[David_Elvins]

"Any ball that cannot be played from its current position may be replaced by a ball dropped underneath any position of the observed flight path of the previous stroke under penalty of one stroke. The ball may not be dropped on the putting green."


If I understand this correctly, under this rule while playing the 17th at Sawgrass with the pin at the back of the green, I could deliberately air mail the green then drop a ball on the back fringe and have an easy chip for par.  Similarly if the pin was up front, except I choose to drop on the front fringe.  

If that is what is meant, clearly this is not a good solution.  

Am I missing something?  

Eric,

When a regular golfer takes 66 shots to complete the 17th at Sawgrass, I think it is fair to say that it doesn't work under the existing rules anyway.  

Having said that, I think the rule as written is flawed for balls lost over the green.  I am sure an elegant solution could be found though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The "underneath any position of the observed flight path" is too indeterminable, too open to debate and too prone to abuse, and it gives the golfer a clear advantage over the golfer whose ball has entered a hazard.

Here I thought that integrity, honor, sportsmanship, and self-policing are important attributes of our game.  And if these are not enough, our playing partners and fellow competitors should help in keeping things on the up and up.  

I don't get the "clear advantage" gained by virtue of the color of the boundary stakes.  I vote with Beene on this one.

Lou,

Like Beene, you're misguided

The advantage is that the golfer would be allowed to drop his ball ANYWHERE along the flight pattern of his ball, giving him an enormous advantage over a golfer who had to drop his ball under 26-1 a, b or c.

[Jim Nugent]

If I understand this correctly, under this rule while playing the 17th at Sawgrass with the pin at the back of the green, I could deliberately air mail the green then drop a ball on the back fringe and have an easy chip for par.  Similarly if the pin was up front, except I choose to drop on the front fringe. 

If that is what is meant, clearly this is not a good solution. 

Am I missing something? 

You would have to chip in to make par.  And why would you deliberately air mail the green?  Your incentive still is to hit the green: that leaves you with a birdie putt.  

As for a front pin, how does the Elvin rule handle balls that come up short?  Seems like as written, the golfer would still have to hit over the water, at least until his shot carried over or touched the island.  

You are right that in many cases (most?) the Elvins rule would totally transform #17 at Sawgrass, removing a great deal of the terror.  

Does the player determine if the ball can't be played?  e.g. say you're in a bunker that looks nearly impossible to get out of.  Even the pros sometimes face that.  Can you take a drop outside the bunker, so long as you're along the ball's flight path?  

[mike_beene]

Misguided I may be but the question is not am I misguided on this interesting lost ball suggestion, but am I misguided in my desire to make those white stakes a beautiful red? Is my desire to never again hit a third provisional ball misguided? Standing on Golf House Road has brought the issue back to the forefront of my golf nightmares.

[Eric_Terhorst]

why would you deliberately air mail the green?  Your incentive still is to hit the green: that leaves you with a birdie putt.  
/quote]
Attempting to hit the green, I might hit it in the front bunker, THEN hit it in the water. I might hit the green and 4-putt. On the other hand, sailing one right over the back pin is easy and I could drop the ball in position for an easy up and down, and card 4 at worst.  Easy decision for a guy in the last group on Sunday who's protecting a lead.  Anyway the whole discussion is silly.  Might as well bring back the stymie while we're at it.

[Ken Moum]

The advantage is that the golfer would be allowed to drop his ball ANYWHERE along the flight pattern of his ball, giving him an enormous advantage over a golfer who had to drop his ball under 26-1 a, b or c. [/size][/color]

Well, since his original post on the matter would use this rule for ALL situations where you couldn't play the ball, INCLUDING water hazards...  Rule 26 would be unnecessary.

So, no advantage gained.

[David_Elvins]

The advantage is that the golfer would be allowed to drop his ball ANYWHERE along the flight pattern of his ball, giving him an enormous advantage over a golfer who had to drop his ball under 26-1 a, b or c.

Patrick,  as rule 26 would be replaced, the advantage would only be historical, as competitors would play the same rule, much like how graphite shafts give the player an advantage over those that played hickory shafts in the past, but not their competitors who also played graphite shafts.  

I would imagine in most cases involving a lateral water hazard most players would proceed similarly to 26-1(c) anyway, so the advantage would be slight.  

No doubt it would make the game easier but I fail to see how that is a bad thing.  At the moment clubs everywhere bend the rules to  eliminate the stroke and distance penalty and make the game easier.  They mark areas of dense scrub as "water hazards", they suggest playing an "Irish Drop" for balls lost in thick native rough, and they provide drop zones around water hazards.  

Simplifying the rules is not a bad thing.  Nor is standardising them.  Why should a ball lost in a water hazard be treated so differently to a ball lost in a bush or a ball lost out of bounds?  There is no logical reason for not dealing with them under the one rule...

And there is a very logical reason for eliminating the stroke and distance penalty - it slows the game down.  Hitting provisional shots is slow, walking back to the tee is slow. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Historically there is precedent for a distance only penalty or a stroke only penalty.  Certainly the stroke and distance for OOB doesn't appear to have been cast in stone.  Following is a brief summary of the history from http://www.ruleshistory.com/lost.html

_________________________________________________________________________________

Out of Bounds
The term out of bounds was first defined in 1899 as being outside the recognised boundaries of the course. Penalty distance only.

1908 Redefined as all ground on which play is prohibited. Penalty distance only still, but may be changed to stroke and distance by local rule for both forms of play. Also, a ball out of bounds may be treated as lost by local rule, (i.e. lost hole in match play). This change was not adopted by the USGA until 1915, although the local rule adjustment was not incorporated.

1920 Stroke and distance, but now the penalty stroke may be remitted by local rule.

1947 USGA and 1950 R&A. Distance only, and no provision for change by a local rule.

1952 Stroke and distance.

1960 USGA experimentally changed to distance only.

1961 USGA back to stroke and distance. in addition, the USGA allowed an alternative procedure of stroke only - dropping a ball within two club lengths of where the ball went out of bounds on courses where the penalty of stroke and distance would be "unduly severe".

1964 USGA allowed a local rule to be adopted which allowed a stroke-only option if it was felt that stroke and distance would be "'unduly severe."
The player could drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the original ball crossed the out of bounds line. Reasonable evidence was required both that the ball had gone out of bounds and as to the point of crossing. In the absence of either, stroke and distance was the only option.
Rescinded in 1968.

From the introduction of out of bounds, a ball was out of bounds when the greater part of it lay out of bounds. From 1950, all the ball has to be out.

When out of bounds is defined by a line, the line was in bounds until 1954.

__________________________________________________________________________________

[David_Elvins]

the Elvins rule would totally transform #17 at Sawgrass, removing a great deal of the terror.  

I wouldn't care id the 17th a Sawgrass became easier, it is after all a bit of a novelty hole that is very very difficult for some players to complete under the rules of golf anyway. 

But I do think there is a general issue with balls that pass the pin.  eg. 10 at Royal Melbourne West has a steep slope behind the green with rough and dense scrub at the base.  It is possible to hack the ball out of the scrub on occasions but it wouldbe completely ridiculous to declare your ball lost and then drop up near the green with a stroke penalty.  I think the player should be encouraged to play the ball as it lies at every opportunity. 

[Mike Sweeney]

The advantage is that the golfer would be allowed to drop his ball ANYWHERE along the flight pattern of his ball, giving him an enormous advantage over a golfer who had to drop his ball under 26-1 a, b or c.

Patrick,  as rule 26 would be replaced, the advantage would only be historical, as competitors would play the same rule, much like how graphite shafts give the player an advantage over those that played hickory shafts in the past, but not their competitors who also played graphite shafts.  

David,

It would be similar to the shot clock in basketball (which golf could use too). When the NBA put in the shot clock, it was to increase scoring especially at the end of a game. Obviously all the historical scoring patterns were changed. Eventually college basketball followed.

I think the changes in scoring records would be marginal in golf. How many penalty strokes do tournament winners typically have on their card? Not too many.

[David_Elvins]

I think the changes in scoring records would be marginal in golf. How many penalty strokes do tournament winners typically have on their card? Not too many.

I think you are right.  The effect on scoring would be minor compared to the effect of equipment changes, course lengthening, and changes in green stimpmeter readings. 

[Carl Johnson]

I would prefer it as a lateral too.... I think it would speed up play and might even create more aggressive players off the tee.

You're better off whiffing. The penalty for missing the ball completely on a swing is only one stroke but a very well struck ball ends up being two.

Matthew - my take on this is that a ball that goes out of bounds is, by definition, not well struck.  It may be powerfully struck, or it may just be shanked, but if it ends up out of bounds, I would not call it well struck.  Just my opinion.

[Lou_Duran]

I would prefer it as a lateral too.... I think it would speed up play and might even create more aggressive players off the tee.

You're better off whiffing. The penalty for missing the ball completely on a swing is only one stroke but a very well struck ball ends up being two.

Matthew - my take on this is that a ball that goes out of bounds is, by definition, not well struck.  It may be powerfully struck, or it may just be shanked, but if it ends up out of bounds, I would not call it well struck.  Just my opinion.

A couple of us at the Pine Dunes outing this past Saturday reminisced about our first gathering at Whispering Pines where Mike Nuzzo hit a very impressive drive off the 10th tee.  It was memorable not only because it was long, straight, and on a beautiful trajectory, but that it was off by some 100 yards to the left of the landing area.  Had it been Merion's 15th, the ball might have landed well into someone's backyard over Golfhouse Rd.  Fortunately, WP, like Texas, being very big, we found Mike's ball and he got it up on or around the green.

Pat Mucci- You might be right.  I am probably misguided.   But given that the Rules of Golf are like the U.S. Constitution today, a "living" document to provide guidance but not to compel the few "good, smart" people who lead us, the treatment of the OB is archaic, not in keeping with our needs today, and should be relaxed.  Golf is too hard as it is and too many nice folks are discouraged by the game.  In the spirit of fairness, simplicity, fast play, inclusiveness, and getting free stuff, what a great gift to golfers everywhere if the USGA and the R&A would just mellow this harsh, rule.

Mike Beene- you might have made a stronger case if you noted that in many cases- e.g. the within the course OB at Lakewood #17- the definition/type of boundary is capricious and arbitrary.  Why are some really nasty areas lined with red paint and played as a lateral, while others are yellow, and some are unmarked at all?

[Garland Bayley]

IFar a ball hit it -out-of-bounds, you are advocating a one stroke penalty and a drop within two-club lengths of where it went out of bounds.

What are you suggesting be done for a ball that is lost in bounds?

Cinch up your belt, hit a provisional and get on with it.

Most players simply drop a ball in the region where they think the lost ball is and add 1. It is only the minority of players that keep an official handicap that tend to follow the letter of the law on this one. And, then a lot of them who keep vanity handicaps don't follow the letter of the law either.

As I am directionally and straightly challenged, I lose lots of balls in lateral water hazards (ponds). There I am allowed to drop where I believe the ball sliced across the body of water and add one. How is that any different than simply going to the vicinity of the place that I believe I lost the ball, which is not in a hazard, and dropping one. Why should I be treated more harshly because the course can't afford to bale their hay in a timely fashion. Is this supposed to be golf, or an eyesight test?

I guess it should be quite clear why I usually avoid places like Monarch Ponds in Nipomo.

[Sean Leary]

IFar a ball hit it -out-of-bounds, you are advocating a one stroke penalty and a drop within two-club lengths of where it went out of bounds.

What are you suggesting be done for a ball that is lost in bounds?

Cinch up your belt, hit a provisional and get on with it.

Most players simply drop a ball in the region where they think the lost ball is and add 1. It is only the minority of players that keep an official handicap that tend to follow the letter of the law on this one. And, then a lot of them who keep vanity handicaps don't follow the letter of the law either.

As I am directionally and straightly challenged, I lose lots of balls in lateral water hazards (ponds). There I am allowed to drop where I believe the ball sliced across the body of water and add one. How is that any different than simply going to the vicinity of the place that I believe I lost the ball, which is not in a hazard, and dropping one. Why should I be treated more harshly because the course can't afford to bale their hay in a timely fashion. Is this supposed to be golf, or an eyesight test?

I guess it should be quite clear why I usually avoid places like Monarch Ponds in Nipomo.

GB,

Don't sell yourself short. You are challenged way more than just directionally and straightly.............

[Garland Bayley]

IFar a ball hit it -out-of-bounds, you are advocating a one stroke penalty and a drop within two-club lengths of where it went out of bounds.

What are you suggesting be done for a ball that is lost in bounds?

Cinch up your belt, hit a provisional and get on with it.

Most players simply drop a ball in the region where they think the lost ball is and add 1. It is only the minority of players that keep an official handicap that tend to follow the letter of the law on this one. And, then a lot of them who keep vanity handicaps don't follow the letter of the law either.

As I am directionally and straightly challenged, I lose lots of balls in lateral water hazards (ponds). There I am allowed to drop where I believe the ball sliced across the body of water and add one. How is that any different than simply going to the vicinity of the place that I believe I lost the ball, which is not in a hazard, and dropping one. Why should I be treated more harshly because the course can't afford to bale their hay in a timely fashion. Is this supposed to be golf, or an eyesight test?

I guess it should be quite clear why I usually avoid places like Monarch Ponds in Nipomo.

GB,

Don't sell yourself short. You are challenged way more than just directionally and straightly.............

I are a engineer. I are challenged socially and literally.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()