Double Penalty for Out of Bounds

[LICC]

On 5/1/2021 at 7:59 PM, cnosil said:

Has nothing to do with hitting into a penalty area vs hitting a ball out of bounds.   You keep bringing up water and not being able to hit out of water.  I continue to maintain that hitting out of bounds is different than hitting into a penalty area.  They are different and they can and do have different penalties.  

But you give no reason whatsoever for why it is different. Instead of being silly trying to say someone can make a golf swing on a ball submerged in water, discuss the merits. Assume the ball is 10 feet below water. It is in a pond and can't be hit. It is the same effective result as OB. Actually it is worse than some OB, because internal OB is actually on the golf course. And some OB is not a danger at all and you can physically hit the ball, but the stakes are placed so you don't get too close to off-course property. Trying to get a ball out of a pond can be dangerous too. A golfer recently drowned falling into a pond to try to get his ball. You keep saying the penalty is different because the rule says the penalty is different. That is not a justification. A ball OB or a ball at the bottom of a pond are both gone. You can't play them. They should be treated the same.

[LICC]

On 5/1/2021 at 9:50 PM, goaliedad30 said:

@LICC, so why not publish your own rule book? You clearly disagree with the one used by the current ruling bodies. Publish it, promote it, and suggest that people play using it. You could even create a website where people playing LICCGolf could post scores for reference.

I officiate ice hockey, and many leagues have their own customized rules ....

That is not how golf works, if you want to keep a handicap and play with others using the handicap system.

[LICC]

22 hours ago, SkilledByDesign said:

I guess my main point that I would want to bring up is: Do you feel you should be punished more for hitting a ball out of the bounds of the course compared to hitting within the design of the course, but to a place where it cannot be played?

Personally I feel that it is fair to be punished more, and it seems like the majority agree with that.

The bottom of a pond is not within the design of a course as a location that a ball can be played. If a designer chooses to run a hole along an OB area, that is part of the design of a course, just as if the designer chooses to run a hole alongside a pond or lake or oceanfront.

[LICC]

23 hours ago, stuka44 said:

LICC  I would point out what I stated earlier in this thread, and point to a few of the comments just before this one.  Anyone who suggests that the rules for equipment, course standards,  hole size or rules of play or anything with the game of golf,  can be made "better", to be "adjusted", to be "altered"  for "recreational golf" perhaps for the simplest of reasons, to make it more FUN, and "easier"  and perhaps more "fair", is met with "make your own rule book"  

I agree with you completely on the OB rule.

Arguments like "its hard that's why we like it",  .."its not the same you CAN technically hit a ball at the bottom of 10 feet of water", and "make your own rule book", kind of sounds like the dismissive, somewhat condescending attitude toward those of us who merely suggest that perhaps the rulebook, and the game is perhaps not perfect as it is.

 

 

 

Thank you. Some people just can't accept that something they have been told in the past or grew up with could be flawed. The abrasive reactions combined with the lack of good reason is telling. If the USGA were to change this rule, in 20 years the same people would say it's great and the penalties should be the same.

[LICC]

20 hours ago, CarlH said:

When it comes to rules, any rule of any sport, "fair" boils down to fair to everyone playing.  In order for a rule to be fair, it must be applied equally to everyone, so as not to give any one player an advantage or disadvantage.  In the case of an OB, stroke and distance is fair because not every ball that goes OB goes into someone's lawn.  OB can be along a wooded area, an open field, or the side of a mountain.  Sometimes you can find the ball, often you cannot.  If you were allowed to drop the ball where you "think" it went in, you would be probably giving yourself an unfair advantage over the field.  By making it stroke and distance for OB and/or lost ball, the rule is applied equally to everyone, no exceptions.  Therefore, it is a fair rule.   Unless you can devise a rule that applies to every case and situation, then you have no valid argument.

This is my opinion of the rule.  You may or may not agree.  It doesn't matter one way or the other.  Competitive golf requires stroke and distance and, until that rule changes by the governing body, that's the rule we follow.

There are a few issues. One is fairness. The same bad swing by two golfers, on similar holes the only difference being OB vs. a pond, results in a harsher penalty for one than the other. Also, two penalties for one bad swing is unfairly harsh. The other issue is logic. There is no good logical reason to assess a double penalty on one bad swing. There is no good logical reason to apply different penalties to the same one bad swing. It's a bad rule.

Edited May 3, 2021 by LICC

[LICC]

13 hours ago, cnosil said:

It is funny that you bring up "tradition"  Most of the people responding to this thread and the others started by the OP are probably in favor of doing things to advance the game and improve the rules if necessary.    Most of the people on this site are pro armlock putting; however, the OP believe that we need to respect the traditional way and that it isn't a proper swing.   We have stated that hitting the ball far is good and that equipment shouldn't be rolled back to a prior era; but the OP wants courses to be played like they were in the past.     

Sure,  lets make the game better, and the ruling committees have for shots that go OB. With a local rule you can drop in the fairway, add 2 strokes, and play on.   Golf has penalties that are 1 stroke or 2 strokes;  OB happens to be 2 strokes because it is functionally different that a penalty area.    I am all for local courses doing things to get people involved in the game;  shorter courses for faster rounds,  discounts for students,  bigger holes to make the game easier; or even have people make up their own rules as long as the keep up a pace of play.   I am even fine with competitions with those unofficial rules.  

You misstated my position again. I'm for bifurcation for the pros, not rolling back equipment for everyone.

[CarlH]

13 minutes ago, LICC said:

There are a few issues. One is fairness. The same bad swing by two golfers, on similar holes the only difference being OB vs. a pond, results in a harsher penalty for one than the other. Also, two penalties for one bad swing is unfairly harsh. The other issue is logic. There is no good logical reason to assess a double penalty on one bad swing. There is no good logical reason to apply different penalties to the same one bad swing. It's a bad rule.

You keep comparing two separate penalties.  Hitting into a hazard and hitting a lost ball or hitting a ball outside of the boundaries of the course are two different things.  OB is not part of the course.  Hazards are part of the course and specifically designed by the course architect to be part of the game.  The difference is clear and defined by the rules of golf.  Hence, your argument is poorly reasoned.

Apparently, you feel as if the stroke and distance rule for an OB ball is too harsh.  Many agree with you.  However, what rule would you apply that would address all instances of OB (from lying in someone's yard in plain view to one that is deep in the woods and unfindable) that would be fairly applied to all players in the field.

 

[LICC]

4 minutes ago, CarlH said:

You keep comparing two separate penalties.  Hitting into a hazard and hitting a lost ball or hitting a ball outside of the boundaries of the course are two different things.  OB is not part of the course.  Hazards are part of the course and specifically designed by the course architect to be part of the game.  The difference is clear and defined by the rules of golf.  Hence, your argument is poorly reasoned.

Apparently, you feel as if the stroke and distance rule for an OB ball is too harsh.  Many agree with you.  However, what rule would you apply that would address all instances of OB (from lying in someone's yard in plain view to one that is deep in the woods and unfindable) that would be fairly applied to all players in the field.

 

I keep asking why OB and the bottom of a pond (or a heavily wooded area that you cannot access, or the ocean, etc.) is meaningfully different from the aspect of applying penalties and all I hear is because it is different. It's part of the course. So what? It is not part of the course in which a ball can be played. Internal OB is on the golf course. 

Let's take the 18th at Pebble Beach. You hook your tee shot. The ball is in the ocean. It's not part of the course. One penalty. Why is that different from OB such that the penalty is different?

I would treat OB the same as a lateral hazard in which you can't play the ball. Drop within two club lengths where the ball crossed OB and take a one stroke penalty. Or hit your next shot from your original spot, no stroke penalty. 

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

But you give no reason whatsoever for why it is different. Instead of being silly trying to say someone can make a golf swing on a ball submerged in water, discuss the merits. Assume the ball is 10 feet below water. It is in a pond and can't be hit. It is the same effective result as OB. Actually it is worse than some OB, because internal OB is actually on the golf course. And some OB is not a danger at all and you can physically hit the ball, but the stakes are placed so you don't get too close to off-course property. Trying to get a ball out of a pond can be dangerous too. A golfer recently drowned falling into a pond to try to get his ball. You keep saying the penalty is different because the rule says the penalty is different. That is not a justification. A ball OB or a ball at the bottom of a pond are both gone. You can't play them. They should be treated the same.

You keep bringing up water.  Let’s forget about water and call it a penalty area like the rules designate; it could be water, trees, a cliff, or a flat piece of land.  You have the option to play from a penalty area you don’t have the option to play from OB; that is what the rules state.  If you choose not to play from a penalty area you  must choose one of the options available to you; one of which is stroke and distance.   Your position is that the player should be able to drop 2 clubs from where the ball crossed an OB line and take one penalty stroke as an addition option to stroke and distance.   The difference is that OB typically defines a course boundary and once crossed you have left golf course property and as a result receive a more severe penalty.  I am not a fan of internal OB but courses do use this as a way to protect people from errant shots.  To help pace of play theory created a local rule that allows you to keep the distance, take two strokes, and drop in the fairway.   Penalty areas are part of the design of the course.  
 

Players can take on a penalty area and try to carry it to gain an advantage over their playing partners. a player that hits the ball longer can carry a penalty area while the shorter play may need to lay up.  OB areas are not areas that you would take on to try and gain a competitive advantage. You can’t carry an OB line or get in a better position; it is a forbidden area.  
 

How about we talk about sandy waste areas and bunkers you can ground your club in a waste area but not a bunker.  The areas are designated as being different just like a penalty area and OB.  They may look the same, but they are not the same.  

53 minutes ago, LICC said:

You misstated my position again. I'm for bifurcation for the pros, not rolling back equipment for everyone.

You have said one of your reasons for bifurcation is to preserve the existing course layout and play it like it was designed to be played; that is about tradition.  

[SkilledByDesign]

16 minutes ago, LICC said:

I keep asking why OB and the bottom of a pond (or a heavily wooded area that you cannot access, or the ocean, etc.) is meaningfully different from the aspect of applying penalties and all I hear is because it is different. It's part of the course. So what? It is not part of the course in which a ball can be played. Internal OB is on the golf course. 

Let's take the 18th at Pebble Beach. You hook your tee shot. The ball is in the ocean. It's not part of the course. One penalty. Why is that different from OB such that the penalty is different?

I would treat OB the same as a lateral hazard in which you can't play the ball. Drop within two club lengths where the ball crossed OB and take a one stroke penalty. Or hit your next shot from your original spot, no stroke penalty. 

After 7 pages of this, nothing has been accomplished. You have your opinion on the rule and while some may agree, I feel the majority do not. If you aren’t playing for a handicap, play however you want, but if you are, play by the rules in places either by USGA or your local club. Maybe you can start a rules petition or something of that sort if you find the rule unfair

[CarlH]

27 minutes ago, LICC said:

I keep asking why OB and the bottom of a pond (or a heavily wooded area that you cannot access, or the ocean, etc.) is meaningfully different from the aspect of applying penalties and all I hear is because it is different. It's part of the course. So what? It is not part of the course in which a ball can be played. Internal OB is on the golf course. 

Let's take the 18th at Pebble Beach. You hook your tee shot. The ball is in the ocean. It's not part of the course. One penalty. Why is that different from OB such that the penalty is different?

I would treat OB the same as a lateral hazard in which you can't play the ball. Drop within two club lengths where the ball crossed OB and take a one stroke penalty. Or hit your next shot from your original spot, no stroke penalty. 

To address the first part of your reply, the difference is in the definitions in the rules of golf.  It is clearly stated.  If it's part of the course, it was designed as such.  A risk-reward situation where the player makes a conscious decision of how to play the shot. (Yes, I realize you're speaking of unintentional and wayward results, but the rules of golf do not distinguish between a good shot and a poor shot) In the case of OB, you've hit the ball outside of the boundaries of the course.  The course was not designed to be played OB.  Just like a foul ball in baseball or dribbling outside of the court.  Again, we're addressing fairness to the field, not fairness of the poor play of an individual.

Now, regarding your penalty.  I could see a lateral drop with one stroke penalty for hitting OB and dropping where the ball last crossed.  However, how one determines last crossed may be an issue in some cases.  On the option to return to the original spot and re-hit without penalty -- that's a non starter!  That's called a mulligan.  Why should a player get a do-over without penalty for a wayward shot?  Not exactly fair to the field.

How about a lost ball not OB?  Also a stroke and distance penalty.  How do you fairly penalize that shot without giving undue advantage to the player over the field.  

[Stuka44]

39 minutes ago, LICC said:

 The difference is clear and defined by the rules of golf. 

One of the fundamental issues, I see is that those of us suggesting that perhaps rule changes may be in order, for whatever our individual reasons may be for believing it will as we feel "help" some aspect of the game of golf is the following.  The argument continues to be "well its defined that way in the rules", and  "the rules define it as a two stroke penalty".  That isn't a very good argument.  Now forgive my somewhat outlandish example, but that would be comparable to continuing to  deny women the right to vote, at that time,  using the argument that "well there is a rule that says they can't, so why change it".  or  "the forefathers didn't think they should, so they must know best".  Again I am just trying to make a point with my example!!!  

Arguing to not change a rule because "the rules don't say what someone wants the rule to be changed to", is illogical to the point I can't explain it. 

[LICC]

27 minutes ago, CarlH said:

To address the first part of your reply, the difference is in the definitions in the rules of golf.  It is clearly stated.  If it's part of the course, it was designed as such.  A risk-reward situation where the player makes a conscious decision of how to play the shot. (Yes, I realize you're speaking of unintentional and wayward results, but the rules of golf do not distinguish between a good shot and a poor shot) In the case of OB, you've hit the ball outside of the boundaries of the course.  The course was not designed to be played OB.  Just like a foul ball in baseball or dribbling outside of the court.  Again, we're addressing fairness to the field, not fairness of the poor play of an individual.

Now, regarding your penalty.  I could see a lateral drop with one stroke penalty for hitting OB and dropping where the ball last crossed.  However, how one determines last crossed may be an issue in some cases.  On the option to return to the original spot and re-hit without penalty -- that's a non starter!  That's called a mulligan.  Why should a player get a do-over without penalty for a wayward shot?  Not exactly fair to the field.

How about a lost ball not OB?  Also a stroke and distance penalty.  How do you fairly penalize that shot without giving undue advantage to the player over the field.  

It’s not a mulligan because you counted your first shot. This was the rule for decades. In the famous 1913 US Open, Francis Quimet hit his second shot on a hole OB. He dropped at his original spot and hit his third shot. If it were up to you, he would have lost to Vardon and Ray and never made the playoff. 

[cnosil]

31 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

One of the fundamental issues, I see is that those of us suggesting that perhaps rule changes may be in order, for whatever our individual reasons may be for believing it will as we feel "help" some aspect of the game of golf is the following.  The argument continues to be "well its defined that way in the rules", and  "the rules define it as a two stroke penalty".  That isn't a very good argument.  Now forgive my somewhat outlandish example, but that would be comparable to continuing to  deny women the right to vote, at that time,  using the argument that "well there is a rule that says they can't, so why change it".  or  "the forefathers didn't think they should, so they must know best".  Again I am just trying to make a point with my example!!!  

Arguing to not change a rule because "the rules don't say what someone wants the rule to be changed to", is illogical to the point I can't explain it. 

What do I have to tee off between or within 2 club lengths on a tee box?
why can’t I roll the ball into a more favorable lie?
why can’t I swing the club anyway I want?

why limit golf equipment?
why can’t I take a gimme in stroke play? we all know i would have made it!

why can’t I shave down the face of my driver?
why can’t I carry more than 14 clubs; seems like an illogical arbitrary amount?  I’m strong I can carry more and it would give me more options.  
why cant I have a breakfast ball on the first tee, I didn’t get time to warmup?

why did we get rid of the stymie, it was a great rule?  
why can I add lead weight to a club to change its playing characteristics?
why have different shafts and different manufacturers?  Everyone should play the same equipment

why can’t I get a mulligan if I get distracted by an outside agency?  

there have to be some limitations; you can’t have a game without rules.  We don’t always like the rules. The items you mention are about evolution to make things better.   The rules evolved with OB to add a local rule to drop in the fairway with 2 stroke penalty.  The penalty for OB is severe as it should be. There has to be a good reason to change it and there hasn’t been a valid reason provided to change it either.  

[Stuka44]

11 minutes ago, cnosil said:

What do I have to tee off between or within 2 club lengths on a tee box?
why can’t I roll the ball into a more favorable lie?
why can’t I swing the club anyway I want?

why limit golf equipment?
why can’t I take a gimme in stroke play? we all know i would have made it!

why can’t I shave down the face of my driver?
why can’t I carry more than 14 clubs; seems like an illogical arbitrary amount?  I’m strong I can carry more and it would give me more options.  
why cant I have a breakfast ball on the first tee, I didn’t get time to warmup?

why did we get rid of the stymie, it was a great rule?  
why can I add lead weight to a club to change its playing characteristics?
why have different shafts and different manufacturers?  Everyone should play the same equipment

why can’t I get a mulligan if I get distracted by an outside agency?  

there have to be some limitations; you can’t have a game without rules.  We don’t always like the rules. The items you mention are about evolution to make things better.   The rules evolved with OB to add a local rule to drop in the fairway with 2 stroke penalty.  The penalty for OB is severe as it should be. There has to be a good reason to change it and there hasn’t been a valid reason provided to change it either.  

Again the mere suggestion that some variation or change of a single rule or couple of rules, may be better than how it is at this particular moment in time(AND ANY CHANGE CAN BE REVERSED) means, that we must want every rule to be changed, and the rules have to allow a beginner to shoot 20 under par, and feel that ALL THE RULES OF GOLF ARE STUPID.  This response is a perfect example of what I have been saying in the last 7 pages!

[cnosil]

14 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Again the mere suggestion that some variation or change of a single rule or couple of rules, may be better than how it is at this particular moment in time(AND ANY CHANGE CAN BE REVERSED) means, that we must want every rule to be changed, and the rules have to allow a beginner to shoot 20 under par, and feel that ALL THE RULES OF GOLF ARE STUPID.  This response is a perfect example of what I have been saying in the last 7 pages!

But it is the same logic being applied to those that don’t think the rule should be changed.  Simply saying the rule is unfair doesn’t make it unfair.  I understand that the OP doesn’t like that stroke and distance is the only option for OB.  Why does changing OB to allow for a player to drop  where the ball crossed and only have a 1 stroke penalty make the game evolve or correct a significant flaw?  The only argument we hear is that being on the bottom of a pond is less of a penalty than going OB.  

[LICC]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

What do I have to tee off between or within 2 club lengths on a tee box?
why can’t I roll the ball into a more favorable lie?
why can’t I swing the club anyway I want?

why limit golf equipment?
why can’t I take a gimme in stroke play? we all know i would have made it!

why can’t I shave down the face of my driver?
why can’t I carry more than 14 clubs; seems like an illogical arbitrary amount?  I’m strong I can carry more and it would give me more options.  
why cant I have a breakfast ball on the first tee, I didn’t get time to warmup?

why did we get rid of the stymie, it was a great rule?  
why can I add lead weight to a club to change its playing characteristics?
why have different shafts and different manufacturers?  Everyone should play the same equipment

why can’t I get a mulligan if I get distracted by an outside agency?  

there have to be some limitations; you can’t have a game without rules.  We don’t always like the rules. The items you mention are about evolution to make things better.   The rules evolved with OB to add a local rule to drop in the fairway with 2 stroke penalty.  The penalty for OB is severe as it should be. There has to be a good reason to change it and there hasn’t been a valid reason provided to change it either.  

What do I have to tee off between or within 2 club lengths on a tee box?- Because otherwise you are changing the distance of the hole. Two club lengths is common to set forth a swinging area as it gives room for a stance and full swing.
why can’t I roll the ball into a more favorable lie?- Because the game is based on moving the ball via a golf swing. If you have an unplayable lie, there are rules for that with penalties.
why can’t I swing the club anyway I want?- Because golf is a game about the skill of swinging a club.

why limit golf equipment?- To not lose the skill aspects of the game.
why can’t I take a gimme in stroke play? we all know i would have made it!- I'm ok changing this rule based on a very small distance to the hole.

why can’t I shave down the face of my driver?- To not lose the skill aspects of the game.
why can’t I carry more than 14 clubs; seems like an illogical arbitrary amount?  I’m strong I can carry more and it would give me more options.  Per Golf Digest: 

For years players were content to go into battle armed with a relatively slim array of hickory-shafted weapons. That changed when the steel shaft was universally approved for use in 1929 (the USGA had approved its use earlier but it took some time for the R&A to get on board). Some golfers were torn, not sure they wanted to go to steel because they were unfamiliar with how those clubs would react, but not wanting to pass on potentially better equipment. The solution for many became to have a bag that incorporated both hickory and steel clubs, sending the number of sticks in the bag soaring.

Good news for players. Bad news for the caddies. Those poor bastards often ended up lugging two bags instead of one—and caddies back then weren’t making the kind of scratch they do now. Lawson Little was perhaps the most infamous offender, as the winner of the 1934 and 1935 U.S. and British Amateurs often had 30 clubs at his disposal. Some players went with a set of right-handed and left-handed clubs and a survey at the 1935 U.S. Open showed the average number of clubs in a contestant’s bag was 18.

At this point, the USGA and R&A had seen enough. Just as with today in which the governing bodies are fretting about the role of technology in the game, the rulesmakers back then were afraid that such a large number of clubs would make skill less prominent. Additionally, it provided an advantage for well-to-do golfers who had the wherewithal to purchase more clubs than their less-fortunate brethren.

In 1936 the USGA and R&A adopted the 14-club limit with it going into effect in 1938. It has been in effect since.

Oh, and why 14? No one really knows, although it has been surmised that most common set makeup at the time was four woods, nine irons and a putter. You don’t even need a calculator to know that’s 14 bats.

why cant I have a breakfast ball on the first tee, I didn’t get time to warmup?- If you are not playing for money, have at it. You ended your first round after one stroke, and started another.

why did we get rid of the stymie, it was a great rule? - Because the extreme element of chance makes it a detriment to a fair game, particularly with stroke play which has become the more popular game. 
why can I add lead weight to a club to change its playing characteristics?- To not lose the skill aspects of the game.
why have different shafts and different manufacturers?  Everyone should play the same equipment- As long as they all conform, having competitors making equipment leads to innovation and cost efficiencies.

why can’t I get a mulligan if I get distracted by an outside agency? - Being able to focus is a key skill for any sport. 

there have to be some limitations; you can’t have a game without rules.  We don’t always like the rules. The items you mention are about evolution to make things better.   The rules evolved with OB to add a local rule to drop in the fairway with 2 stroke penalty.  The penalty for OB is severe as it should be. There has to be a good reason to change it and there hasn’t been a valid reason provided to change it either.  

Valid, logical good reasons have been provided, you just choose to be blind to them.

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, LICC said:

What do I have to tee off between or within 2 club lengths on a tee box?- Because otherwise you are changing the distance of the hole. Two club lengths is common to set forth a swinging area as it gives room for a stance and full swing.
why can’t I roll the ball into a more favorable lie?- Because the game is based on moving the ball via a golf swing. If you have an unplayable lie, there are rules for that with penalties.
why can’t I swing the club anyway I want?- Because golf is a game about the skill of swinging a club.

why limit golf equipment?- To not lose the skill aspects of the game.
why can’t I take a gimme in stroke play? we all know i would have made it!- I'm ok changing this rule based on a very small distance to the hole.

why can’t I shave down the face of my driver?- To not lose the skill aspects of the game.
why can’t I carry more than 14 clubs; seems like an illogical arbitrary amount?  I’m strong I can carry more and it would give me more options.  Per Golf Digest: 

For years players were content to go into battle armed with a relatively slim array of hickory-shafted weapons. That changed when the steel shaft was universally approved for use in 1929 (the USGA had approved its use earlier but it took some time for the R&A to get on board). Some golfers were torn, not sure they wanted to go to steel because they were unfamiliar with how those clubs would react, but not wanting to pass on potentially better equipment. The solution for many became to have a bag that incorporated both hickory and steel clubs, sending the number of sticks in the bag soaring.

Good news for players. Bad news for the caddies. Those poor bastards often ended up lugging two bags instead of one—and caddies back then weren’t making the kind of scratch they do now. Lawson Little was perhaps the most infamous offender, as the winner of the 1934 and 1935 U.S. and British Amateurs often had 30 clubs at his disposal. Some players went with a set of right-handed and left-handed clubs and a survey at the 1935 U.S. Open showed the average number of clubs in a contestant’s bag was 18.

At this point, the USGA and R&A had seen enough. Just as with today in which the governing bodies are fretting about the role of technology in the game, the rulesmakers back then were afraid that such a large number of clubs would make skill less prominent. Additionally, it provided an advantage for well-to-do golfers who had the wherewithal to purchase more clubs than their less-fortunate brethren.

In 1936 the USGA and R&A adopted the 14-club limit with it going into effect in 1938. It has been in effect since.

Oh, and why 14? No one really knows, although it has been surmised that most common set makeup at the time was four woods, nine irons and a putter. You don’t even need a calculator to know that’s 14 bats.

why cant I have a breakfast ball on the first tee, I didn’t get time to warmup?- If you are not playing for money, have at it. You ended your first round after one stroke, and started another.

why did we get rid of the stymie, it was a great rule? - Because the extreme element of chance makes it a detriment to a fair game, particularly with stroke play which has become the more popular game. 
why can I add lead weight to a club to change its playing characteristics?- To not lose the skill aspects of the game.
why have different shafts and different manufacturers?  Everyone should play the same equipment- As long as they all conform, having competitors making equipment leads to innovation and cost efficiencies.

why can’t I get a mulligan if I get distracted by an outside agency? - Being able to focus is a key skill for any sport. 

there have to be some limitations; you can’t have a game without rules.  We don’t always like the rules. The items you mention are about evolution to make things better.   The rules evolved with OB to add a local rule to drop in the fairway with 2 stroke penalty.  The penalty for OB is severe as it should be. There has to be a good reason to change it and there hasn’t been a valid reason provided to change it either.  

Valid, logical good reasons have been provided, you just choose to be blind to them.

Sorry not logical or good reasons. I could counter all of those with another statement,  but I won’t.  

 

 

[null]

At this point I think we have to admit we are all victims of an elaborate troll-job

[GolfSpy_BNG]

20 minutes ago, jlukes said:

At this point I think we have to admit we are all victims of an elaborate troll-job

That’s not a valid argument!

[LICC]

41 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Sorry not logical or good reasons. I could counter all of those with another statement,  but I won’t.  

 

 

The point is, there is valid reason or logic behind most of the rules relating to those issues you brought up. That is not the case with the OB penalty.

[cnosil]

20 minutes ago, LICC said:

The point is, there is valid reason or logic behind most of the rules relating to those issues you brought up. That is not the case with the OB penalty.

https://www.rules.golf/~/media/Files/RulesDotGolf/New/Consideration-of-Alternatives-to-the-Stroke-and-Distance-Relief-Procedure-for-Balls-that-are-Lost-or-Out-of-Bounds-FINAL.ashx

 

kind of sums up the evaluation the consideration of fairness and the logic that led to the decision on OB and lost ball. 

[THEZIPR23]

15 minutes ago, LICC said:

The point is, there is valid reason or logic behind most of the rules relating to those issues you brought up. That is not the case with the OB penalty.

If you hit the ball off the golf course property you must re-tee it and take a penalty stroke. Pretty logical. 

[LICC]

8 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

If you hit the ball off the golf course property you must re-tee it and take a penalty stroke. Pretty logical. 

If you hit the ball into the ocean, you can drop within two club lengths of the line it passed with only a one-stroke penalty. The combination of that and what you said is not logical.

[THEZIPR23]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

If you hit the ball into the ocean, you can drop within two club lengths of the line it passed with only a one-stroke penalty. The combination of that and what you said is not logical.

Only if the committee deemed the ocean a penalty area. Which the rules cover very logically just like they do OB. 

[Stuka44]

58 minutes ago, cnosil said:

https://www.rules.golf/~/media/Files/RulesDotGolf/New/Consideration-of-Alternatives-to-the-Stroke-and-Distance-Relief-Procedure-for-Balls-that-are-Lost-or-Out-of-Bounds-FINAL.ashx

 

kind of sums up the evaluation the consideration of fairness and the logic that led to the decision on OB and lost ball. 

This has been a great debate!  So nobody sees any problem with the fact that the article referenced, and I couldn't find when the link that was posted was actually written, with a rule that requires a 7 page explanation of the logic behind the rule and the article references that the rule has "been being looked into, and discussed" for  apparently NINE YEARS AT THIS POINT. 

Nobody finds it suspect, that  a rule which has been questioned for nine years, and is going to "continue to be looked into", just maaaay not be a logical, or good one.

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by stuka44

[LICC]

41 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

Only if the committee deemed the ocean a penalty area. Which the rules cover very logically just like they do OB. 

From the USGA Committee Procedures:

But there may be locations where there are large open areas bordering the actual property lines where there would be no objection to players playing. In this case there is no need to place stakes or otherwise define the boundary.

So not being "on the property" isn't such an awful result that must be punished more harshly. Also,

Where a body of water such as a stream, lake, sea, or ocean, borders the course, it is permissible to mark such an area as a penalty area rather than marking it as out of bounds. The phrase “on the course” in the definition of “penalty area” does not mean on property owned by the course; rather it refers to any area not defined as out of bounds by the Committee.

Therefore, having just one penalty and not two for not being on the property of the course is also fine.

There is no logic in any of this. Make the penalty for OB the same as a PA, like it was years ago, and then it all makes sense.

[cnosil]

2 hours ago, stuka44 said:

This has been a great debate!  So nobody sees any problem with the fact that the article referenced, and I couldn't find when the link that was posted was actually written, with a rule that requires a 7 page explanation of the logic behind the rule and the article references that the rule has "been being looked into, and discussed" for  apparently NINE YEARS AT THIS POINT. 

Nobody finds it suspect, that  a rule which has been questioned for nine years, and is going to "continue to be looked into", just maaaay not be a logical, or good one.

 

I don't have problems with the length;  those organizations tend to be verbose,  but it does show that they have considered various options and have applied logic to their decision.  While many may not agree with the logic,  the decision to make OB a stroke and distance penalty has been reviewed in depth.   

I can't find a date either,  I was just looking to see if I could find the reasoning behind the penalty and found the article.  They should really be dated   

Update:  I looked at the properties for the PDF file and it looks like it was created in 2017

 

 

[cnosil]

3 hours ago, LICC said:

There is no logic in any of this. Make the penalty for OB the same as a PA, like it was years ago, and then it all makes sense.

There have been multiple iterations for how the rule was written.  How about we go back to three strokes as was done at one time by the R&A

Per the document the logic for applying S&D is:

To date, our conclusion has been that it is inappropriate to allow a fundamentally different relief procedure for a ball that is out of bounds for the following reasons: 

• Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; 
• There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and 
• It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief.

Additionally it states:

• There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result.

 

There is reasoning and logic behind the decision;  you just don't like the logic that they provided.  

 

[LICC]

27 minutes ago, cnosil said:

There have been multiple iterations for how the rule was written.  How about we go back to three strokes as was done at one time by the R&A

Per the document the logic for applying S&D is:

To date, our conclusion has been that it is inappropriate to allow a fundamentally different relief procedure for a ball that is out of bounds for the following reasons: 

• Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; 
• There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and 
• It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief.

Additionally it states:

• There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result.

 

There is reasoning and logic behind the decision;  you just don't like the logic that they provided.  

 

• Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; Players would have the consequence of one penalty for one bad swing, the same as the strategic challenge of playing a hole with a lateral pond.
• There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and There are safety reasons to avoid going near ponds and lakes; also, the rules allow for adjacent properties to not be considered OB
• It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief. This is an illogical conclusion and not a reason.

There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result. The vast, vast majority of players will not play a hole any differently if the penalty were stroke only instead of stroke and distance. If anything, not re-teeing to go drop would cause less likelihood of another ball going OB. The very, very few players who may (even then unlikely to happen often) play a hole differently because the risk is two penalties instead of one, would be the highly skilled players who are less likely to hit OB.