Anyone else think that hitting it OB or lost balls is too penalizing?

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Just suggesting that you could view "outcome" as uncertain if outcome is the result of the shot played but as "certain" if "outcome" is the choice of the lie/location of the next shot in the context of deciding how to proceed if you are considering relief for an unplayable lie (which you do get to choose) but for me the notion of outcome wasn't really what I was trying to convey, simply that there is one example of a clear choice the Rules allow you between two balls. 

 

So absolutely as Dave and others point out, there may be notions the Rules generally support but that's generally, which sometimes keeps "never" out of a conversation.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Are you saying that a ball that you consider 'unplayable' is equivalent to a ball that would be dropped 'provisionally'?

Surely the 'outcome' of the former is known, whilst the 'outcome' of the latter is not yet known.

Are you suggesting that an' expected or anticipated' outcome is the same as 'known'?

[rogolf]

Imo, there is a distinct difference between choosing between two or three options that a Rule provides and choosing between two balls that are lying on the ground.

[Shilgy]

23 hours ago, iacas said:

 

But… that's where it's most in effect. It's not in effect in many tournaments, but in daily play, you can put it into play and thus it is a Rule of Golf in casual, daily play.

 

And yes, women do play golf, I apologize. Men's handicaps are around 14.4 or so, and have been improving for 30 years. Gut reaction as an instructor first to react to what felt adjacent to the "golfers aren't getting any better!" (false) cries.

 

P.S. Glad I could introduce so many to the term "Choosies." IIRC there are three. They're rare, as you can imagine. BTW it always sounded to me like an award. "I'd like to thank the Academy for giving me this Choosie, the other rules officials and golfers certainly deserved it at least as much as I did. I'd like to think my agent Mark Steinberg, my first USGA rules official trainer David Fay… and…"

 

I don’t often agree with @rzitup but in this case he was correct.  You may still be allowed to post a score using E5 but not all courses have chosen to use it.  Just like any other MLR the course chooses whether or not to use it.  Mine chose not to for example.

[rzitup]

On 1/17/2024 at 8:14 AM, iacas said:

 

But… that's where it's most in effect. It's not in effect in many tournaments, but in daily play, you can put it into play and thus it is a Rule of Golf in casual, daily play.

 

 

 

I am playing in a foursome, I cannot just "put it into play".  The group I am playing with has to discuss and elect it as a rule in play.  A good golfer in the group decides he doesnt want to use it, its not in play.  That is not the process for abiding by the regular rules of golf, and thus, this isnt a regular rule of golf.  It is a local rule that must be implemented.  

I hope that the USGA will implement it as a regular rule, for ease of use, understanding and speed of play.  

[rogolf]

25 minutes ago, rzitup said:

 

I am playing in a foursome, I cannot just "put it into play".  The group I am playing with has to discuss and elect it as a rule in play.  A good golfer in the group decides he doesnt want to use it, its not in play.  That is not the process for abiding by the regular rules of golf, and thus, this isnt a regular rule of golf.  It is a local rule that must be implemented.  

I hope that the USGA will implement it as a regular rule, for ease of use, understanding and speed of play.  

Not likely to happen, many parts of the world (R&A jurisdiction) don't really like it and won't approve it as a "regular rule". 

Rule changes like this aren't only up to the USGA, they require approval of both the USGA and R&A.

[Long_Left]

On 1/16/2024 at 9:48 AM, Snowman9000 said:

It would be easier to treat OB the same as a penalty area than it would be to treat a lost ball like that.  I could support a change that would treat OB as a penalty area.  Lost ball could definitely be trickier.

 

Twice in the last 6 months, in tournaments, I've hit tee shots that were borderline fairway/rough that could not be found. By all accounts they were perfectly respectable shots and the rough was not especially nasty, but deep enough to hide the ball. It can be difficult to see a ball kick off at an odd angle or whatever happened for those balls to wind up in a place that "didn't make sense" to anyone in the group. It is certainly the case that a crowd there to observe would/could easily point it out, which adds to the frustration if you let it.

 

It sucks, but I have no idea how a rule would or could be concocted to deal with it fairly, it would be too easy to claim you "saw your ball down right here" and gain relief. One of those tournaments I finished 2 strokes behind the leader, that really sucked. The guy who won was in the same group and he hated it too, but shop credit is what it is. Funny enough, a buddy of mine found my ball (I mark them consistently and distinctively) less than a week later, in the rough, generally where we were looking. 

 

On my annual guys trip, we play MLR 5e for OB balls, driving back to the tee just adds an annoyance factor that isn't good for anyone. If they choose to hit a provisional, it's in play.

 

I've also had errant shots hit random objects and bounce into perfect positions, holed a skulled wedge that bounced off a tree 20+ years ago... c'est la vie.

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, Newby said:

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Are you saying that a ball that you consider 'unplayable' is equivalent to a ball that would be dropped 'provisionally'?

 

 

I haven't said that, nor implied it!

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, rzitup said:

 

I am playing in a foursome, I cannot just "put it into play".  The group I am playing with has to discuss and elect it as a rule in play.  A good golfer in the group decides he doesnt want to use it, its not in play.  That is not the process for abiding by the regular rules of golf, and thus, this isnt a regular rule of golf.  It is a local rule that must be implemented.  

I hope that the USGA will implement it as a regular rule, for ease of use, understanding and speed of play.  

If the course has allowed and posted it, that's the process.

[rzitup]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If the course has allowed and posted it, that's the process.

 

I am aware, but I have yet to see any course post/use it.  Which still makes it not a regular USGA rule, but a local rule.

 

 

[rzitup]

4 hours ago, rogolf said:

Not likely to happen, many parts of the world (R&A jurisdiction) don't really like it and won't approve it as a "regular rule". 

Rule changes like this aren't only up to the USGA, they require approval of both the USGA and R&A.

I would like to bet that it DOES, but I doubt either of us will be around long enough to see it happen!

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If the course has allowed and posted it, that's the process.

 

IMHO, a lot of courses around here don't seem to post anything of note. 

 

I've taken to not using MLR E-5 relief when I have a reasonable belief the original shot is OB. I'll hit a provisional. 

 

However in the case of a lost ball in an area a ball "should have been" easily findable, it's a little ridiculous for people on crowded public courses where PoP is an issue to force someone back to take S&D. I mean, you hit it into dense bushes, play a provisional. But you hit it into an area on a course you know well with only light rough, get down there, and no ball? Yeah, MLR E-5 makes a ton of sense even if the course hasn't posted local rules because they don't post local rules. 

[Hawkeye77]

6 minutes ago, rzitup said:

 

I am aware, but I have yet to see any course post/use it.  Which still makes it not a regular USGA rule, but a local rule.

 

 

 

I've seen it posted and/or on a scorecard but every place is different.  I was just referring to the fact you mentioned your foursome wouldn't allow - it can't as you know, which is why I suggested the posting.  Trust me, one good way is to prepare what needs to be posted for the course to make it easier to do what it needs to do.  Sometimes that's all it takes for something like that.

Edited January 18, 2024 by Hawkeye77

[bluedot]

4 hours ago, rogolf said:

Imo, there is a distinct difference between choosing between two or three options that a Rule provides and choosing between two balls that are lying on the ground.

Thank you; well said.

[bluedot]

4 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I don’t often agree with @rzitup but in this case he was correct.  You may still be allowed to post a score using E5 but not all courses have chosen to use it.  Just like any other MLR the course chooses whether or not to use it.  Mine chose not to for example.

Same at my club.  The Golf Committee elected not to use it in any club tournament, so most of the groups that play regular money games do not use it.

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 hours ago, Long_Left said:

Twice in the last 6 months, in tournaments, I've hit tee shots that were borderline fairway/rough that could not be found. By all accounts they were perfectly respectable shots and the rough was not especially nasty, but deep enough to hide the ball. It can be difficult to see a ball kick off at an odd angle or whatever happened for those balls to wind up in a place that "didn't make sense" to anyone in the group. It is certainly the case that a crowd there to observe would/could easily point it out, which adds to the frustration if you let it.

 

It sucks, but I have no idea how a rule would or could be concocted to deal with it fairly, it would be too easy to claim you "saw your ball down right here" and gain relief. One of those tournaments I finished 2 strokes behind the leader, that really sucked. The guy who won was in the same group and he hated it too, but shop credit is what it is. Funny enough, a buddy of mine found my ball (I mark them consistently and distinctively) less than a week later, in the rough, generally where we were looking. 

 

 

I posted the below on page 2 in the hopes of spurring discussion, but I think it quickly got ignored with all the "choosies" talk. 

 

There's an obvious difficulty (estimating a relief point where a ball "should have been" when obviously the ball isn't there), but beyond that I think a 1 stroke penalty and relief similar to unplayable lie from an estimated position would be both penalizing (you lost a ball, duh) without giving a massive opportunity for malfeasance. 

 

On 1/16/2024 at 11:42 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Thanks for this. While I completely agree with OB being a more severe penalty than a penalty area for the reasons others have stated, I've long chafed at the lost ball rule. 

 

I've had MANY experiences where everyone in the group is fairly clear on where the ball "should" have come to rest--and for whatever reason (rough thick enough that you can't see a ball unless you step on it, in an area inundated by fall leaves where it's likely under *1* of those leaves but you can't be checking under 100 of them, ball went down an animal hole but you don't know where, ball goes into thick bushes and you can't see deep enough into them to identify/retrieve a ball, player from other group unbeknownst to you finds ball and picks it up thinking it's a stray, etc) you simply can't find the dang thing. It seems to me that making a lost ball as penal as OB is a little screwy. 

 

That said, I never really considered the idea that instead of S&D that they change it to &D only, i.e. a lost ball is replayed from the original spot as a second stroke but without an additional stroke penalty, to be something that a player could easily manipulate to their advantage in the way described in the quoted text that you provided. I can see that being a big problem.  

 

That said, what would be the harm in changing the rule for relief from a lost ball to give these options?

• S&D -- as we say, that is nearly always an option
• Estimate to identify a relief point where it is believed the ball "should have" come to rest, and offer the same options as unplayable lie relief--two club lengths no nearer the hole or back on line of play relief from the estimated relief point, applying one penalty stroke. 
• MLR E-5 -- primarily there as a PoP alternative to S&D, in the case where the ball is still not "playable" from the relief options that would be available for an unplayable, so you get the existing MLR with two penalty strokes applied

I realize that there is an inherent problem here--estimating where the ball "should have" come to rest is obviously fraught with peril because it clearly didn't come to rest there or you'd have found it. But I see less danger of such a rule being maliciously exploited like the way described in Tufts. And in most cases, when you've lost a ball because you hit it somewhere bad (deep rough, bushes, etc), your available relief area for your drop will also be similarly bad, so when you add in a stroke penalty it's hard to see how a player "benefits" there. And in some cases like an unplayable in a deep bush where you can't get within 2 club lengths and there are no good drop locations back on line of play, you retain alternatives such as S&D or MLR E-5 which is more penal than a single stroke penalty and two club length drop. 

 

In essence, treat a lost ball as similar to a yellow/red hazard or unplayable lie. You're still applying a penalty, but not as penal as OB because it's believed by all players that the ball did not leave the course. 

 

@Newby This was in response to the Tufts cite you made. I'd love your thoughts on it as I think you have much more knowledge about historical rules and perhaps the "why" of how certain rules became rules. 

 

I'm wondering if you see any glaring flaws (beyond the estimated point, which I know is a big one) in adding a relief option similar to unplayable lie for a lost ball? I don't see why a lost ball would be more penal than a ball hit into a penalty area (which is also lost as you can't find if it's under 25 feet of water), nor why it would be as penal as OB because it's believed to be lost while still being on the course. 

 

I see the "estimated point" thing as perhaps not much different than estimating the place where a ball crossed a hazard boundary when you're trying to often do it from 200+ yards away, and the MLR E-5 already uses estimated position for a lost ball in determining a relief point so there's some level of precedent there. 

 

In fact, it doesn't need to even be a rule change to the whole rule book. It can merely be an additional relief option under MLR E-5 if a course/committee chooses to enact E-5.

 

[iacas]

This is all getting too pedantic to really care this much, but…

Spoiler

5 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I don’t often agree with @rzitup but in this case he was correct.

No, he wasn't — you can play by E-5 if you want in a casual round, and the score is legitimate and as you note can be used for posting to your handicap.

 

5 hours ago, rzitup said:

I am playing in a foursome, I cannot just "put it into play".  The group I am playing with has to discuss and elect it as a rule in play.

 

Right, so it's an approved Local Rule and thus a Rule of Golf. The Rules of Golf are any and all allowed Rules in play at the time. So, if you elect to use it, it's a USGA Rule of Golf that's in effect for that round.

 

1 hour ago, rzitup said:

I am aware, but I have yet to see any course post/use it.  Which still makes it not a regular USGA rule, but a local rule.

 

Nope — it's a regular USGA Rule. Just as the embedded ball rule through the green was a rule even though the USGA was relying on the local rule to put it in effect for its championships (before they flipped the base status of that rule in 2019).

 

Again, the Rules of Golf are:

 

 

It's not a big deal either way, but Local Rules are part of the "Rules."

[Long_Left]

58 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I posted the below on page 2 in the hopes of spurring discussion, but I think it quickly got ignored with all the "choosies" talk. 

 

There's an obvious difficulty (estimating a relief point where a ball "should have been" when obviously the ball isn't there), but beyond that I think a 1 stroke penalty and relief similar to unplayable lie from an estimated position would be both penalizing (you lost a ball, duh) without giving a massive opportunity for malfeasance. 

 

 

@Newby This was in response to the Tufts cite you made. I'd love your thoughts on it as I think you have much more knowledge about historical rules and perhaps the "why" of how certain rules became rules. 

 

I'm wondering if you see any glaring flaws (beyond the estimated point, which I know is a big one) in adding a relief option similar to unplayable lie for a lost ball? I don't see why a lost ball would be more penal than a ball hit into a penalty area (which is also lost as you can't find if it's under 25 feet of water), nor why it would be as penal as OB because it's believed to be lost while still being on the course. 

 

I see the "estimated point" thing as perhaps not much different than estimating the place where a ball crossed a hazard boundary when you're trying to often do it from 200+ yards away, and the MLR E-5 already uses estimated position for a lost ball in determining a relief point so there's some level of precedent there. 

 

In fact, it doesn't need to even be a rule change to the whole rule book. It can merely be an additional relief option under MLR E-5 if a course/committee chooses to enact E-5.

 

As the player who lost a ball I would tend to agree with you, being on the other side of that equation brings some doubts to mind though. I'd have no issue with MLR 5e covering a lost ball in play though. By all means, hit 4 from the FW and move on with your life rather than return to the tee. I did watch a guy pump 4 straight balls OB once in a tournament where the MLR was in play. Tough scene.

 

This isn't anything more than my personal experience... 

 

I have a buddy who lobbies for "everything is a lateral" as a rule in our informal yearly competitions. We play a modified stableford scoring against a quota (best 3 of last 5) so you score points for making a bogey or better, pick up after the bogey putt. 

 

Lost ball in bounds as a lateral hazard penalty is too easy to make a bogey on a par 4, same with playing it as an unplayable lie. In my mind, a GIR + 3 jack is not the same level of fail as "I can't find my golf ball but I think it was going about here, hand me my 9 iron." 

 

I realize that's probably too simplistic a take, and it really sucks when a ball is lost with no obvious hiding place aside from some heavy rough. But a ball in the bushes etc needs to be found because the relief options for that scenario may not grant you a clean shot, you get 2 clubs, which may not reach a playable lie, or infinitely back on line with the flag, which could put you in a lake or OB, so you'd be better off not finding it, which would certainly wreck the application. Just my personal take.

[betarhoalphadelta]

37 minutes ago, Long_Left said:

 

I have a buddy who lobbies for "everything is a lateral" as a rule in our informal yearly competitions. We play a modified stableford scoring against a quota (best 3 of last 5) so you score points for making a bogey or better, pick up after the bogey putt. 

 

Lost ball in bounds as a lateral hazard penalty is too easy to make a bogey on a par 4, same with playing it as an unplayable lie. In my mind, a GIR + 3 jack is not the same level of fail as "I can't find my golf ball but I think it was going about here, hand me my 9 iron." 

 

 

I'm not in the "everything is a lateral" camp. After reading here and thinking about it, hitting a ball off the golf course (into houses, roads/traffic, or other places where people exist and don't deserve to be hit by golf balls) being more penal than a lateral penalty area makes perfect sense to me. Interestingly I have a local course where the back 9 is flanked by canyons/wilderness (no private property, people, etc) and they rule that anything leaving the course on those holes is a lateral. Probably for PoP. I don't know if anyone has tried to find a ball out there and play it, but I certainly am not braving rattlesnake-infested SoCal wilderness to save a penalty stroke!

 

But just as knowing OB exists gives you a reason to play away from it, knowing a penalty area exists gives you a reason to play away from it. 

 

So I'm standing on a tee box and I know there's a pond right. I know left is safe but in light rough. I have a hole at a local course that comes to mind--I can clear the pond with a PERFECT drive but try to play away from it. So I line up trying to take a right miss out of play and I personally frequently hit it into that left rough. I've never actually lost a ball over there, but I've lost balls in similarly light rough on courses in the past. 

 

So while you say it's bad that it is too easy to make a bogey from hitting it into light rough and not finding it, I'd be willing to argue that hitting it into a pond that I can see FROM THE TEE, taking lateral relief, and still having a decent chance at making a bogey (probably mid iron into the green from the point it crosses) isn't penal enough. I knew the pond was there and hit it there anyway, right? Why should it be "too easy" to make bogey??? But the counterargument would be that if I hit it left and successfully avoided the penalty area, why should it be more penal than hitting it into the penalty area?

 

To me, it seems that there are two main arguments against what I've described:

 

1. Traditionally, golf is a "play it as it lies" sport. There are defined rules for how to handle something in a penalty area (even if it's by nature at the bottom of a pond and you can't "find" it but you know--KVC--it went into the penalty area), but there's no good rule for playing a ball that you can't "play as it lies" because you don't know "where it lies". So from a historical perspective, "losing" a ball is more penal than hitting a ball into a penalty area, even if you can't find it in a penalty area. 
2. Inherently the unplayable scenario based upon an "estimated" relief point is difficult. While MLR E-5 gives the ability to "estimate" where a ball "should" be, that's kind of a wishy-washy sort of thing. If I know I s-worded one into the bushes and I determine my relief point is conveniently 1.5 club lengths into the bush giving me a clear line of play, versus maybe the real estimate should be 2.5 club lengths into the bush meaning I'm taking S&D or MLR E-5 anyway... There's potential for foul play. 

 

But what I don't understand is why a lost ball hit ON the course is more penal than a ball hit into a penalty area, nor equally penal to a ball hit OFF the course, just because it's in an area where for whatever reason you can't find it in 3 minutes. 

[manku]

1.  Golf, like life, isn't fair.

2. Unless you're playing in a tournament, play by your own rules.  It's what we do, and no one suffers except the rules sticklers who think that only strict USGA golf is real golf.   I used to play that way when I was younger...and realized that a broken club (follow through on a tree shot) isn't worth $100 to replace the shaft during a casual round...same with hitting off a root or road.  And virtually no one really knows all the rules, so you're bound to make mistakes anyway.  Relax and enjoy yourself.

3.  As for your handicap, if you carry one, just guesstimate at the end of the round.   If you don't play strict rules, 99.9% of the time you'll be posting a lower score than you would have shot with USGA rules and are only hurting yourself.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, manku said:

and realized that a broken club (follow through on a tree shot) isn't worth $100 to replace the shaft during a casual round...same with hitting off a root or road.

 

So… take an unplayable.

[Augster]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

So… take an unplayable.

This. 
 

Totally “playable” balls can be declared unplayable for the cost of one stroke. It’ll make your 102 into a 103, but at least you save the repair money. 

[manku]

27 minutes ago, Augster said:

This. 
 

Totally “playable” balls can be declared unplayable for the cost of one stroke. It’ll make your 102 into a 103, but at least you save the repair money. 

 

Nah...none of us care.  We're not playing in the US Open.

 

The golf course is out there to be played as you wish...I have no need to play by an arbitrary set of rules written by a bunch of sadists.

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

So… take an unplayable.

That means they would have to add strokes and take an ego hit. They don’t like that, they want the free relief from a bad break 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

That means they would have to add strokes and take an ego hit. They don’t like that, they want the free relief from a bad break 

 

Yeah, while being snotty about it.

 

I have little patience for people posting in the Rules of Golf forum who just want to play by whatever rules they want, all while (often) acting snotty about those who do play by the Rules.

 

Ultimately, if they're not playing against me or one of my students or something, I couldn't care less what they do. But don't act all self-righteous about it while accusing others of being self-righteous or of being "rules sticklers" unless we can just call these folks "cheaters" or something. And they're generally not content with that. 🤣

 

Edited January 19, 2024 by iacas

[manku]

6 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

That means they would have to add strokes and take an ego hit. They don’t like that, they want the free relief from a bad break 

 

Ego hit?

 

On the golf course?

 

Like they say...golf was designed by sadists and played by masochists.

 

No one cares what you shot.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, manku said:

No one cares what you shot.

 

Clearly you do. Otherwise, take the penalty stroke when you move your ball off a tree root.

[GoGoErky]

37 minutes ago, manku said:

 

Ego hit?

 

On the golf course?

 

Like they say...golf was designed by sadists and played by masochists.

 

No one cares what you shot.

Who said anything about someone else caring what someone shot. It was in reference to people looking for free strokes so they can shoot a lower score and feel good about themselves for shooting a lower score.

 

People don’t like adding strokes to their scorecard and will look for ways to avoid that such as using the excuse “im

not getting paid to play my clubs” or “my clubs aren’t free” so instead of using the rulebook and taking their unplayable they want free relief from tree roots, gravel on the edge of the rough near cart path or somewhere else on the course.

[GoGoErky]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Yeah, while being snotty about it.

 

I have little patience for people posting in the Rules of Golf forum who just want to play by whatever rules they want, all while (often) acting snotty about those who do play by the Rules.

 

Ultimately, if they're not playing against me or one of my students or something, I couldn't care less what they do. But don't act all self-righteous about it while accusing others of being self-righteous or of being "rules sticklers" unless we can just call these folks "cheaters" or something. And they're generally not content with that. 🤣

 

Exactly. 

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

This is all getting too pedantic to really care this much, but…

  Hide contents

No, he wasn't — you can play by E-5 if you want in a casual round, and the score is legitimate and as you note can be used for posting to your handicap.

 

 

Right, so it's an approved Local Rule and thus a Rule of Golf. The Rules of Golf are any and all allowed Rules in play at the time. So, if you elect to use it, it's a USGA Rule of Golf that's in effect for that round.

 

 

Nope — it's a regular USGA Rule. Just as the embedded ball rule through the green was a rule even though the USGA was relying on the local rule to put it in effect for its championships (before they flipped the base status of that rule in 2019).

 

Again, the Rules of Golf are:

 

 

It's not a big deal either way, but Local Rules are part of the "Rules."

It’s all good…you don’t need to hide an answer.  There are 25 rules in the official rules of golf. The model local rules are #8 in the “committee procedures”.  Even @rogolf stated they are not a part of the, his phrase, “regular rules”.

 

Local rules are a part of the “rules of the day” or “rules of competition “ but you wouldn’t normally think of the “one ball rule” as a rule of golf.  
 

Perhaps this is pedantic but we are always reminded in this forum that words matter….and thus the disagreement.

 

So to say we’re playing by the rules of golf it would be 1-25….if they added an except we play MLR E5 that old be a course rule…not a rule of golf.

 

 

[sui generis]

1.3 Playing by the Rules

a. Meaning of “Rules”; Terms of the Competition

The term “Rules” means:

 

Rules 1-25 and the definitions in these Rules of Golf, and

 

Any “Local Rules” the Committee adopts for the competition or the course.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=1&subrulenum=3