Lost or Out of Bounds Ball

[GolferJim]

The most commonly unobserved rule(s) in open play, after gimme's, is not going back to play another ball when you go forward and discover your ball is either OB or lost. In the interest of speeding up the game the player should drop at the approximate place where the ball is lost, or withing two club lengths of where it crossed the OB boundary, add two strokes to the score, then proceed with the relief options specified under Unplayable Lie. This will speed up the game and eliminate the need for the provisional ball.

[John Morrissett]

Jim -

We agree there is plenty of room for improvement in this area. In Code Two (in which golf is played with a points-based scoring system), David and I go so far as to provide for a penalty zero points earned for a lost ball or ball that is out of bounds. With that penalty, there is no longer a need to play a provisional ball.

Short of that change, we cannot, unfortunately, envision a better penalty for a lost ball than stroke and distance. If a player were to drop a ball in the area where the original is lost, imagine the arguments that would ensue!

As out of bounds is a clearly defined area (similar to a water hazard), a fair case could be made for allowing relief based on where the ball last crossed the boundary.

Best regards,
John

[DavidHayes]

Additionally, when John hits his ball deep into the woods and loses it, being required to place a ball under penalty of two strokes at the point where he lost it would be too harsh (as he rarely plays into the same deep woods when required to play under stroke-and-distance).

[Dennis Harwood]

(08-13-2013 02:53 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  Jim -

We agree there is plenty of room for improvement in this area. In Code Two (in which golf is played with a points-based scoring system), David and I go so far as to provide for a penalty zero points earned for a lost ball or ball that is out of bounds. With that penalty, there is no longer a need to play a provisional ball.

Short of that change, we cannot, unfortunately, envision a better penalty for a lost ball than stroke and distance. If a player were to drop a ball in the area where the original is lost, imagine the arguments that would ensue!

As out of bounds is a clearly defined area (similar to a water hazard), a fair case could be made for allowing relief based on where the ball last crossed the boundary.

Best regards,
John

John - is not the suggestion that a different Rule be used for Ball Lost vs Out of Bounds cause one to look at the historical results of such experiments in the past?

Chapman's book has an excellent chapter on this subject. It seems where the two are uncoupled the result is where OB and areas where the ball can be lost are in close proximity the player will always claim the result which is most favorable leading to intense disputes. In the past experiments with uncoupling have resulted in emergency mid year Rules changes tying the two back together.

[John Morrissett]

Dennis -

I have often thought that the argument that the penalties for a ball that is lost and a ball that is out of bounds should be the same as often it is not possible to know which is the case (e.g., with trees, etc. near a boundary) is somewhat weak as we have essentially the same situation today with water hazards (e.g., tall grass, bushes, trees, etc. near water hazards) and are able to apply the water hazard Rule fairly well. If there were to be special relief for a ball that is out of bounds, I suppose we could apply the known/virtually certain standard.

Thanks.
John

[Dennis Harwood]

John - To continue this discussion a bit, if you don't mind.

Assuming that there is little problem "in the field" so far as player disputes in uncoupling penalties for lost ball and out of bounds ( as to which I still have questions ), how does creating separate penalties make the Rules simpler? Certainly reducing a penalty for one ( eliminating the distance penalty for OB for example ) makes the game easier, ie lower scores. But I am having difficulty understanding how different penalties for different conditions, often adjoining and often configured so that it is frequently difficult, if not factually impossible to determine into which the ball came to rest, achieve the goal of simpler to understand and apply Rules.

Are not the Rules easier to understand and apply if, from a penalty/relief aspect, it matters not in which condition it is determined the ball came to rest?

[Simonko]

(08-13-2013 02:53 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  As out of bounds is a clearly defined area (similar to a water hazard), a fair case could be made for allowing relief based on where the ball last crossed the boundary.

The ground outside water hazards is typically not too penal though, with 26-1b or dropping zones usually giving a fair place to drop if it is.

Course boundaries are often purposely lined with trees or rough (or simply unkept) and would lead to overly harsh dropping areas if dropping at the boundary (like David mentioned above for lost balls).

So I guess it would have to be something more along the lines of the TRGA's 'bring ball back to the fairway' (although their particular procedure has many holes).

[John Morrissett]

Dennis -

There is "good simple" and "bad simple" with changes to the Rules.

Please note that David and I were not ultimately sold on the idea of providing lateral water hazard relief for a ball that is out of bounds and therefore did not include that change in Code One. For one point, from a philosophical perspective, it does seem significant to me when someone has hit the ball [/u]off the course, as opposed to just a part of the course from which it is difficult to play (e.g., a water hazard).

However, I am not strongly opposed to the idea of letting a player drop where his ball went out of bounds. While doing so would create a difference between a ball that is lost and a ball that is out of bounds, it would eliminate a difference between a ball that is out of bounds and a ball that is in a lateral water hazard. In other words, we would just need some reprogramming to stop looking at a ball that is lost and a ball that is out of bounds as the same.

To take things to the other extreme: Providing stroke and distance as the only option for a ball that is in a water hazard would achieve the goal of simplicity, but it would, in my opinion, fall into the "bad simple" category.

Thanks.
John

[ColonelMac]

(08-19-2013 11:51 AM)John Morrissett Wrote:  Dennis -

There is "good simple" and "bad simple" with changes to the Rules.

Please note that David and I were not ultimately sold on the idea of providing lateral water hazard relief for a ball that is out of bounds and therefore did not include that change in Code One. For one point, from a philosophical perspective, it does seem significant to me when someone has hit the ball [/u]off the course, as opposed to just a part of the course from which it is difficult to play (e.g., a water hazard).

However, I am not strongly opposed to the idea of letting a player drop where his ball went out of bounds. While doing so would create a difference between a ball that is lost and a ball that is out of bounds, it would eliminate a difference between a ball that is out of bounds and a ball that is in a lateral water hazard. In other words, we would just need some reprogramming to stop looking at a ball that is lost and a ball that is out of bounds as the same.

To take things to the other extreme: Providing stroke and distance as the only option for a ball that is in a water hazard would achieve the goal of simplicity, but it would, in my opinion, fall into the "bad simple" category.

Thanks.
John

John,

First of all, let me say that this is a VERY welcome project. I found your main site at the suggestion of Dottie Pepper. I wasn't expecting to actually find this Forum.

Unlike many of the others whose posts I've read here, I am no authority on the Rules of Golf. Like the other guys in my regular 4-some, we generally KNOW the rules. But, in many instances the REASONING behind the rules don't make any sense. So, we "apply" them as we see fit in order to keep our pace of play and to have fun.

Perhaps I'm too dense to fully understand the reason for differentiation, but I have NEVER understood the reasoning behind treating some lost balls differently from others.

Why should there be any difference between a ball that is lost when you hit it in the woods and a ball that you lose but that you KNOW it is lost in a water hazard? They are BOTH lost balls. The penalty and relief should be the same, drop within 2 club lengths of where you last SAW it, whether entering the trees, gorse, bushes, water, etc. But, if dropping within 2 club lengths would still leave you behind an immovable obstruction, you could still go back along the ball's line of flight as far as necessary.

For the same reason AND to improve pace of play, eliminate "distance" penalty for out of bounds. Drop within 2 club lengths of where it WENT out of bounds, or further back along the line of flight, hit it and go on.

This is how my 4-some plays, regardless of the current Rules of Golf and I would venture to guess that many recreational golfers do the same.

[aaa]

The problem would be identifying where you SAW or where it WENT out it in relation to the problem.
Ball struck over dogleg with OB and WH round the corner, out of site. Ball cannot be found. Just where did it go OB? Or did it not go OB but is lost in the WH or just 'lost. Where do you drop?
Where you last saw it may be where it last crossed the fairway towards the trees. I'll take my driver on the tightest holes and then the drop on the fairway, thank you.
Course management. What course management? Smash it and hope, with the safety net of a ball on the edge of the fairway.