Lost or Out of Bounds Ball

[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