drop the ball where it first crossed the line and take a stroke penalty. (Didn't mean to steal your topic Kyle.)
One reason I ask is that a lot of the courses I play have real estate around them. In the past 5 or 10 years developers have made fairway corridors a lot wider, realizing that golfers would rather have wider fairways and pay a little more for their homesite. So it's not a big problem now.
But in the 70s and 80s, the corridors were small with housing on both sides and you could realistically hit the tee shot OB on virtually every hole if you were a little off. Good example is Turtle Point, a Nicklaus Course at Kiawah Is. which is a pretty good course but there is OB everywhere, which makes the OB rule seem overly penal.
Is it feasible and fair to play OB like a lateral hazard? And why or why not?
-
Mark,
You didn't steal my topic, and this actually comes up for debate every now and then. A lot of residential courses let you treat OB as a Lateral Water Hazard so you aren't making the same mistake in sending golf balls towards property and people more than necessary.
OB is traditionally the boundary of a golf course. It tends to be obscured in a lot of instances. Stroke and distance penalties happen when a situation such as a Lost ball or OB wouldn't let you accurately see where the ball crossed the hazard line or where your ball is in the case of a lost ball. (If you knew where it was... you could find it).
Therefore, the only objective way to put a ball in play is to go back to where you last played the shot and put it in play from there. It's really a matter of fairness to other players.
My gripe is when people use the Provisional Ball rule for balls in a Water Hazard. Most people don't realize that a ball needs to either be OB or Lost to hit a provisional. If it "could" be lost in a Water Hazard you need to look for it, and then decide which option to exercise. There is no provisional ball for a potentially hazard bound ball.
-
There is no provisional ball for a potentially hazard bound ball.
I believe this is not a reasonable rule for public (crowded) golf. Tournament golf, sure, fine. Clubs where there is at least a 15 minute spacing and pace of play isn't a problem, fine. 6 minute starts at Woodley Lakes (generic golf with a capital "G", but in a plain black and white wrapper a la Repo Man), please hit a provisional.
-
Joe,
You're welcome to hit the shot at the tee, but it's not a "Provisional," it's the golfer exercising the option to replay the shot from the original location in lieu of dropping it with the point of entry between the ball and the hole, et al.
With a provisional, the provisional ball is not in play until it is declared lost or OB...
With a hazard, the ball is in play the minute it is replayed from the original location or dropped.
This prevents the golfer from making a horrible shot for the second, and THEN deciding to exercise the other options.
-
Mark Brown,
When the rules are broken at leisure, the game ceases to be golf.
Amend one rule for convenience and soon the domino principle will affect them all.
There's a good reason why the rule have formed and evolved over these many centuries.
-
Is it true the R&A waived the out of bounds on 7 at Hoylake at the last Open there?The next Open there will be interesting.I can't think of a major venue with so much OB.The rules do evolve.(teeing areas,flagstick when putting,small ball,etc.)Too much OB in stroke play gets clowns mouthish.If we don't go to a lateral hazard rule,at least make penalty distance only.
-
Is there any rational reason for not being allowed to hit a provisional when a ball might be in a hazard? Can you hit one if it might be lost in a hazard?
I realize that there might be situations where the decision of whether or not to play a ball that is in the hazard could be influenced by whether or not the provisional is well played, but it strikes me that such situations are extremely rare and the inconvienience of having to walk back far outweighs any likely potential advantage one would have. I always thought it was extremely stupid during that playoff at Torrey Pines where Mickelson hit a provisional for a potential lost ball, but then had to walk back to the tee when he found his ball in the hazard.
-
Jason,
The answer boils down to the options for dealing with a ball in a lateral hazard:
A: Drop within two clubs lengths no nearer to the hole at the point where the ball last cross the margin of the hazard
B: Keeping the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard between you and the hole, drop any distance no nearer the hole
or
C: Go back to the original spot and place a second ball in play.
Playing a "provisional" ball would be selecting option C. Once the ball is dropped or struck, it is in play.
This prevents a player from knocking one in a pond, hitting a second shot from the tee, and then determining that his option to drop is a better one so he takes that.
-
Mark Brown,
When the rules are broken at leisure, the game ceases to be golf.
Amend one rule for convenience and soon the domino principle will affect them all.
There's a good reason why the rule have formed and evolved over these many centuries.
Pat,
Thank you for your succint reply. Why is it that the rules are so hard to follow? They are there, live with them.
-
Is there any rational reason for not being allowed to hit a provisional when a ball might be in a hazard?
The rational reason is that if a ball is lost, or out of bounds, there is only one option for proceeding - the stroke and distance penalty. If the ball is in a hazard, there are several options, including playing the ball as it lies. Letting someone play a provisional for a ball in a hazard is akin to letting someone play 3 shots, and choose the one they like best.
-
Mark,
I'd agree with what Pat said and Bob seconded but I can see why people always question it. I think this is partly due to the everchanging status of rules for OB and Lost Ball.
For instance, when OB was introduced the penalty was distance only but soon went to stroke and distance. It flip-flopped back and forth between these positions several times until 1968(I think), when it became, once again, a stroke and distance situation.
Today's rule for a Lost Ball is similar to what was originally intended but it too has done the same flip-flop as the OB rule. From 1961 on it firmly became a stroke and distance penalty.
Even the provisional ball rule has undergone much revamping. There was a time you could play a provisional for a ball lost in a hazard or an unplayable situation. I think that ended in 1961.
I think the way they now stand eliminates any potential problems between the procedures a player should follow for OB, lost balls, hazards and provisionals.
-
Is there any rational reason for not being allowed to hit a provisional when a ball might be in a hazard?
The rational reason is that if a ball is lost, or out of bounds, there is only one option for proceeding - the stroke and distance penalty. If the ball is in a hazard, there are several options, including playing the ball as it lies. Letting someone play a provisional for a ball in a hazard is akin to letting someone play 3 shots, and choose the one they like best.
It seems to me that it would be reasonable to consider amending the rules such that you have the option of playing a provisional if you think you might be in a hazard, but if you do so your only option should you be in that hazard is to take the stroke and distance penalty and utilize that provisional. It would have to be clearly declared that you are taking a provisional that covers ball in hazard.
I don't know what the big deal is anyway since when I play a provisional thinking I may be lost or OB that's how it is supposed to work. I don't take one if I think I may be in a hazard since there are almost always better options, and because you can't be in a hazard if you just "think" you are in one. I've never got a clear answer on the question of hitting at a hazard that's behind trees or a hill that's got no long grass around it so you can be 99.99% sure if you don't see your ball around it you must be in it even you didn't actually see it enter.
The one that really gets me is not the hazard, but unplayable. If I hit into trees I might think "oh, could be lost" and hit another one. But if I find it but decide it is unplayable, if I want to take stroke and distance and playing by the book, I'd have to go back to the tee.
Things get really stupid if you hit a drive near some trees and water next to OB. Your ball could be OB, lost, in a hazard or unplayable. You can take a provisional but it will only cover OB and lost. If you amended the rules as I suggest it could also cover hazard and unplayable if you were willing to concede your other options under those rules. In some circumstances you might be willing, because some hazards or unplayable areas would leave no other realistic option anyway.
I think those wily Scots were onto something when they invented the game as a match play contest! ;D
-
Doug,
The situation you proposed is in effect today. You don't have to go down to your ball and walk back. If you see the splash from the tee, you can choose to exercise option C in my post above right then and there.
As for the apparenty idiocy of the rules in this situation, all it takes is a little forethought and awareness of what's going on, and the situations like Phil Mickelson's a few years back (remember him begging for the spectators not to look?) become VERY few and far between.
-
I would like to know how many people truly play the lost ball/stroke and distance rule in their weekend nassaus, and more so if you are walking. In most instances a ball which is out of bounds is usually seen as a possibility from where it was played and a provisional should be played. However, I have found that in a large percentage of cases you had no reason to believe that you would not be able to find your ball so after you have looked for five minutes and not found it, can you face the group behind you and go back and hit another ball. I don't know about you, but at the clubs where I have played I have almost never seen a player go back and replay his shot other than in tournament situations. For that matter, how strictly do you interpret the rule concerning whether a ball is in a hazard or is it lost.
-
I try to get these guys in under four hours, it is TOUGH I tell ya. They are so used to American style golf that it can drive me to the bar.
Sean - What is "American style golf?" What do the Americans do (or not do) that makes it tough to get in under four hours?
-
Michael Whitaker,
Predominant medal play is the real kicker.
Foursomes and other forms of match play move much faster.
-
I'm not going to identify all the different people and posts I'm trying to answer here, more of a combined answer.
The penalty for a ball OB must be at least as severe as for a ball that is lost since a ball that is OB is a the result of a worse shot that that of most lost balls and the penalty should fit the crime. The penalty for a lost ball must be at least distance only since we can't know where to drop if we don't have some point to go from. For example for a ball lost in a water hazard we do have a point, which is where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard. For a ball hit in 3" rough it wouldn't be right to drop in the fairway because that is where the ball last crossed the margin of the rough. For a ball hit into trees or a bush, it also doesn't seem right. For a ball that was hit somewhere and we don't really know where, we really have no point of reference..
Given that the penalty for a lost ball must be the most severe, that would mean that the maximum penalty would be the same for a ball in a water hazard or unplayable. If it was distance only as has been tried in the past, that would mean that I could find my ball in a horrible spot, declare it unplayable and go back and try the shot again with no penalty. There was a case of this in the Open at Troon in the 1960s where a player on the Postage Stamp hit a ball into a horrible lie in a bunker, he chose the distance only option of the unplayable lie rule, went back to the tee, hit it to a foot and made a par. The ruling bodies felt this was letting him get too much relief by choosing distance only as there was almost no way he could have made par from the original lie and so the rule changed back to S&D.
A ball cannot be "declared lost". The only ways a ball becomes lost are: 5 minute search, stroke is played at a substituted ball, the provisional is played at the place the ball is likely to be lost or nearer the hole.
Too much OB is not clown mouthish from the rules point of view as much as it is bad design.
When it comes to provisionals, they can be played any time that a ball might be OB or lost outside a water hazard. If there is an area where there is a water hazard and other areas where the ball might be lost, you can play a provisional, but you will have a tough time proving reasonable evidence that the ball is in the water hazard. Also, if you play a provisional because you didn't realize that the area was a water hazard, you are ok, but you have to abandon the provisinal once you find out it is a water hazard.
The reason you can't play a provisional for a ball in the water hazard is because you could end up with multiple balls in play and get to choose which one you like best. Similarly, you can't play or use a provisional for an unplayable ball since you are the one who determines when the ball is unplayable and that choice would be biased by the location of the provisional.
There are occasional times where a provisional is allowed for a ball in a water hazard under local rule. See page 92 of the Rules of Golf for the wording. It should only be used when the other options are not good and it would save a lot of time. One hole where I've seen it is #18 at Pumpkin Ridge - Witch Hollow course where it is a 10 minute walk around/through the hazard and you really don't have any options for most shots that do end up in the hazard. It is either there or it isn't, but you can't tell from the tee due to the high bushes. In choosing to play the provisional, you give other options under the water hazard rule except for playing the ball as it lies.
When Phil hit his tee shot in the canyon during the playoff at Torrey Pines, the area was not marked as a hazard as it was this year. Therefore he correctly played a provisional for a ball lost outside a water hazard. Once his ball was found, he had to abandon the provisional. At that point, he chose to declare the ball unplayable. His only viable option was to go back to the tee.
For a ball to be considered lost in a water hazard, there must be "Reasonable Evidence" to that fact. The PGA/USGA defined that as 95-98% sure at the rules workshops I've attended. That basically means, it can't be lost anywhere else.
The group can't just say, "Oh that ball is probably in the water." There needs to be reasonable evidence that it is there. There are groups where the statement would mean that and there are groups where it wouldn't. The player should be responisble for making that decision, not the groupa and if he has any integrity he will err on the side of it not being in the water.
I hope this helps your understanding of the rules and why they are the way they are.
-
John: I agree with you that most of the rules have a sound basis or reasoning for their existence but today pace of play is critical and the stroke and distance penalty for a lost ball can be very difficult to deal with. Let's say you are walking and learn that your tee shot is lost although you did not forsee this as a possibility when you teed off so you did not play a provisional. You look for five minutes and cannot find it so you have to walk back to the tee, replay the shot, and then walk to your ball. In the meantime, if you are playing a match there is a good chance that your opponent has not yet played his second shot. This whole exercise can take 20 minutes, and you've fallen at least a hole behind the group in front of you and backed up everyone behind you.
One of the great things about golf is that the rules of golf depend upon the integrity of the players. So players call a penalty on themselves even if no one else saw the infraction. What would be wrong with a rule that stated that in the case of a lost ball, where neither the player nor his playing partners believed that the player's ball could be lost, that the player drop a ball at the spot where he believed that his ball would be located with a penalty of one stroke. So if you pushed your tee shot toward the trees but you thought it would easily be found, and none of your playing partners thought it could be lost and had suggested that you play a provisional ball, and it is not located within five minutes, you would drop a ball within the trees where you believed it would be, take a stroke and play on. I agree that it would not necessarily be as severe as stroke and distance, but it could be when you lose it some deep gorse. If nothing else, in some cases it might encourage players to hit a provisional.
Let me suggest something else. Go back to the incident with Mickelson at Torrey Pines and say the same thing occurred at your club on a weekend morning. You have found your first ball in a horrible lie in the very deep grass and you know that if you try and hit it you'll never get it out of there. You've played a provisional and the ball is in the fairway but you can't play it if you take an unplayable lie. Are you going to tell your buddies in your $5 nassau that you are going to walk back to the tee and play from there and face the wrath of every member behind you? Somehow to me, if your group allows you to play the provisional you are not violating the spirit of the rules. In this particular scenario you are most likely going to make at least a double bogey and I would have no problem with your posting the score.
-
John - I appreciate your description and clarification of the Mickelson situation. Your description makes more sense than my recollection.
Your description provides a strong justification for the current rules from the pespective of fairness. From my point of view, however, I think the practical difficulties in following the rules should sometimes outweigh fairness concerns. Mickelson already hit a provisional ball, requiring him to walk back to the tee is not a problem in a playoff, but it really slows up play if it is on a crowded course. In my view, both the rules and the course design should try and avoid such situations if at all possible.
A similar situation occurs at number 16 at Hazeltine. If one slices a tee shot, because it is blind, it is sometimes impossible to know whether the ball is in the hazard or not. If it is, sometimes the best option is to re-tee and you know that while still on the tee. In that sort of situation, I think you should be able to hit a provisional.
Perhaps as you suggest the best approach is to have a local rule in such situations.
-
John,
Thank you for providing the only explanation that holds up, because the rules for OB and lost ball have been changed in the past. It drives me nuts when people just say that's the rules so just live with it.
The key is what you said about the penalty for OB has to be as severe as for a lost ball. That is logical.
-
Jerry, if it is you and your buddies playing golf together for a $5 nassau I would assume you are playing match play. In which case, just concede the hole, drop a ball and have fun playing out the hole. That is not even considered practice by the USGA. Or if it is a four-ball match, let your partner hold your end for that hole. Just don't come in and tell me how you shot the best score of your life.
There is a well-known story about a guy who was a rules official who went out to play golf with some guys. When they found out he was a rules expert, they said, "Well, we don't play by all the rules, all the time." He said that was ok. On the first hole, he hit his shot into a bunker. He walked in, picked it up and threw it on the green. They other guys started screaming that he couldn't do that. His answer was, "Oh that is one rule that you do play by. Tell me the rest so I know what game we are playing."
As for the amount of time it takes, it is less than you think. The average golfer I've timed can walk 100 yards in a minute. So if I hit my tee shot 250 yards and have to walk back to the tee, it is a 5 minute round trip. If I take a minute to hit the shot (which would have Shivas screaming ;) ) we are talking about 6 minutes more than just dropping a ball, not 20 minutes. If my group was in position with the group in front, we shouldn't be that far back at this point and should be able to catch up quickly. I can assure you that less time is spent on this than on four guys putting on their golf glove for every shot during the round. And since most guys have carts today it would be even less time.
Jason, if the incident with Phil happened on a crowded public course, the player wouldn't have even looked for the ball. Remember Phil didn't want it to be found. But, to make it more relevant, you are right that during the average round of golf on a Saturday on a public course, the person would just go play the provisional. So be it. But if it is a tournament of any type, you have to play by the rules and changing the rule in the way you would suggest would open a huge can of worms.
I haven't been to Hazeltine, but from what I've seen on the tube, it would probably would make sense for the Rule Committee at the club to adopt the local rule.
-
JV:
MANY thanks for post #17 here. I battle constantly with friends over this rule, and they just don't seem to get the principle behind it. I'm gonna laminate you post and give it to them on little cards they can attach to their golf bags. That makes so much sense and explains it so well... thanks again.
TH
ps - side question: wouldn't this (the OB/lost ball stroke and distance rule) be among the most-broken of all rules? SO many people I see just play "everything lateral" outside of formal competitive play... which does make a certain sense on a crowded course... one would be bitch-slapped if he made the long walk back to the tee at Santa Teresa on a non-tourney Saturday, for example....
-
Tom, not even close. Look at how many times a round you have a lost ball vs how many times a round a player can roll his ball over into a better lie, or ask another player who is not his partner what club he used or when playing stroke play picks up his ball a foot from the hole. The violation may be one of the more egregious ones in terms of distance covered etc, but it isn't the most violated.
We all know it happens all the time and we can all understand why it happens. I'd bet that most if not every golfer who does it knows that it isn't the real rule. But, I couldn't see the rule ever changing to allow it.
As I say to people I'm playing with who get worried when they find out that I'm a rules official, "As long as we don't have a bet, you can do anything you want."
-
JV:
VERY good point. How soon I forget the WAY more common rules violations...
And you are oh so right that there are a signficant number of golfers who have no idea what the real rule is re OB/lost ball... they are either never taught, or refuse to believe it. I've actually had several friends tell me I'm wrong when I explain stroke and distance penalty... :'(
In any case, I have heard you utter that line you mention in person... you remain VERY wise. The problem is, once people know about your job, well... those who are interested in the rules, and who ought to know them well but do mess them up too often... like ME... tend to pester you with questions about odd scenarios and other things. Your good humor for such remains very appreciated.
;D
-
Tom,
Don't worry, I have no problem answering rules questions, no matter how off the wall. It is a part of my job.
-
Golf is a serious game played strictly under the rules by a very small minority of golfers. I share Pat Mucci's and Bob Huntley's sentiments, particularly when playing tournaments or betting. At the same time, I see no real harm done by casual golfers taking a few liberties with the rules.
Golf's rules are at times very punitive and archaic. The game is supposed to be fun and played without delay. It is one thing for the tour players and competitive amateurs to know and abide strictly by the rules. It is quite another for the Thursday night hackers' league trying to get around before dark.
How many of us have played in member-guests and club tournaments when any number of the USGA rules were waived? And with the advent of environmetal sensitivity, many courses allow the native vegetation to overtake areas which previously would have been occasionally mown. If these were not played as lateral hazards as they often are, it would take forever to play and most players' scores would go way up. This would not be conducive for golf as a business, nor, in my opinion, for the game.
So, Bob, if I give you a favorable drop or ask you how to play a hole, don't think badly of me or assess some penalty strokes. Ditto if I inadvertantly pick up a putt well in the leather out of habit.
The rules of golf have been effectively bifurcated a long time ago. It is time to do the same with regard to the equipment and, more importantly, the ball. Wasn't it Weir who flew the ball to #10 green at Riviera? Disgusting.
-
It is one thing for the tour players ... to know ... the rules.
If only they did Lou.
An interesting story I recently heard is that when the PGA decided to define all the sandy areas at Whistling Straights as bunkers, one of the starters said that the only player who asked about it or mentioned it was Tiger Woods. He was the only one who read the local rules and wanted to make sure he understood them.
I don't believe the rules are archaic, they have evolved over the years. They are what they are because golf is played over a vast area with all kinds of strange things that can occur. The rules are there to both help and protect us from others. There are times that lines are "drawn in the sand" that might seem arbitrary, but the bodies that create the rules give them a lot of thought.
Since this started out as a thread about OB, I think it is interesting that for may years a ball was considered out of bounds if more than 50% of it was out. Today all of it must be out. I'm sure there were some good arguments about 51% vs 49%.
-
shivas:
OK, gotcha man. Love it, live it, believe it.
Only this: on those days where I don't absolutely follow the rules to the strict letter of such... well... what do I tell my wife I was doing? What do you tell your wife?
;D ;D
-
All these years I thought that I was playing golf. But you, Mr. Schmidt, what game have you been playing? Are the words large and cross-country in the name?
Mr. Huckaby, please take note. As what I've been doing for a long time is something else besides golf, an adjustment to my handicap is in order. Whatever it is, it must be an easier, more liberal version of the game which renders my 5 a vanity handicap. I am now coming out of the closet, admit that I am a 12, and promise to play strictly by all the rules.
So, for purposes of the KPIV, please re-flight me. Also, when I knock a drive into the weeds and I am not sure if it can be found, I will not hit a provisional. Instead, I'll use the five minutes after I get to the general area where my ball may be, look for it in earnest, and declare it lost if the search is not successful. I'll then walk briskly back to the tee and hit my third shot. Upon leaving the tee quickly, I will inform the two foursomes stacked-up waiting impatiently to hit that I am playing golf, a game of gentlemen and rules, and that if they don't like it, they should just f---- off. I am assuming that all other 17 players in our group will come to my rescue.
JohnV,
The way you feel about the rules of golf, their derivation through considerable thought over long periods of time, is how I feel about society's laws, mores, practices, etc. The distilling process of generations should not be taken lightly.
It is a reason why I just nod my head when all these 21 year olds think that they know how things should be, and have no qualms about destroying our most valued institutions. It is amazing just how much we knew when we were young, and how little we realize we actually know when we get old.
Long live the rules of golf and the deliberate, thoughtful, and time consuming process that it takes before they are tampered with. Kudos to those who do it on our behalf, and to people like yourself who educate the rest of us on this most important but rather tedious aspect of the game.
-
Mr. Duran:
I believe we are copacetic about this issue. In fact I have no doubt what we are.
But I do want an answer from shivas to my questions, that's all. He comes up with doozies when challenged, particularly when one asks for creativity (which I am).
;D ;D
-
I think you guys have to step back, take a breath and focus on what the question at hand is: Should there be a change in the stroke and distance penalty which is assessed for a ball out of bounds or a lost ball, and if so, how should it be changed or modified. No other rule changes are on the table and any other rules violations are not the issue. John V has given a very inciteful and historical perspective on the rule but that doesn't mean that we can't consider if changing it would be good or bad for the game. The question is what is the benefit of such a change versus what is the downside of such a change. Don't say if we change this rule then other rules will be changed because they aren't being considered for the purpose of this discussion.
-
Reasonable evidence of a ball being in a hazard would be something like a creek that crosses a fairway and the ball was hit right down the middle. You don't have to see it go in. If you get there and there is no ball it probably went in.
Decision 26-1/1 Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 26/1
The term "reasonable evidence" in Rule 26-1 is purposely and necessarily board so as to permit sensible judgement to be reached on the basis of all relevant circumstances of particular cases. As applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard. The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard. Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost under Rule 27-1. Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of hazards. It would depend on all the circumstances.
There are lawyers who will tell you that preponderance means 51%, but the USGA teachers at Rules Workshops will tell you that they mean 95% or so. In other words, it has to be highly unlikely that it could be anywhere else.
-
Jerry, it does matter because the rules offer a continum of consequences. If the OB rule is eased, other rules would also need to be modified (water hazard and unplayable for example).
Some are arguing that the reason to change the rule is because the pace of play is too slow. I would argue that the PGA has balls lost or hit OB very infrequently and still have an awful pace of play. I would also argue that more time is spent searching for the ball than in going back to hit another ball. In my opinion, pace of play, in and of itself, is not a good reason to make this significant a change. If pace of play is the issue, I would prefer to see the time spent looking for a ball lowered to 2 minutes than see the removal of the need to return to the where the previous shot was played. I would bet that in ordinary play, a lot more time than 5 minutes is spent looking for balls. That is also true in tournaments such as the ones we run, if an official is not there to tell them when time is up.
On average a player who puts his glove on before each full shot spends 6 minutes a round putting on his glove. He would have to lose a ball or two every round just to equal this. Four guys in a group waste 24 minutes with this alone. You can tell this is a pet peeve, but then I don't wear a glove.
-
shivas:
VERY good. I knew I'd get some wisdom from you.
And I should have remembered - you classified it this way before: big G and little g. Makes sense.
BTW, if you believe my wife would ever fall for "I'm gonna be at a meeting," well... she's not at all naive, but more importantly, actually does know me.
;D
TH
-
John: I appreciate your opinion and please understand that I am in no way directing this discussion to you personally. However, pointing to how slow tour players are does not address this issue and you can put on or take off your glove while other players are playing or lining up their shots so it should not hold up play. If you hit your ball off line and it is lost or OB then you are probably the furthest from the hole. This means that while you are searching for your ball the other players would, under most circumstances, either be helping you search or waiting for you to play. When you then go back to the tee and play your shot they are still waiting and they must get out of the way of your shot and could have to wait for you to play your next shot should you still be away. (Just as an aside what would happen if you went back to the teeing ground and your ball hit another member of your group or how about their equipment or how about your bag which you left when you walked back and how about if it appeared that your ball was going to hit your bag and a fellow competitor moved your bag--the questions and the rules could get really complex and I will be the first to admit that I am not sure of the rule.)But getting back to the simple and basic question: If every player who went to Bandon to play the courses decided that they would follow the stroke and distance rule for lost balls, would that increase the average playing time per round, and if so, by how much, and would that be significant enough to consider, and only consider, a change/modification of the rules. I would be very interested in the opinion of the folks at Bandon of how much they believe a strict following of this rule would effect the length of the average round at their courses.
-
Jerry,
Can you edit your post #33. JvdB was "insightful", not 'inciteful' :) :)
-
Peter: I stand corrected.
-
"Today's rule for a Lost Ball is similar to what was originally intended but it too has done the same flip-flop as the OB rule. From 1961 on it firmly became a stroke and distance penalty."
JimK;
They flip-flopped around some in the early 1960s with the penalty and procedure of OB and Lost Ball but henceforth the two will always be the same penalty and procedure for the very simple reason that it's often impossible to tell which it is! so logically they have to be connected the way they are. ;)
-
The rule and penalty that always sort of disturbed me is the penalty for moving your ball during search other than in a hazard. I went round and round with a formal proposal on that with the USGA about a decade ago. In my mind, the rule doesn't exactly follow logically due to the exception they made for moving your ball during search in a hazard.
Believe me I understand why they had to except the penalty for moving your ball during search in a hazard but why in the world they couldn't continue that logic for a ball moved during search other than in a hazard is sort of beyond me---at least if it's just logic we're talking about. Don't get me wrong---I know damn well why they didn't carry the logic through and except the penalty for moving a ball during search other than in a hazard----it's because they were afraid it might open the door to cheating. But of course they wouldn't admit that to me, they wouldn't admit it at all---and they never will!
During the correspondence on my proposal they finally came back and said the reason they couldn't except the penatly for moving a ball during search other than in a hazard, like they did in hazard, was because the player may not know where to replace the ball. So I told them about the same way the player knows where to replace the ball when he moves it during search in a hazard.
I guess that was too logical for them because that was basically the last I heard on it! ;)
-
At Trysting Tree (Corvallis OR) in the NCAA West Regionals the 15th hole has right side trees, thick rough and a river. A player hit right and insisted his ball was in the hazard. He spent most of his time searching the 4-5" rough. We ruled there was not sufficient evidence it was in the hazard. After a biy of grousing he went back and rehit. Walking up the left side of the fairway he found his original, richoceted ball forty yards left and out of sight from the search area.
-
So Peter, is his original ball still in play? or had he not found it in time? And if there was no evidence it went into the hazard he could've hit a provisional ball before exiting the teeing ground?
To answer the original posit:
It's possible to play it the way you want to (not under the rules but as an alternative understood by you or the group). But instead of a one stroke penalty, it should be two. In other words, your hitting 4 wherever you throw it down.
With the maximum stroke allowed for your respective handicap, there should be no affect, so it may not be stricly kosher, it ain't no mortal sin.
-
USGA Specimen Local Rule on provisional ball that may be in a hazard:
b. Provisional Ball
Permitting play of a provisional ball under Rule 26-1 for a ball that may be in a water hazard of such character that if the original ball is not found, there is reasonable evidence that it is lost in the water hazard and it would be impracticable to determine whether the ball is in the hazard or to do so would unduly delay play. The ball is played provisionally under any of the available options under Rule 26-1 or any applicable Local Rule. In such a case, if provisional ball is played and the original ball is in a water hazard, the player may play the original ball as it lies or continue with the provisional ball in play, but he may not proceed under Rule 26-1 with regard to the original ball.
-
So Peter, is his original ball still in play? or had he not found it in time? And if there was no evidence it went into the hazard he could've hit a provisional ball before exiting the teeing ground?
Adam, the original ball is lost as soon as you make a stroke at a substituted ball. He probably felt it was in the hazard and so didn't hit a provisional.
-
Tom, that one always got me also. I never felt it was fair, especially since when the grass is so long that the only way you'll find it is to step on it. But, I guess it forces the player to be a little more careful about how he searches and doesn't just go thrashing into the bushes tearing up everything and potentially improving his lie in the process.
-
Sean, the rule is identical (as are all rules in the rule book these days). The Decision that I quoted is also identical.
I guess it is similar to ruling on the guilt of a person. It is a question of fact(s) whether they committed the crime but it only has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the US.
Reasonable evidence does leave some wriggle room, but as I said, you still have to be damn sure (95-98%) that it is in the hazard.
Blind hazards are a problem. If they have high grass or bushes around them you really can't assume it is in the water hazard.
It is for reasons like this that I dislike them. When I'm marking a golf course, I will expand the water hazard to include the long grass to eliminate the problem if it won't materially change the course too much.
-
Jerry, I agree that looking for a ball takes time, as does going back to the tee to hit another one. But it also happens a lot less frequently than a lot of other things that add up to much more time in a round of golf.
The glove thing is a silly example, but one that shows how a small thing can add up to a lot of time. From what I've seen most golfers don't put their glove on until it is their turn to hit, not while another player is hitting.
As for Bandon, anyone can see where the trouble is and should be smart enough to play a provisional. If they do, the time wouldn't be appreciably longer than the time spent searching.
As for the second ball hitting someone or something, it depends on who. If it is a stroke play event and it is a fellow competitor, there is no penalty and the ball is played as it lies since a fellow competitor is an outside agency. If it is your partner or caddie, it is a two stroke penalty in stroke play or loss of hole in match play (or in a partner event, you are out of the hole, but your partner can continue). If it is your opponent in match play you can either play the ball as it lies or replay the shot, your choice. All those apply to equipment also. See Rule 19 for all of that.
If your ball is about to hit your bag or someone elses and it is moved there is no penalty. Rule 25 allows equipment to be moved while a ball is in motion.
-
"Tom, that one always got me also. I never felt it was fair, especially since when the grass is so long that the only way you'll find it is to step on it. But, I guess it forces the player to be a little more careful about how he searches and doesn't just go thrashing into the bushes tearing up everything and potentially improving his lie in the process."
JohnV:
I never really looked at it as not fair, just not at all logical.
More than anything it's a good example of how rules evolve. There's no less reason to think someone won't thrash around in a hazard probing for his ball than "through the green". I actually know the man who says the exception of penalty for moving a ball during search within a hazard was done for an incident involving him. It was Skee Riegal.
Previously, being a penalty to even touch the ground in a hazard at all it was possible obviously for a player to become virtually trapped if he knew, for instance, his ball had gone into the sand in a bunker but he couldn't see it and couldn't touch the ground in the hazard. That essentially was the situation with Riegal, I think, in the Masters, precipitating a change in the rule.
And so they made the exception that you could probe for your ball in a hazard and if you moved it there was no penalty and you simply acted on the procedure under that exception.
I told the USGA Rules committee that the same was true "through the green" and frankly it wasn't logical that a player effectively was given a lighter penalty and procedure in a place that was logically more inherently penal (hazard) than "through the green" is intended to be.
They certainly understood that but they just kept reiterating that the only reason to create the exception in a hazard in the first place was because a golfer couldn't touch the ground in a hazard as he certainly can do "through the green".
But they didn't go for that so I tried to convince them using a rationale that generally does get their attention----eg speed of play.
I pointed out that the sensible golfer using his head "through the green" can and generally is extremely diiberate searching for his ball basically creating a waste of time and slow play--and that furthermore being that dilberate in searching "through the green" often precipitates a lost ball as the five minute time period runs out forcing him to return to the tee for stroke and distance really taking time!
The two incidents of Norman basically not searching for his ball behind ANGC's #12 is such an example and a better one was Watson and Bruce Edwards heard on tape mentioning that they would just take their sweet time getting to the area Watson's ball was in at the British Open so as not to start the five minute clock as spectators and others went thrashing around looking for the ball before they got there.
The speed of play argument almost got their attention to consider following through on the logic but not quite. In the end I just said to Butz that it was really opening up the whole situation of cheating that really stopped them and I think he said that was part of it but that wasn't or couldn't be the reason they gave as basically they don't actually mention the prospect of cheating within the Rules book.
-
Tom, by fair I really did mean logical in regards to the fact that there is no penalty in the hazard so why should there be one outside.
The one thing I didn't understand at first about that was the if you move the ball while searching in the hazard, it must be directly attributable to the search to avoid a penalty. In other words, if you are digging in the sand and move the ball, not penalty. If you kick it while you are digging, there is a penalty. When I first got into the rules I thought you were always absolved from penalty if you moved the ball in a hazard while searching.
The way the rule works today, you are better off declaring your ball unplayable before searching for it outside a hazard so that you won't be penalized for moving it. Retief Goosen did that before sending his caddie up the tree at La Costa last month. He knew there was no way he could have played it, but he had to find it to use the second or third options of the unplayable ball rule and he didn't want a penalty for moving it if it fell out of the tree.
Certainly, if there are plenty of others looking for your ball as you walk up the fairway it makes sense to walk slowly ala Watson.
To me, the concern is that if a player can go willy-nilly through the brush looking for his ball, he will end up improving his lie as he rips grass aside or tramples down areas in his rush to find his ball. I guess I'd rather have a player get one for moving his ball than 2 for improving his lie.
-
Mark Brown,
When the rules are broken at leisure, the game ceases to be golf.
Amend one rule for convenience and soon the domino principle will affect them all.
There's a good reason why the rule have formed and evolved over these many centuries.
Pat,
Thank you for your succint reply. Why is it that the rules are so hard to follow? They are there, live with them.
Bob and Pat:
Well said. While the rules can be complicated at times the rules of golf are very fair and should be followed to the letter.
Fairways and Greens,
Dave
-
JohnV:
Good point about the "directly attributable" to a search you mentioned. All I'm saying is at the very least the two----"hazards" and "Through the green" should be connected as to their penalies and procedures. It simply follows logic better instead of just completely stopping at the very thing that created the exception in the first place--eg hazards. It's really just a matter of failing to carry a logic through in a broad "like situations shall be treated alike" sense which as you know is a large part of the rules of golf's "equity" philosophy.
-
Asking why certain rules are the way they are is fine, but it's kindof silly when you think about it.
Why is a basketball hoop 10 feet? Why is the court 94? Why is it 3 seconds in the lane and not 2 or 4?
Why is the infield fly rule around? Why allow the double switch? Why 4 balls to get a walk? Why not 3 to make the pitchers pitch?
Why just 5 yards for a cornerback to make contact? Why not 10 or 4? Why is a field goal 3 points and not 4?
Why do you have to win by two points in tennis? Why allow two serves? Why not just one -- so the return actually has a chance and the serving player doesn't win practically every game?
It goes on and on.....but in the end, the rules are the rules. You have to know them, and abide by them. Otherwise, you ain't playing golf. There's nothing wrong with that, but you just need to know what when you think you shot 77, and you lost a ball and didn't go back to the tee or you took a few putts or you asked your buddy what club he hit on the par 3 before you played -- you didn't play golf. You played something close. But you didn't play golf.
This isn't entirely true, at least not in spirit. The idea of teeing up a ball and hitting it into a hole far away may be completely arbitrary, similar to your examples of other sports, but the vast majority of rules are derived from experience and logic. Ask any of our rules officials on board about a ruling and they don't usually just say what to do, they explain the logic behind the rule. It's not nearly as arbitrary as many rules for other sports.
-
"Asking why certain rules are the way they are is fine, but it's kindof silly when you think about it."
Shivas:
That is most definitely not the case when it comes to the rules of golf. Richard Tufts litte 100 page "Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" is one of the best things anyone interested in the rules of golf could ever read---even those really well versed on "on-course" officiating. It's also the USGA's little logic bible if they feel the need to explain why something within the ruled of golf is the way it is. I think the Joint USGA/R&A Rules Committee who all know the rules of golf particularly well would do well to read this book from time to time simply so they might better stick the real principles behind various rules instead of getting into what one might refer to as "rule creep" when they hold their annual meeting to interpret and write the rules of golf.
-
George, In some ways you are right, but some things in the rules are arbitrary.
For example, why are relief distances measured in club lengths rather than inches? It would be easy to say 36 inches and 72 inches instead of one and two club lengths. We could all get a band of tape on our clubs that was 36 inches from the end and measure that way.
Certainly tradition plays a big part in the sport and things like measuring in club lengths came about because of that, but they are still arbitrary.
Obviously why is the hole 4 1/4 inches in diameter? Gene Sarazen, among others, proposed a 6 inch hole at one time. Why is the ball the size and weight it is? Wouldn't it be easier for all of us math impared folks to make the ball 2 inches and 2 ounces and the hole 6 inches?
Other things such as why the slope of a course of average difficulty is 113 is rooted in mathmatical concepts that I've only just begun to understand and probably can't explain.