2008 Rules

[AAA]

http://www.usga.org/news/2007/october/2007_79.html

[jvincent]

I noticed the following:

In the above four Rules, the term “reasonable evidence” has been replaced by “known or virtually certain” when determining whether a ball that has not been found may be treated as lost in an obstruction (Rule 24-3), an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a water hazard (Rule 26-1). See corresponding change to Definition of “Lost Ball” and Rule 18-1.

Anyone think this wording is better or worse than the "reasonable evidence" wording?

[Big Johnny69]

I would say better, considering the general consensus was, for example, seeing the ball enter a water hazard was the only reasonable evidence accepted to deem a ball lost in a hazard. But with the new wording, if you are familiar with the course you can come to the conclusion that the ball must've went into the hazard. Just my thoughts, but I may be way off.

[AAA]

Anyone think this wording is better or worse than the "reasonable evidence" wording?

It is still subjective but it is certainly much better. I can't think what else they could say to get the intent across.

[jvincent]

I think the problem with the original wording was the use of the word "evidence".

The new wording is better, but I'm pretty sure it will still get debated.

[Big Johnny69]

I think the problem with the original wording was the use of the word "evidence".

The new wording is better, but I'm pretty sure it will still get debated.

Well I'll give you an example where the new definition works better than the old.

When I was a member at Mountain Creek, the 18th hole has two ponds in play. One pond is at the base of a hill. On a good day, with a good swing I could clear the second pond. On normal days, when the swing wasn't so good the ball would end up in the pond.

If you cleared the pond you saw the ball bounce, no bounce in the pond and you couldn't see the splash, even if you didn't roll down the hill. So knowing the course, I could say with certainty that the ball was in the hazard. But if I have to show evidence....a little tougher to do.

[LobWedge]

Wow! 2 strokes for a wrong ball from a hazard (or loss of hole in match play). That's a major change.

I like the change to the "accidental deflection" rule. Definitely makes more sense.

As far as the change from "reasonable evidence" to "known or virtually certain", the meaning is the same, it's just a better way to say it.

I still think that they're missing out on allowing a player to declare a provisional in play when the original ball is lost. It sould save soooooo much time. At the very least, it would make the rule much easier to apply. How many guys do you actually see trudging back to where they last hit from? Not many.

[AAA]

Wow! 2 strokes for a wrong ball from a hazard (or loss of hole in match play). That's a major change.

But now you are allowed to identify it. So there is no excuse.

[AAA]

This pdf is very useful

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/20...al_Changes.pdf

[LobWedge]

But now you are allowed to identify it. So there is no excuse.

The only problem that I can potentially see here is with balls that are partially or completely submerged in water. It would be very difficult to replace a ball exactly, or recreate the lie in a lot of these situations, if the player chooses to "play it as it lies".

[mpare]

The new test for determining the area in which a ball may have been lost is, in my opinion, stricter than the former rule. Under the old rule an inference of fact could be drawn on the basis of "reasonable evidence." The quality and kind of evidence that could satisfy that criteria was a lot broader than that permitted under the new test. Now, one must "know" or be "virtually certain" that the ball was lost in the specified locations. This is a much more stringent test, with no room for the drawing reasonable inferences as was formerly possible. In short, the degree of certainty now required before coming to the conclusion that one's ball was lost in a water hazzard, for example, is much higher.

[AAA]

mpare

I think the R&A/USGA have simply reinforced the interpretation that most Rules Officials were already working to. ie 95% or 98% certain. That was the criterium given in most rules workshops.

[mpare]

That may have been their interpretation of the old rule, but the rule itself did not read that way. The new rule eliminates any ambiguity in that regard. More to the point, though, is that for those who did not carry the Decisions with them, this amendment will eliminate any confusion on what inferences may be drawn. I think that its a useful change.

mpare

I think the R&A/USGA have simply reinforced the interpretation that most Rules Officials were already working to. ie 95% or 98% certain. That was the criterium given in most rules workshops.

[AAA]

I think that its a useful change.

I certainly agree.

[AAA]

Here's another clarification. The R&A had previously advised anyone who asked that this was the situation but it wasn't widely broadcast.

Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, priority on the
course is determined by a group’s pace of play. Any group playing a
whole round is entitled to pass a group playing a shorter round.The
term “group” includes a single player.

Previously a player in a tournament on his own but with an officially appointed marker had no standing in respect of playing through.

[BC MIST]

I still think that they're missing out on allowing a player to declare a provisional in play when the original ball is lost. It sould save soooooo much time. At the very least, it would make the rule much easier to apply. How many guys do you actually see trudging back to where they last hit from? Not many.

In reading the clarification of "lost ball" in the new rules, I don't see where the suggested declaration would save time. A provisional ball is not in play until the original ball is, in fact lost, (see definition), or has been hit from a point beyond where the original may have been lost.

If a golfer thinks his ball may be lost and tees up another without saying anything, that ball is NOT a provisional, but is the ball in play. The wasting of time comes when a golfer refuses to play a provisional when he thinks a ball may be lost, and then has to go back.

If the suggestion is that after 3 minutes of looking, he says to the others, "Thanks for the help, the provisional is in play, " and then the original ball is found, the original is NOT lost and must be played. This would necessitate a change of the definition of a lost ball to, " A ball is lost when the player says it is." Not.

[LobWedge]

In reading the clarification of "lost ball" in the new rules, I don't see where the suggested declaration would save time. A provisional ball is not in play until the original ball is, in fact lost, (see definition), or has been hit from a point beyond where the original may have been lost.

If a golfer thinks his ball may be lost and tees up another without saying anything, that ball is NOT a provisional, but is the ball in play. The wasting of time comes when a golfer refuses to play a provisional when he thinks a ball may be lost, and then has to go back.

If the suggestion is that after 3 minutes of looking, he says to the others, "Thanks for the help, the provisional is in play, " and then the original ball is found, the original is NOT lost and must be played. This would necessitate a change of the definition of a lost ball to, " A ball is lost when the player says it is." Not.

Actually, I messed that up. What I really meant to refer to was option A of Rule 28, Ball Unplayable. If a player thinks his ball might be lost, plays a provisional, and then finds the original ball, he has 3 options. If B & C are not feasible he has to go all the way back and re-play, with a stroke & distance penalty. Because the original ball was found, the provisional no longer exists.

IMO, the player should be allowed to declare the provisional ball in play under option A, and proceed forward from that point with the stroke & distance penalty applied, instead of having to go back. That would definitely save time.

p.s. I would also recommend that it be called the OG rule, since the old OG Tour is where this "rule" first appeared.

[AAA]

IMO, the player should be allowed to declare the provisional ball in play under option A, and proceed forward from that point with the stroke & distance penalty applied, instead of having to go back. That would definitely save time.

But it would also be against a basic principle. The player would then have choice of which ball he preferred.
He hasn't got that sort of choice elsewhere. eg if his ball is in GUR or interfered with by an IO, he has to take a chance on the result of the drop. He can't take the drop and then say 'Oh I think I'll take my original as my drop has fallen into a divot hole'

[LobWedge]

But it would also be against a basic principle. The player would then have choice of which ball he preferred.
He hasn't got that sort of choice elsewhere. eg if his ball is in GUR or interfered with by an IO, he has to take a chance on the result of the drop. He can't take the drop and then say 'Oh I think I'll take my original as my drop has fallen into a divot hole'

Yes, but Rule 28 already gives the player 3 choices if he declares his ball unplayable, and he can do that anywhere on the course, outside of a water hazard. If B & C are not viable options, then the player is left with option A, and has to go all the way back and re-hit. Allowing the provisional to take the place of the "distance" part of the equation does nothing but save time, IMO.

[AAA]

The difference is that in your proposition the player can actually see the lie and potential shot choice of two balls. In rule 28 he has to make choice before even touching his original ball. There is no other situation in the rules, except a contentious LR modification to Rule 26 for [those who would have corrected me ] which gives a player the choice you are offering.

[LobWedge]

The difference is that in your proposition the player can actually see the lie and potential shot choice of two balls. In rule 28 he has to make choice before even touching his original ball.

To me, the fact that a player would potentially be able to see and choose between two balls is of little consequence here. 1) He's paying a price of (at least) two strokes to choose the provisional, which is fair. 2) He may still opt to use option B or C, at which time the provisional would be removed from consideration anyway.

These choices also need to be made before he puts hand to ball.

A player already has 2 additional choices under this rule. It makes complete sense, especially for pace of play, to allow a third.

[AAA]

The bottom line is that pace of play is not a Rules of Golf problem. It is a Course Management (ie money grabbing) problem. If course owners didn't try to cram too many people on the course it wouldn't be a big issue. It never was before.

[BC MIST]

The difference is that in your proposition the player can actually see the lie and potential shot choice of two balls. In rule 28 he has to make choice before even touching his original ball. There is no other situation in the rules, except a contentious LR modification to Rule 26 for [those who would have corrected me ] which gives a player the choice you are offering.

Another assumption being made is that the provisional ball is "in play," or available to be used, if the rules allow. On more than one occasion in my career, I have hit MORE than one provisional. What would happen if the first provisional was lost and the second (5 off the tee) was the one available? More choices?

The idea of speeding up play is commendable, but to be able to make a choice as to what ball to play, is too advantageous, IMO.

[LobWedge]

The bottom line is that pace of play is not a Rules of Golf problem. It is a Course Management (ie money grabbing) problem. If course owners didn't try to cram too many people on the course it wouldn't be a big issue. It never was before.

Another assumption being made is that the provisional ball is "in play," or available to be used, if the rules allow. On more than one occasion in my career, I have hit MORE than one provisional. What would happen if the first provisional was lost and the second (5 off the tee) was the one available? More choices?

The idea of speeding up play is commendable, but to be able to make a choice as to what ball to play, is too advantageous, IMO.

I agree, but it just seems counterintuitive to have to go backwards when a simple solution would keep things moving forward. I have the same basic issue with the OB rule. I'm not trying to make things easier for golfers necessarily, just more effective.