Double Penalty for Out of Bounds

[TR1PTIK]

23 minutes ago, Apolloshowl said:

I am sorry if this has been answered or not already. I've done my best to keep up with the thread, but its been a lot. 

I guess it has a few parts to it- How many of your (everyone) courses have OB?
-Since OB is a more penalized area have you (again everyone) seen courses change to penalty areas since the new rules a couple years back?
-Have new OB been put in at any of the courses you play? In recent memory.

I ask these, because I played a few courses that newly opened in the last few years and noticed that they had made everything a Penalty area rather then OB stakes. Which along with most courses I have played they don't have much in the way of OB. Truly almost all the courses I normally played only had penalty areas with the exceptions of a few.  Even some changed or removed some OB and made them Penalty Areas instead.

I’ve played several courses where OB rarely exists or doesn’t exist at all. If there’s OB, it’s typically along a public road, private property, or the driving range. There are places within the course property which “could” be marked OB or as a penalty area and simply aren’t. These areas are usually large unkempt grassy or wooded spaces where you’d be extremely unlikely to find your ball and be forced to declare a lost ball. There was a course I used to play often in Missouri that had internal OB between the first and last hole. It never really bothered me - I just didn’t hit it there very often - but course management changed and the stakes were removed. It’s had absolutely zero impact on how either hole is played under most circumstances.

[TR1PTIK]

23 minutes ago, LICC said:

Absolutely nothing in what you said here gives any reason why OB and the bottom of a pond are effectively different for purposes of penalties.

As to your lucky bounce off a tree scenario, that is a result of the natural configuration and variety of the course. I never said there shouldn't be lucky breaks or bad breaks. I am saying that the rules themselves should not be unfair and illogical in their design.

Well hold on a second! I think it's unfair that other players can hit the ball longer and straighter than me. We need to fix that! Fairness is in the rules. Everyone plays by them creating a level playing field. Your argument quite frankly is a dumb one that can't be refuted due to its subjective nature. This is typical of your posts (at least those I've interacted with) and I'm not surprised to see more of the same here.

[GolfSpy_BNG]

28 minutes ago, LICC said:

Absolutely nothing in what you said here gives any reason why OB and the bottom of a pond are effectively different for purposes of penalties.

BECAUSE YOU CAN’T DIFFERENTIATE THE BOTTOM OF THE POND AND HALF THE DARN BALL IN THE SAME POND!  IT IS STILL IN THE SAME FLIPPIN PENALTY AREA!  
 

For Pete’s sake is that clear enough for you? From how I see the rule you can still hit the ball at the bottom of the pond. Whether it is physically possible or not doesn’t matter. The whole pond is treated the same for clarity of the rule. 

[revkev]

29 minutes ago, LICC said:

I'm hoping for what this forum and all forums like this are meant to be- a place where people with the same interests can have a discussion and share views. Unfortunately I get attacked for questioning certain views and asking for valid logical reasoning. 

I'm also hoping that those with open minds may think about it differently and consider my view, and that others could possibly highlight some reasoning or explanation that I am not seeing to help better inform me and others.

I look to make the rules fair, or the design of a course to be fair, not the execution or that random breaks of nature.

Reasonable answer - thanks

[stuka44]

6 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Well hold on a second! I think it's unfair that other players can hit the ball longer and straighter than me. We need to fix that! Fairness is in the rules. Everyone plays by them creating a level playing field. Your argument quite frankly is a dumb one that can't be refuted due to its subjective nature. This is typical of your posts (at least those I've interacted with) and I'm not surprised to see more of the same here.

Yet another example of how anyone who suggests a  rule change, must not understand that there are different playing levels, and bad breaks.  Thanks for proving my point again!

I say these guys must have had it right!  Why after this change did anyone see fit to change it?  Somebody ban whoever changed the rule away from this from the game.

The most severe version was adopted by the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews in 1842: three strokes and distance, meaning that if you hit a ball out of bounds your next stroke, played from the spot where you struck your first, counted as your fifth.

[TR1PTIK]

41 minutes ago, LICC said:

I'm hoping for what this forum and all forums like this are meant to be- a place where people with the same interests can have a discussion and share views. Unfortunately I get attacked for questioning certain views and asking for valid logical reasoning. 

I'm also hoping that those with open minds may think about it differently and consider my view, and that others could possibly highlight some reasoning or explanation that I am not seeing to help better inform me and others.

I look to make the rules fair, or the design of a course to be fair, not the execution or that random breaks of nature.

You get attacked because you always seem to want to "win" the argument. Every time you've been provided with logical reasoning, you clap back with weak examples and anecdotal evidence and insist the reasons provided aren't good enough. You can't make a valid argument except for the one instance where the ball is located at the bottom of a pond despite the fact that penalty areas extend well beyond that point - some of which exist without any water at all.

[TR1PTIK]

5 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Yet another example of how anyone who suggests a  rule change, must not understand that there are different playing levels, and bad breaks.  Thanks for proving my point again!

I say these guys must have had it right!  Why after this change did anyone see fit to change it?  Somebody ban whoever changed the rule away from this from the game.

The most severe version was adopted by the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews in 1842: three strokes and distance, meaning that if you hit a ball out of bounds your next stroke, played from the spot where you struck your first, counted as your fifth.

Weren't you "out of this"? What if you two put the keyboards down and start writing letters to the USGA and R&A? See how your "suggestion" goes. Or, just keep doing laps here...

[stuka44]

COMMANDMENT:  XI

THOU SHALT NOT EVER QUESTION THE RULES OF GOLF!!!

Sorry everyone I must have missed this one in my 12 years of Catholic School!  

I could have brought this to a stop a long time ago.

[GolfSpy_BNG]

15 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

COMMANDMENT:  XI

THOU SHALT NOT EVER QUESTION THE RULES OF GOLF!!!

Sorry everyone I must have missed this one in my 12 years of Catholic School!  

I could have brought this to a stop a long time ago.

Perhaps I missed it but Who here said anything about not questioning the rules?

[cnosil]

45 minutes ago, LICC said:

I'm hoping for what this forum and all forums like this are meant to be- a place where people with the same interests can have a discussion and share views. Unfortunately I get attacked for questioning certain views and asking for valid logical reasoning. 

I'm also hoping that those with open minds may think about it differently and consider my view, and that others could possibly highlight some reasoning or explanation that I am not seeing to help better inform me and others.

I look to make the rules fair, or the design of a course to be fair, not the execution or that random breaks of nature.

why is the USGA's document on this specific topic not valid and logical reasoning?   Logic is about comparing various options and choosing the one that is considered the best based on the presented information.  Essentially the analysis of arguments.  In the document they identified the various points of view and the reasoning why they didn't chose those option.   Your choosing not to accept the decision does not make it unfair,  illogical, or not valid.   

As I have stated several times,  I understand your perspective but I believe that rule changes should be made with the intention of improving the game.   You ask for logic and fairness,  making the penalty one stroke doesn't make it any more logical or fair as the rule would be equally applied.  How about going the other way and making all penalties 2 strokes; especially if you go in the water.   Is that more fair and logical?

 In an earlier post I made all kinds of stupid statements about things that could be changed in the rules and you came up with all kinds of illogical reasons why they shouldn't be changed.  Not agreeing with a statement doesn't make the statement illogical or unfair.  It simply is an opinion.  

You claim that you are being attacked for your views.   People have responded with their views yet you quickly dismiss them as being invalid and illogical which creates the tension that you see in this thread.    

[cnosil]

7 minutes ago, blackngold_blood said:

Perhaps I missed it but Who here said anything about not questioning the rules?

It is don't question the people that question the rules 

[stuka44]

2 minutes ago, blackngold_blood said:

Perhaps I missed it but Who here said anything about not questioning the rules?

Round and Round:  Oh I don't know, maybe not directly, but the fact that a couple of us don't agree that because the rule itself and those who made the rule, define what the penalty IS PRESENTLY, just may not be all of the reason necessary, and don't find the the argument about "off property damage" an even remotely plausible reason, are merely suggesting that it may be "better" or more "fair", are met with comparisons to wanting everyone to hit the ball the same distance, and a lucky bounce off a tree needs to be codified, KINDA sounds like How dare you question a rule of golf!

AND C'MON THE COMMANDMENT THING WAS FUNNY, GOLF IS ABOVE BEING JOKED ABOUT NOW!

[TR1PTIK]

25 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

COMMANDMENT:  XI

THOU SHALT NOT EVER QUESTION THE RULES OF GOLF!!!

Sorry everyone I must have missed this one in my 12 years of Catholic School!  

I could have brought this to a stop a long time ago.

Alright, alright... There's enough urine on the floor at this point for @LICC to lose a golf ball so time to up the ante:

[stuka44]

3 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Alright, alright... There's enough urine on the floor at this point for @LICC to lose a golf ball so time to up the ante:

Now see that's funny stuff!  That's the attitude the USGA & R&A need to have.  Realize that the survival of planet earth does not hang in the balance of the rules.

[GolfSpy_BNG]

6 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

AND C'MON THE COMMANDMENT THING WAS FUNNY, GOLF IS ABOVE BEING JOKED ABOUT NOW

No it isn’t above being joked about. Perhaps a funny face or laughing emoji would have been a better way to show it was a joke other than a smart a$$ post in all caps?

[GolfSpy_BNG]

9 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Round and Round:  Oh I don't know, maybe not directly, but the fact that a couple of us don't agree that because the rule itself and those who made the rule, define what the penalty IS PRESENTLY, just may not be all of the reason necessary, and don't find the the argument about "off property damage" an even remotely plausible reason, are merely suggesting that it may be "better" or more "fair", are met with comparisons to wanting everyone to hit the ball the same distance, and a lucky bounce off a tree needs to be codified, KINDA sounds like How dare you question a rule of golf!

AND C'MON THE COMMANDMENT THING WAS FUNNY, GOLF IS ABOVE BEING JOKED ABOUT NOW!

Also I never said anything about questioning the rules but will say this, if you immediately deem everyone else’s opinions as illogical and stomp your feet basically demanding people to prove you wrong, don’t expect them to not do the same with smart a$$ replies. 

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Oh I don't know, maybe not directly, but the fact that a couple of us don't agree that because the rule itself and those who made the rule, define what the penalty IS PRESENTLY, just may not be all of the reason necessary, and don't find the the argument about "off property damage" an even remotely plausible reason, are merely suggesting that it may be "better" or more "fair", 

How does changing the penalty make the game "better" and more "fair"?   Why is treating an areas of the course differently a bad thing?    Is the problem that there is only one option for relief?  Would making the new drop rule an official rule make it better?   

 

[TR1PTIK]

2 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Now see that's funny stuff!  That's the attitude the USGA & R&A need to have.  Realize that the survival of planet earth does not hang in the balance of the rules.

Thank you. To be fair, I was torn on posting it as I wasn't sure how to take your post - I originally interpreted it the same as @blackngold_blood . I'm glad you clarified so we could get a little more light hearted in this thread.  

[stuka44]

7 minutes ago, cnosil said:

How does changing the penalty make the game "better" and more "fair"?   Why is treating an areas of the course differently a bad thing?    Is the problem that there is only one option for relief?  Would making the new drop rule an official rule make it better?   

 

Wow! My idea of what is "better" for the game, and would make the game more "fair" are clearly different than yours.  "Fair" and "better" and "just" are ever changing "concepts".  It is not science where a water molecule always contains 2 parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen.

Separate but Equal was a rule!  Some thought it was great, some didn't, and it was changed.  Up until 1980 in the United States you could shoot a "fleeing felon" until the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Tennessee v. Garner, agreed with the 15 year olds family that perhaps apprehending someone who was not dangerous to anyone, by shooting them dead, maybe wasn't a good rule. Sports is no different!

Nobody can absolutely prove, better, or fair!  The idea is to be open to the concept that a rule, IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, UNTIL IT ISN'T.  And more than likely there will be no absolute science behind, why the people who thought the rule was great, were overruled, and it was changed.

AND THE VIDEO AND THE 10 COMMANDMENT THINGS WERE FUNNY!  GOLF RULES JUST AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT!

 

[GolfSpy_BNG]

7 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

My idea of what is "better" for the game, and would make the game more "fair" are clearly different than yours.  "Fair" and "better" and "just" are ever changing "concepts".

And this should sum up this whole thread. Just lock it up cuz it is a never ending circle jerk between “the old stuffy traditionalists” and “the young progressive future of the game types”

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for the love of all things holy, stop getting butt hurt when someone dismisses your opinion AFTER you have already dismissed theirs!