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%.

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.

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.        

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.

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.

Peter: I stand corrected.

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!    

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 17, 2005, 09:34:32 PM

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