Make Golf Easier with One Adjustment or Rule Change

[threshold350]

But how could you possibly do this? How can you decide where to drop the new ball if you don't know where the first one is? What do you use for a reference point for determining your dropping area? The only thing you can do is play again from the previous spot, because that was the last place where you actually knew the location of the ball.





Because it is impossible to define air as OB. Where are the boundaries? To be out of bounds, the ball must come to rest out of bounds. I don't know how you would do that in midair.

One course I played had an equally silly OB rule. On one short dogleg right par 4 hole you were not allowed to go for the green with your tee shot. They had OB stakes in the fairway about 100 yards short of the green which were only in play from the tee. If you drove the ball past the stakes you were OB and had to play again. The stakes were only about a 170 yards from the tee.

Ok, that is a dumb local course rule and abusing the purpise of OB. Is the hole on the other side of the stake? Im having a hard time visualizing how this can even be possible for your 2nd shot to not be OB.

**Tappin' it in cuz I #SeeMore**

 

[Smallville]

One course I played had an equally silly OB rule. On one short dogleg right par 4 hole you were not allowed to go for the green with your tee shot. They had OB stakes in the fairway about 100 yards short of the green which were only in play from the tee. If you drove the ball past the stakes you were OB and had to play again. The stakes were only about a 170 yards from the tee.

I played a course that had a tall white pole that you weren't allowed to go left of. Which sucked for slicers, especially Jake-Straighters.

 

[rollin]

One course I played had an equally silly OB rule. On one short dogleg right par 4 hole you were not allowed to go for the green with your tee shot. They had OB stakes in the fairway about 100 yards short of the green which were only in play from the tee. If you drove the ball past the stakes you were OB and had to play again. The stakes were only about a 170 yards from the tee.

Ok, that is a dumb local course rule and abusing the purpise of OB. Is the hole on the other side of the stake? Im having a hard time visualizing how this can even be possible for your 2nd shot to not be OB.

**Tappin' it in cuz I #SeeMore**

This situation brings up something else to mind. And may not be a bad idea to fix another golf debate topic. Dont want to jack the thread but the postings are here and somewhat related so I'll go with it

There is always talk and worry from the powers to be of what to do about the bombs the pro's are hitting and how to tame it. Well, here is one great way of doing such.

When on a dogleg they can have it such that they must follow the contour of the hole. Dont allow them to hit over the trees or across water to cut a leg and land on the green or for a small pitch/chip away. If they are going to try to do it, the'll just have to draw/hook or fade/slice the ball around the leg following the same path as the fairway.

Stupid and/or laughable maybe? And of course this can bring about many questions about other scenario's. But you have to admit it would be one way to counteract the problem.

I've always kind of felt that getting lucky and slicing a real bad one into another fairway only to end up rewarded with a shot at the green shouldnt be correct anyway and this above idea unfortunately may hurt us even more but it does all kind of make some sense if you think about it.

Alot of courses were designed years ago when hitting such shots was more rare and not too possible or easy to do. Just maybe Isnt that why doglegs are made? so that one should have to follow the hole instead of simply hitting through it? IDK. just some food for thought.

 

[Fourputt]

How it can be done is the same way its done when the ball goes into a lateral water hazard? its the same thing? You dont know exactly where the ball is in the lake/pond (or whatever) so you must go from the believed point of entry where you think the margine was crossed and no closer to the pin. Why would it be so impossible for one to do the same when hit into an OB or just lost one in the wooded area. Just go to believed point of entry (where the margine was believed to be crossed). How is it any different? You should have about the same idea where the ball is wether its in the water, the woods or an OB. And have about the same idea where the ball (while in the air or n the ground) crossed the margine to such an area as well. In fact as I mentioned earlier it would be the water that is the most likely place vs the other scenario's where you know you'll never find the ball.

But you have a clear and definite margin for the water hazard which provides a specific point of reference for beginning the dropping process. For a lost ball no such margin exists. I've seen ball hit into a tree and lost. The player dropped under the tree and played, then one of the other guys found his lost ball ball 60 yards away on the other side of the fairway. That's what I mean when I say that there is literally no possible way to accurately pick a point of reference for taking relief.

I don't care if you do what you want when you are playing a casual round, but you will never come up with a reasonable rule which is better than what we already have.

 

[Fourputt]

Ok, that is a dumb local course rule and abusing the purpise of OB. Is the hole on the other side of the stake? Im having a hard time visualizing how this can even be possible for your 2nd shot to not be OB.

**Tappin' it in cuz I #SeeMore**

Like I said, the OB only counted on a shot from the tee. After that there was no OB. Completely against the rules.

 

[Jeanthemachine]

How it can be done is the same way its done when the ball goes into a lateral water hazard? its the same thing? You dont know exactly where the ball is in the lake/pond (or whatever) so you must go from the believed point of entry where you think the margine was crossed and no closer to the pin. Why would it be so impossible for one to do the same when hit into an OB or just lost one in the wooded area. Just go to believed point of entry (where the margine was believed to be crossed). How is it any different? You should have about the same idea where the ball is wether its in the water, the woods or an OB. And have about the same idea where the ball (while in the air or n the ground) crossed the margine to such an area as well. In fact as I mentioned earlier it would be the water that is the most likely place vs the other scenario's where you know you'll never find the ball.

If the ball is lost but not in a hazard there is no margin so you can't drop within two club lengths of a line that does not exist. If you normally hit your rive 250 yards but it went out of sight at 100 yards because of trees do you assume that you got the usual 250 yards? I do not think that is reasonable, do you.

 

[rollin]

But you have a clear and definite margin for the water hazard which provides a specific point of reference for beginning the dropping process. For a lost ball no such margin exists. I've seen ball hit into a tree and lost. The player dropped under the tree and played, then one of the other guys found his lost ball ball 60 yards away on the other side of the fairway. That's what I mean when I say that there is literally no possible way to accurately pick a point of reference for taking relief.

I don't care if you do what you want when you are playing a casual round, but you will never come up with a reasonable rule which is better than what we already have.

yes you do have a point with that margine thing. Too many scenarios I guess we can come up with.

As far as how I or anyone wants to play is not the issue at all or the problem of the debate. Its mearly just ways of thinking of what or why some things about rules may sound fair or not fair, be reasonable enough to make sense or not, and also if the rules make sense or could we find valid reasons to suggest changes or why they dont. I'm not demanding to play certain ways here. Just taking an interest in comming up with feelings and views of some rulings and finding it makes for good interesting (to me) conversation and debate.

If the ball is lost but not in a hazard there is no margin so you can't drop within two club lengths of a line that does not exist. If you normally hit your rive 250 yards but it went out of sight at 100 yards because of trees do you assume that you got the usual 250 yards? I do not think that is reasonable, do you.

No it wouldnt suggest that and no it wouldnt be right iether. But it could suggest that you go nearest the 100yrds where it went out of sight. I wouldnt say its all correct and fair but I can say that also about some rules too. Like being penalized double with "stroke and distance" for such a shot. Many will agree that is not fair as well.

 

[Fourputt]

yes you do have a point with that margine thing. Too many scenarios I guess we can come up with.

As far as how I or anyone wants to play is not the issue at all or the problem of the debate. Its mearly just ways of thinking of what or why some things about rules may sound fair or not fair, be reasonable enough to make sense or not, and also if the rules make sense or could we find valid reasons to suggest changes or why they dont. I'm not demanding to play certain ways here. Just taking an interest in comming up with feelings and views of some rulings and finding it makes for good interesting (to me) conversation and debate.



No it wouldnt suggest that and no it wouldnt be right iether. But it could suggest that you go nearest the 100yrds where it went out of sight. I wouldnt say its all correct and fair but I can say that also about some rules too. Like being penalized double with "stroke and distance" for such a shot. Many will agree that is not fair as well.

Whatever gave you the idea that the rules of any game are supposed to be "fair". The only thing fair about them is that they apply equally to all players in a given situation. You will never find the word "fair" in the Rules of Golf. The reasoning behind the penalties is not to be fair or unfair. It is simply to level out the scoring according to the severity of the offense. I explained the logic behind the procedure for a lost ball above, and if that doesn't work for you then nothing I can say will convince you. The rule is consistent with the basic principles of the game, and if you don't buy into those fundamental tenets then you will never understand the rules.

 

[rollin]

Whatever gave you the idea that the rules of any game are supposed to be "fair". The only thing fair about them is that they apply equally to all players in a given situation. You will never find the word "fair" in the Rules of Golf. The reasoning behind the penalties is not to be fair or unfair. It is simply to level out the scoring according to the severity of the offense. I explained the logic behind the procedure for a lost ball above, and if that doesn't work for you then nothing I can say will convince you. The rule is consistent with the basic principles of the game, and if you don't buy into those fundamental tenets then you will never understand the rules.

I dont totaly disgree with you and certainly rules are not always fair but are there to make the game fair by applying them to everyone eaqualy. But Fourputt, just because rules exist does not mean they are alaways done correctly. Rules in any sport are made for reasons and then as time goes on they are often thought about again and often modified, or changed due to different scenario's and also realizations of what may be considered better ways.

If we were to invent some type new game or sport tomorrow, we'd have to come up with rules. And assuming the new sport cought on and grew we would also find that many original rules may require modifications, additions and/or outright changes and overall growth. This is due to nothing moe than opinions on things like perhaps what originally seemed correct before may not seem so correct now. And also due to opinions with many situations that were unforscene at the time of the rules creations. And even when changed, added, or modified through the years it may still then be realized that the new changes or mods of sorts now fall victom to the same scrutiny.

I think it may have been you (but not sure) that said the golf rule book has grown to a rediculous size from what it once was. That is evidence of such mods, changes and growth in the rules due to the same scrutiny and/or opinions about them. A person, committee, or board, or whomever makes a rule, then its determined throuigh opinions at some point later on that perhaps it wasnt necessarily the correct move. So they now agree and see the need to change, remove, add to it, or modify it.

Hypothetically, lets put the penalty thing the opposite way around and assume for a moment that the penalties for a hazrd, Ob, or lost ball in the wooded area were never different penalties and all were always the same penalty. Now if someone were to come along and say ("hey, that dont seem correct, we should have a different penalty for one vs the other") then perhaps you (just as you are now saying) may also then be saying "but its consistant with the basic principles of the game". Perhaps simply because thats the way you would have always known it to be.

Now i'm not saying you are wrong or that I am correct about my thoughts that the penalties should be the same for Ob, hazard, or lost in woods or even some other things I've mentioned as well. But I could make a case for it that would at least be worth listening to. It doesnt mean i dont buy into the fundimentals of it all. It is not always the basic principles of the game that dictate what the rules should be. it is also the rules that dictate the basic princpals of the game and how to play it. Just look at the NFL for example. Rules change and modify all the time and then cahnge back as well. Sometimes on a yearly basis. And i dont mean safety rules but other rules that dictate how the game is played. Its the very fact that they grasp the basic principles of the game that they make such rule changes or mods all the time.

Just a side note - Of course I dont know you personally and I sure hope any this is not being taken personally as well. I'm not implying that you are . I can have debate, disagreement with anybody and still never lose respect or have any ill feelings towards that individual or judge anyones character. I like to debate different views on things and to try to sort things out, Thats the way i am. I often can go back and forth in my own mind (play devils advocate with myself) about what may seem correct or not and/or why with anything and not just golf until I am saisfied with the answers. So i am not just trying to get under your skin with any of this just for the heck of doing so. Hope its not being viewed that way. I must say I have learned a number of things from reading your posts in threads on THP.

 

[Fourputt]

I dont totaly disgree with you and certainly rules are not always fair but are there to make the game fair by applying them to everyone eaqualy. But Fourputt, just because rules exist does not mean they are alaways done correctly. Rules in any sport are made for reasons and then as time goes on they are often thought about again and often modified, or changed due to different scenario's and also realizations of what may be considered better ways.

If we were to invent some type new game or sport tomorrow, we'd have to come up with rules. And assuming the new sport cought on and grew we would also find that many original rules may require modifications, additions and/or outright changes and overall growth. This is due to nothing moe than opinions on things like perhaps what originally seemed correct before may not seem so correct now. And also due to opinions with many situations that were unforscene at the time of the rules creations. And even when changed, added, or modified through the years it may still then be realized that the new changes or mods of sorts now fall victom to the same scrutiny.

I think it may have been you (but not sure) that said the golf rule book has grown to a rediculous size from what it once was. That is evidence of such mods, changes and growth in the rules due to the same scrutiny and/or opinions about them. A person, committee, or board, or whomever makes a rule, then its determined throuigh opinions at some point later on that perhaps it wasnt necessarily the correct move. So they now agree and see the need to change, remove, add to it, or modify it.

Hypothetically, lets put the penalty thing the opposite way around and assume for a moment that the penalties for a hazrd, Ob, or lost ball in the wooded area were never different penalties and all were always the same penalty. Now if someone were to come along and say ("hey, that dont seem correct, we should have a different penalty for one vs the other") then perhaps you (just as you are now saying) may also then be saying "but its consistant with the basic principles of the game". Perhaps simply because thats the way you would have always known it to be.

Now i'm not saying you are wrong or that I am correct about my thoughts that the penalties should be the same for Ob, hazard, or lost in woods or even some other things I've mentioned as well. But I could make a case for it that would at least be worth listening to. It doesnt mean i dont buy into the fundimentals of it all. It is not always the basic principles of the game that dictate what the rules should be. it is also the rules that dictate the basic princpals of the game and how to play it. Just look at the NFL for example. Rules change and modify all the time and then cahnge back as well. Sometimes on a yearly basis. And i dont mean safety rules but other rules that dictate how the game is played. Its the very fact that they grasp the basic principles of the game that they make such rule changes or mods all the time.

Just a side note - Of course I dont know you personally and I sure hope any this is not being taken personally as well. I'm not implying that you are . I can have debate, disagreement with anybody and still never lose respect or have any ill feelings towards that individual or judge anyones character. I like to debate different views on things and to try to sort things out, Thats the way i am. I often can go back and forth in my own mind (play devils advocate with myself) about what may seem correct or not and/or why with anything and not just golf until I am saisfied with the answers. So i am not just trying to get under your skin with any of this just for the heck of doing so. Hope its not being viewed that way. I must say I have learned a number of things from reading your posts in threads on THP.

Let me start at the beginning. First, the rules develop from the principles, not the other way around. If a game doesn't have a basic premise, then it's impossible to develop a logical set of rules to govern it. Because of the way that golf evolved, those principles are the very root of the game. The guiding thought behind our game is simple: Play the course as you find it; play your ball, and only your ball, from tee to hole; do not touch your ball until you lift it from the hole. This is how the game began. These are the unwritten rules which the game's founders played by for centuries.

At some point some smart guy questioned the inflexibility of them. They worked well as long as nothing unforeseen occurred. Back then hitting the ball 150 years was unheard of. Lost balls were rare. But when a player lost a ball, the rules gave him no recourse but to pack up and go home. Since he had no ball, and the rules didn't allow for such an eventuality, he lost the match. What to do to allow play to continue? Let him put another ball into play? But how? He should be somehow penalized for such a gross mistake, giving his opponent some sort of advantage for not having lost his ball. He would be charged a stroke for the privilege of being allowed to put another ball into play, and since he no longer has a ball in play, the only logical recourse is to return to the point where he last did have a ball in play and continue from there with the penalty stroke added in.

Rule 1-1 states that the game of golf consists of playing a ball from tee to hole by a stroke or successive strokes. It is also assumed that the ball remains in play. It does not allow for advancing the ball by any other method than by making strokes. In order to make a proper stroke at a ball other than on the tee, the ball must be in play. A ball out of bounds or lost is not in play, therefore the basic principles require that you continue play from the last point where you did have a ball in play. You don't get a distance credit for hitting a ball out of play.

A ball in a water hazard is still in play. It is on the course, its location is known even if it isn't accessible. The original ball remains the ball in play until a substitute ball is dropped under Rule 26-1. Therefore the player should get some credit for keeping the ball on the course. The hazard has a clear boundary by which it can be determined how far the ball traveled before it entered the hazard. Therefore, the player is given the option of keeping some or all of that known distance. He is still assessed a penalty stroke for the privilege of substituting another ball, or for fetching his original ball from the hazard. The penalty represents the stroke he would have had to make to extricate his ball from the hazard had he been able to play it. The drop awards him some or all of the distance that the ball traveled before entering the hazard.

The difference between the two is that in the case of a ball in the hazard, the potential exists to be able to play the ball as it lies if possible. You obviously can't play a lost ball, because it's lost - you don't know where it is. You also can't play a ball from out of bounds because it is no longer on the golf course, it's off the field of play. Because you have no ball in play, there is no option to play it as it lies, therefore the base logic says that you return to the last place where you did have a ball in play.

I can't explain it any better than that. When you make a study of the rules, you can trace each one to the base principles of the game. They are logical and reasonable in that vein. The penalties are equally logical in their structure.

 

[rollin]

I know your explanation was meant to be serious but it was (with due respect) a bit entertaining and humrous as well. Especially the guy with no ball to just go home.LOL Funny if ya think about it.

Definately some good points there and good way to explain it that will get my mind working within itself again to play devils advocate again. And should i come up with something (and i may not be able to) to counteract it, I know, that you know, that I know I'll be letting you know about it.lol

 

[Tadashi70]

I like that thought Wade, and agree... loss of a stroke and a drop into another awful lie is pretty darn punishing.

That's he thing, don't hit it in the gunge and you won't have to take a bad drop. You shouldn't be rewarded with a favorable lie.

 

[Fourputt]

I know your explanation was meant to be serious but it was (with due respect) a bit entertaining and humrous as well. Especially the guy with no ball to just go home.LOL Funny if ya think about it.

Definately some good points there and good way to explain it that will get my mind working within itself again to play devils advocate again. And should i come up with something (and i may not be able to) to counteract it, I know, that you know, that I know I'll be letting you know about it.lol

I look forward to refuting your arguments. :bicker:

 

[Kobey]

So if we make the game easier, more people will play. Then the courses will get busier. Then the price of a round will get cheaper. Then pace of play will slow down. Then more people will quit playing. Then we'll have to make the game easier, so more people will play. Then the courses...

 

[rollin]

So if we make the game easier, more people will play. Then the courses will get busier. Then the price of a round will get cheaper. Then pace of play will slow down. Then more people will quit playing. Then we'll have to make the game easier, so more people will play. Then the courses...

HAHAHA THATS GOOD! ...but actually the more people play the more they will charge and price gouge and they will say its becaude they want to discourage more people from playing. Then they will raise prices again because not enough prople are paying. Then golf will go back to the days or at least the thouights of being a higher class and older rich mans game. and our grandchildren some decades from now can start the process all over again. maybe even on the THP. lol