Elimination of drop

[Dennis Harwood]

Congratulations on your learned efforts.

There is a huge amount of great work in those two Codes. Although I am sure I will have a lot more comments as I dig deeper, I would like to explore one aspect as to which I have given prior thought -- the elimination of the drop.

No question a placing only method of putting a ball back in play is simpler, and would eliminate a huge number of decisions, but will the golfing public accept that change as "fair". ( Although I often quote the iine " Fair is a place they judge pigs and pies, it has nothing to do with the game of Golf.", I believe the public will only play/follow a game whose rules they believe are fair ).

In placing a ball in a relief situation or S&D situations we presume the player will place in the most favorable lie. This is likely to result more than once during a round in a player radically altering a lie to one much more favorable. Will the public support such a principle in the name of simplicity?

Have you considered incorporating the concept of " most similar lie" found in 20-3 (b)(i) where an original lie is known, and the concept of 18-1/5 in determining the nature of the lie at which to place the ball if the original lie not known or established?

[Johanna]

Dennis, don't you think players will get used to it, like they did when the Stymy was abolished, or the drop over the shoulder, or identifying the ball in a hazard and many others? After all, in many cases the player incurs a penalty after a "drop" - sorry a "placement".
See - I'm already getting used to it !

[John Morrissett]

Dennis -

Great to hear from you. We thought you might be interested in this project.

I think the public would be willing to accept this change, perhaps in part because many/most would not object to receiving the occasional better lie themselves (just as many would not object to a tax cut for themselves).

The elimination of dropping certainly moves away from the philosophical point that luck (good and bad) should be part of the game. However, it also removes a source of great confusion from the Rules (When do I drop? When do I place? How do I drop? Who may drop? When do I re-drop? When do I drop twice and then place? When do I keep dropping until I get it right?)

Given the improved conditioning of courses these days and the more uniform conditions, the impact of dropping (with regards to the type of lie a player will receive) is perhaps less significant than it was decades ago.

David and I retained the area in which the player is to place a ball (i.e., he is not required to place the ball AT the appropriate reference point) as we could envision endless arguments over whether the correct reference point is there or a couple of inches away. The retention of larger area (one or two club-lengths) should remove those arguments.

The "most similar lie" approach you suggest would seem to be a happy middle ground, but it would introduce a wrinkle and a somewhat subjective decision. For the sake of simplicity (the overriding theme of the project) we did not add that element.

This issue is perhaps the best example of our point that significant simplicity can be achieved only through the acceptance of different results.

I hope you are doing well, and we look forward to your further comments.
John

[GolferJim]

As a muni player who has to deal with fairways that can be down right ugly, I consider placing the ball as a giant step forward. Concern for fairness should not be an issue.

[Simonko]

I feel such a change would indeed be welcomed by the majority as they seem to accept or buy anything that makes scoring easier.
Personally I don't like the loss of randomness but admit the resulting simplifications are too good to resist.

I just hope it doesn't change playing strategies. For example, I could imagine I'd be tempted to aim for casual water, GUR zones or IOs just to choose my lie if it meant I could now reach the green, get the required spin or trajectory.

BTW, the definition of Equipment still refers to dropping.

[Dennis Harwood]

John - As stated, always placing simplifies a lot. I strongly agree that the one club length latitude is prefered to the disputes that would arise from required placing at the NPR ( where is that precise point = arguments ). I am just not sure in the "free" relief situations how the preceived advantage will be received by golfers.

I do note that Code One does specify in taking S&D relief the ball must be placed on or immeadiately beside spot last stroke played, yet under Code Two that is extended to one c/l? What is the rational of that?

All this leads to the discussion we had a few years ago re movable vs immovable obstructions and movable parts of IOs. I will question this in a separate thread.

Glad to find your site.

[DavidHayes]

(08-12-2013 11:08 AM)Simonko Wrote:  BTW, the definition of Equipment still refers to dropping.

Ugh -- thanks for noting that.

[Rogaman]

Dennis

I too have produced a reformed set of rules, a significant element of which is to eliminate ‘dropping’ in favour of ‘placing’. Arguments for this, which are too lengthy for reproduction here, can be found on ‘www.rogamania.blogspot.com’.

Of particular interest to you may be the proposal for a ‘standard procedure’ for taking relief – another concept in which the authors also have expressed an interest – which states:

Taking relief
Except when specifically modified by a rule, when relief is to be taken in accordance with a rule, a ball must be placed at the nearest point of relief which avoids interference by the condition to the player’s stance or intended swing, or to the lie of the ball. The point of relief must be on the part of the course where it is known, or there is conclusive evidence, that the ball came to rest, or where the reference point for relief is situated.

While it may be argued that with ‘placing’ there exists an enhanced opportunity for a player to choose a preferred placing spot, the ‘nearest point of relief’ is still defined, meaning that options for choice are limited. Furthermore, there are currently provisions (as you are no doubt aware) for a ball to be placed (after two drops) and, in my view, any perceived advantage arising from ‘placing’ is minimal and largely 'swings and roundabouts'. As the authors say: ‘We should be more willing to accept the occasional terrible or great result if it would lead to a significantly simpler Rule…’ I agree.

[ColonelMac]

(08-12-2013 11:08 AM)Simonko Wrote:  I feel such a change would indeed be welcomed by the majority as they seem to accept or buy anything that makes scoring easier.
Personally I don't like the loss of randomness but admit the resulting simplifications are too good to resist.

I just hope it doesn't change playing strategies. For example, I could imagine I'd be tempted to aim for casual water, GUR zones or IOs just to choose my lie if it meant I could now reach the green, get the required spin or trajectory.

BTW, the definition of Equipment still refers to dropping.

Wish I was good enough to "aim" at such places as casual water, GUR zones, etc. and actually HIT them.

I think most of us recreational golfers go with 1 club length to keep it in the same general vicinity, drop it and hit it. As to "placing" leading to improved lies, I also think the recreational golfer won't really care that much and will quickly accept it. After all, I still have to HIT it correctly, even it I put it on a mat.