Lost or Out of Bounds Ball

[ColonelMac]

(08-20-2013 04:36 PM)aaa Wrote:  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.

That is exactly the problem we have on a number of holes on my home course, blind tee shots and can't see the landing area. We simply make our best "guess", drop it and hit it.

Seems as though the scenario you describe of hitting driver on tightest holes and "hitting and hope" is EXACTLY what the recreational golfer does. So what? As long as the rule affects everyone equally, there's no special advantage. You are still hitting from farther away than if you hit the ball straight down the fairway AND you've already been penalized a stroke.

But, that still doesn't answer the basic question of why you treat a lost ball in a hazard differently than any other lost ball. Why should losing the ball in a water hazard be penalized less severely than losing it in a forest?

THAT's what doesn't make sense to me.

[Dennis Harwood]

John - I recognize your Code Two solves this issue, but if the Rules still retain a "traditional score" would an OB be treated as a WH penalty? ( one stroke but not a distance penalty? ) I envision that this my radically charge the design issue of a number of our more respected golf holes. I am concerned such a change would limit a "weapon" course architects have to resist low scoring and again encourage the move to longer courses.

I recognize we have WHs in course design, but the designer has the choice of causing line of play to require play over the hazard ( not permit Rules to negotiate the hazard). If we eliminate the distance penalty in OB I am not surre we have imposed a suffient penalty on narrow tight holes. I have always felt a bit guilty when playing a tight hole with a LWH adjoining the green which is designed as a risk reward hole, but defeat the risk aspect by hitting for the green with knowledge that its likely if flight crosses the green I still can drop ( or now place) on the green and have putt for par.

An OB close to the putting green would seem to lose its sting if the wayward shot still leaves the player a short( er) approach and one putt for par.

Not sure of the impact of a two stroke penalty for OB ( with elimination of the distance penalty.)

[ColonelMac]

(08-14-2013 03:35 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  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

Just played a friendly round with my regular 4-some using the Code Two scoring system and rules. It certainly provided for faster play, especially not having to pull the flagstick. When one player was on the green and got to his ball and was ready to putt before another player was ready to chip from the fringe, it simplified matters to simply hit the putt without having to pull the pin and then replace it for the chip shot.

The group was unanimously AGAINST the zero points for the hole on an out of bounds or lost ball. They view that as way too severe when, by applying the present stroke and distance penalty, one is still able to possibly make a bogey or double bogey and get at least 1 or 2 points.

[Simonko]

No-one's going to like losing points, but it has to be considered in the grand scheme of things.

For instance:

Would they be against zero points if groups in front kept on returning to the tee to rehit?

Or if hit because the penalty for reckless driving is only stroke and distance, at worse?

[ColonelMac]

(08-21-2013 11:05 PM)Simonko Wrote:  No-one's going to like losing points, but it has to be considered in the grand scheme of things.

For instance:

Would they be against zero points if groups in front kept on returning to the tee to rehit?

Or if hit because the penalty for reckless driving is only stroke and distance, at worse?

Not quite sure what is meant by "grand scheme of things". In the grand scheme of things, there are still men and women fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Yet, the golfing world goes ballistic over Tiger Woods dropping in the wrong place at Augusta.

My "take" on this entire project is finding ways to make the game more enjoyable for the majority, rather than requiring a law degree to understand the rules.

If a player steps on the tee with out of bounds left or right KNOWING there's a chance they can come up with a complete zero with absolutely no chance of at least getting 1 point if they hit it out, THAT seems to be defeating the main purpose.

In numerous places in this Forum the point has been made about looking to the results desired. If the result sought is making the game more enjoyable by simplifying the rules, then imposing such a severe penalty seems counterproductive.

[John Morrissett]

Dennis -

Those are all good thoughts, as we should definitely keep in mind what impact such Rules changes would have on existing courses.

With out of bounds, off the top of my head I can think of only one architect (Tom Simpson, I believe, who professed his respect for Hoylake and its out of bounds) who has openly praised the use of out of bounds when designing a course. Rather, architects, like tournament administrators, tend to use out of bounds as a key element of a hole only when forced to do so (for legal, practical or safety reasons). If that were not the case, why wouldn't out of bounds be used more extensively (esp. when property lines and safety are not issues)?

Also, could you argue that a lesser penalty for out of bounds would allow fairways and greens to be positioned closer to out of bounds (ignoring for now the concerns with possible concerns with property damage) and therefore allow holes to occupy less land?

Thanks,
John

[Dennis Harwood]

(08-23-2013 05:05 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  Dennis -


Also, could you argue that a lesser penalty for out of bounds would allow fairways and greens to be positioned closer to out of bounds (ignoring for now the concerns with possible concerns with property damage) and therefore allow holes to occupy less land?

Thanks,
John

John - I think that raises the issue of why have an OB penalty at all. Obviously we could adopt the baseball rule of unlimited foul balls. Keep hitting til on lands in fair territory. Other than the obvious time problems, I suspect most golfers believe that bad strokes should have consequences. If you can not keep your ball on a 140 acre area that should have some scoring consequences.

That raises the issue of what should that penalty be? Is one stroke alone, compared with the penalty for lost ball ( S&D) a "fair" result ( assuming fairness should have anything to do with it )?. In the typical case of heavy rough and then a boundary adjoining the target ( the fairway) is it a proper result that the shot which misses the target by a bit and lost in the rough incurs a more severe penalty than the truly awful shot that misses the course entirely? I know we survive with the stroke penalty for WHs but the quality of the shot resulting in different penalty results rarely comes into play with WHs.

Property damage ( which you mentioned ) is also a factor. If we want players to be deterred from hitting astray from a line of play and imposing a severe penalty for hitting the ball on a neighbors property, is a stroke penalty alone without distance enough of a deterrent? Should the Rules be structured to provide the deterrent?

I am afraid I am not convinced we should adopt a different OB penalty of one stroke sans distance.

Regards,
Dennis