An Argument for Modifications to Rules 26 and 27.

[TEPaul]

"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."


Dan:

It's actually much simpler than that. A man like Tufts really was something of a purist about the Rules of Golf (as I'm quite sure you are) and he believed essentially that one shot simply followed the next and that golf should not really involve much of a matter of "choice" (that he called "negotiation").

Like you he felt the opportunities for a player to put his hands on a golf ball "in play" should always be minimized (which in fact the more numerous "relief" Rules and opportunities have served to maximize in modern golf since Tufts' time). It seems he was not even a fan of the "Provisional Ball" which was to be refined and much more generally accepted after he published his book, "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf."

[TEPaul]

"In the bisque thread you said it's good to make oneself look stupid;"


Jason:

Yes, I think so. I've learned that lesson well over my life and times, particularly from some of my southern brethren who make hay and opportunities from the impression (cleverly promoted of course) that they are dumb (or at least cleverly promoted compared to how many northerners have promoted the impression of themselves over the years as being smart). Some of those southerners I've known are dumb alright----like dumb as a fox!  

[Kyle Harris]

I miraculously acquire onmiscient powers

Grow up.

And I never said anything about unplayable situations through the green, within hazards or water hazards.

[Ian_L]

Kyle, the problem Dave is trying to make is that it produces inconsistencies.  If a lost ball can be re-teed without penalty, more golfers will be hitting unnecessary provisionals just in case they hit a great shot.  Since they are only losing one stroke, the great shot will often outweigh the disadvantage of one lost stroke.  If they hit it well, they can just declare the first ball lost right away.

So I would say the main issue is the fact that it encourages abuse of the lost ball rule.  It would also be strange for a water hazard to dole out a worse penalty than OB.

My suggestion would be to eliminate the distance penalty, but keep the stroke penalty.  The problem there, though, is that you can't just guess where the ball was lost, so a lost ball would need the stroke & distance penalty. It could be hard to determine whether a ball is lost (stroke & distance) or OB (stroke penalty).

[Kyle Harris]

Ian and David.

I am not speaking of an instance of a lost ball. Never have been. Please read my first post.

[Ian_L]

Kyle, sorry for the confusion.  But, it is often difficult to determine whether a ball is actually OB or simply lost.  What would you propose in this situation? And don't you think it would be strange to have a more strict penalty on a lost ball?

It's also often very difficult to determine whether a ball crossed the into a lateral or water hazard, as many ponds/creeks are both depending on where your ball goes in.

[JohnV]

Kyle,

Since you are saying that you aren't including the lost ball in your proposed rule change, please try to explain why a ball which is lost somewhere on the golf course should be treated more severely than one which is hit off the golf course.   I also assume it would have to be "known or virtually certain" that the ball went OB before the player could go back without penalty.  Since most golfers tend to always assume that they have that kind of evidence for a ball in a water hazard, they would also do so for a ball that couldn't be found anywhere near an OB.

At the time that the change was attempted in the past by the R&A, the unplayable ball could also be played under a distance only penalty.  As I understand it, a player on the Postage Stamp buried his ball under the lip of a bunker.  He chose to take an unplayable and return to the tee.  He hit it stiff and made a 3.  If he had tried to play it or dropped with a stroke penalty in the bunker, there is almost no way he makes 3 (short of holing a bunker shot).  The Rules Makers felt this was making things too easy.

[TEPaul]

"But, it is often difficult to determine whether a ball is actually OB or simply lost.  What would you propose in this situation?"


Kyle:

This is PART of the reasoning of Richard Tufts' working Rules "Principle"------eg  "Like situations shall be treated alike."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kyle,
It's time to take your ball (lost,OB,in the hazard) and go home. 

If you are to be reasonable about it there is no getting around the inconsistencies that have been pointed out, unless you added a couple of more rules to the book. No one wants that, right?

It was a valiant effort.

[TEPaul]

Dave and Ian:

I know precisely what Kyle is trying to say here with OB. The only problem is it is sometimes a bit hard to at first imagine how some of these Rules are sort of inextricably connected in various circumstances and THAT is the very reason WHY a Richard Tufts came up with his Rules "principle" that (some) situations must be grouped together into the "principle" he articulated as "Like Situations Shall be Treated Alike."

Obviously you two have indentified one of the most obvious examples----eg sometimes it is impossible to know if a ball is "Lost" (in play) or OB (not in play).

[Kyle Harris]

Again,

It's becoming hard to respond to any sort of post on this thread when the posts have no bearing on what I'm saying. I'm talking about balls exclusively OB and in a Lateral Water Hazard.

I am not talking about anything unplayable or lost.

So yes, one would have to determine conclusively that the ball is indeed within the Lateral Hazard or OB.

How about we throw in the green-tipped Environmental Areas? Those are probably the most broken concept in golf today...

John Vander Borght, 

The only way I can answer this right now is to say I see a big difference in an unplayable or lost ball through the green and unplayable in a lateral water hazard. One was lost or declared unplayable in an area of the golf course where the ball is "meant" to be and the other is in a hazard under extenuating circumstances where the rules dictate more to the player.

Shivas,

I don't think "strategy" would change so much as "tactics." I still don't see why anyone would "want" to be within a hazard or OB, thus changing the strategy. What I do see, as well as you, is that the implementation of the options would change - the tactics.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Again,
It's becoming hard to respond to any sort of post on this thread when the posts have no bearing on what I'm saying. I'm talking about balls exclusively OB and in a Lateral Water Hazard.

I am not talking about anything unplayable or lost.

This is where you lose it, by not accepting the fact that there are too many times when there is no way to tell how the ball has ended up and that's why the rule is what it is.

It works well, is simple to apply, and doesn't involve creating several more rules to cover the other situations.

[TEPaul]

"Actually, I'd suggest a new chapter for Tuft's book entitled "If you want a do-over in golf, it's gonna cost you, pal!"


Shivas:

He does have that principle in his book but it's not worded that colloquially.

It's reflected in his "working principle"----eg "The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation."

As Kyle pointed out the word "violation" may not be the appropriate one to reflect this kind of thing. "Circumstance" may be a more appropriate word.

[TEPaul]

"This is where you lose it, by not accepting the fact that there are too many times when there is no way to tell how the ball has ended up and that's why the rule is what it is."


Kyle:

Do you appreciate the importance of what Jim Kennedy said there and both how and why it can become dangerous to tamper with the "principle" of "Like Situations Shall be Treated Alike?"

Here's the way Tufts articulated it (since he came up with this "principle" ("Like situations shall be treated alike") I believe):

"There are four similar situations in golf in which the ball is removed from play. These are: when a ball is lost, when it goes out of bounds, when it is unplayable in a water hazard and when it is declared unplayable by the player. It is possible that all four and probable that at least three of these situations can often occur in close proximity with one another. Therefore, under the principle that like situations shall be treated alike, it would seem wholly logical to apply the same rule to all four situations. In fact, from the standpoint of equity it is almost impossible to defend any other treatment of these four analogous situation."

[Andy Hughes]

To go back to Kyle's example, does anyone actually try to hit it between the Principal's Nose and the OB wall to the right, or do all consider it (as I do) far too dear a price to pay vs. the potential payoff?  I imagine there is a lot of virgin divot-less turf over there to the right.  So while we can all go on about what a brilliant strategic hole it is, and what a terrific hazard the PN is, Kyle is likely right in saying the penalty is too expensive to tempt one to take it on.

[BCrosby]

Kyle, the problem becomes "why do you get better result from pumping a ball 30 yards OB than a guy who hits a decent shot that simply cannot be found"?  and "why does the guy who hits it in a non-lateral water hazard get a better result than a guy who hits his ball into a tree and it never comes down?"  ...that sort of thing. 

Exactly so. And with a slight tweak in vocabulary those are also some of the key issues that arise in "equitable" vs. "strategic" architecture debates that go on today and date back a century or so.

Basic architectural issues and rules issues are joined at the hip. Something understood better during the Golden Age than today. It was no accident that at various times John Low, Stuart Paton, Harry Colt, Croome and other architects served on or chaired the R&A Rules Committee. On this side of the Atlantic, Behr, CBM, Travis and other architects were knee deep in rules issues and controversies.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Basic architectural issues and rules issues are joined at the hip. Something understood better during the Golden Age than today. It was no accident that at various times John Low, Stuart Paton, Harry Colt, Croome and other architects served on or chaired the R&A Rules Committee. On this side of the Atlantic, Behr, CBM, Travis and other architects were knee deep in rules issues and controversies."



Bob:

True indeed; particularly the sort of so-called philosophical issues of rules and architecture.

There is a good section in Kenneth Chapman's book on the history of the Rules of Golf of the dynamic back then in the context of Rules thinking between what is called the "Conservative Party" and the "Party of Equity."

Chapman's book includes this from Low:

"During the past five and twenty years, men have been looking at the rules of the game from two very distinct points of view. We may style the opposing forces as the Conservative Party and the Party of Equity. The doctrine of the Conservative Party is easily understood; it lies round one fundamental principle: it makes golf a game of two sides and two balls and demands that every ball shall be played from the place where it lies. The Party of Equity holds that golf should be ruled by laws which mete out to each offense an absolutely just and properly proportioned punishment: it cannot bear that a man suffer unjustly or that the wicked appear to prosper while the slightly erring are discomfited. The Conservative Party holds that golf is a game of risks and hazards, a game in which a man distinguishes himself by his steady progress around a course, a progress which should not be needlessly interrupted,"


I don't really know how much Joshua Crane thought about and wrote about the Rules of Golf but if he did he would probably very much be in the camp of the Party of Equity with the Rules as he was with golf architecture, at least philosophically!

Richard Tufts and his book, "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" even if a good half century later appears to be philosophically much more in the camp of the Conservative Party.

It would be most interesting for those on this website today to seriously consider which camp they are in philosophically, while understanding that the Party of Equity appears to have pretty generally won the struggle in both the Rules and in architecture over the last 80 to 90 years! 

The only man on here who I am completely sure is very much in the camp of the Conservative Party in a Rules context is Dan King, and God love him for his position.

Why did the Party of Equity win the day? My answer would be that some attempt to create more rather than less equity (or what anyone thinks "equity" really means) in pretty near everything we do just seems to be some everlasting goal of human nature. 

[Dave_Miller]

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?

Kyle
Not really sure I understand what you are proposing here in regards to Rule 26.
In Rule 26 for lateral water hazards you have the option of dropping within two club lengths where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard no nearer the hole.  This is generally not a stroke and distance penalty but pretty much just a stroke.
Also another of the underlying principles is that you never get a ball out of a hazard or onto a putting green without incurring a stroke.
What am I missing.
Best
Dave

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
The only man on here who I am completely sure is very much in the camp of the Conservative Party in a Rules context is Dan King, and God love him for his position.

Amen Brother.

Which is a little bizarre, because in most other areas of life I am what might be considered a flamin' liberal.

Why did the Party of Equity win the day? My answer would be that some attempt to create more rather than less equity (or what anyone thinks "equity" really means) in pretty near everything we do just seems to be some everlasting goal of human nature.

It was exactly what CBM warned us about, the Americanization of the Scottish game. The Scots were happy that golf was a game only suited to a few. America had to grow the game, make the game interesting for the largest number of people. And just like any art form that tries to appeal to large numbers, the game was ruined.

Truly it is a pity.

Cheers,
Dan King

So many people preach equity in golf. Nothing is so foreign to the truth. Does any human being receive what he conceives as equity in his life? He has got to take the bitter with the sweet, and as he forges through all the intricacies and inequalities which life presents, he proves his metal. In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice. Equity has nothing to do with the game itself. If founded on eternal justice the game would be deadly dull to watch and play.
 --Charles Blair Macdonald

[BCrosby]

TEP -

I've always thought that the two Californians Dan King and Max Behr (another rules "conservative") would be ideal dinner guests. Include Bob Huntley, fly in John Low from Woking, and I'll gladly pick up the tab.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

To go back to Kyle's example, does anyone actually try to hit it between the Principal's Nose and the OB wall to the right, or do all consider it (as I do) far too dear a price to pay vs. the potential payoff?  I imagine there is a lot of virgin divot-less turf over there to the right.  So while we can all go on about what a brilliant strategic hole it is, and what a terrific hazard the PN is, Kyle is likely right in saying the penalty is too expensive to tempt one to take it on.

Jack Nicklaus called the line between the PN and OB "strictly for amateurs."  A few years ago I saw Geroge Zahringer hit it (successfully) on that line, so Jack's principle must include +3 handicap amateurs.....

[TEPaul]

"It was exactly what CBM warned us about, the Americanization of the Scottish game. The Scots were happy that golf was a game only suited to a few. America had to grow the game, make the game interesting for the largest number of people. And just like any art form that tries to appeal to large numbers, the game was ruined."


Dan:

I have no doubt how Macdonald felt about the way the Rules of Golf should be but I'm just as interested in the American's general philosophy on the Rules and the way Macdonald dealt with it over time (I believe he was part of the USGA Rules Committee (and for a time the R&A Rules Committee) for a very long time). He obviously did not agree with the Americans basic philosophy of the Party of Equity but Macdonald sure did deal with it in an ongoing compromise effort simply to insure what was most important of all to him----eg that there should always be unity between the R&A Rules and the USGA Rules. The very last thing Macdonald ever wanted to see happen is for the Americans to come up with their own separate Rules of Golf. I think he also did a lot to keep the Western Golf Association from bolting on the Rules and otherwise.

[mike_beene]

Maybe I am coming around: Hogan did go left of the bunkers on 6 at Carnoustie all 4 days,didn't he?OB was stroke and distance? He really had left out of play because that is a no room for error play.