In the new Golf Rules for 2019, the USGA will permit
committees to adopt a local rule on Balls Lost or Out-of-Bounds:
Balls Lost or Out-of- Bounds: Alternative to Stroke and
Distance: A new Local
Rule will now be available in January 2019, permitting committees to allow
golfers the option to drop the ball in the vicinity of where the ball is lost
or out of bounds (including the nearest fairway area), under a two-stroke
penalty. It addresses concerns raised at the club level about the negative
impact on pace of play when a player is required to go back under stroke and
distance. The Local Rule is not intended for higher levels of play, such as
professional or elite level competitions. (Key change: this
is a new addition to support pace of play.)
This local rule should pass three tests before it is adopted
by a club. First, is it needed? Second, does it actually increase the pace of
play? Third, is the cost of administering the rule worth any perceived benefit?
Need – Typically,
local rules should only be adopted when abnormal conditions make it impractical
to abide by the Rules of Golf. Examples
would be prohibiting play from environmentally sensitive areas, allowing the
removal of stones from bunkers, and allowing preferred lies. This local rule does not meet the requirement
of abnormal conditions and is promoted solely to increase the pace of
play. If a ball being hit out-of-bounds
or lost is a common occurrence, then the local rules would pass the needs
test. If not, this local rule is a worthless addendum to the rules sheet.
This local rule will come into play primarily in singles stroke
play events. In match play or
better-ball events a player who believes his ball is out-of bounds will usually
play a provisional ball (more on this later).
If he does not, and finds his ball out-of-bounds, he often does not go
back to the tee, but disqualifies himself from the hole. In either of these cases, the local rule is
of no use.
There are courses where balls can be easily lost. The new rules permit the committee to declare
areas where balls can easily be lost (e.g., gorse, woods, and raw desert)
penalty areas. If many lost balls are
now in what can be considered penalty areas, the need for this local rule is
greatly reduced if not eliminated.
Pace of Play –
The USGA argues this local rule would increase the pace of play. There are counter arguments that contend it
will not increase, and possibly decrease, the pace of play. A player who finds his ball
out-of-bounds still has the option to return to the tee. For example, assume a player hooks his ball
out-of-bounds on a par 3 hole. He finds
it (Point A on the figure below) some 60 yards from the hole. He can now drop the ball on the fairway 60
yards from the hole and be hitting four or return to the tee hitting three. After a few minutes of calculating his odds
of making a five, he decides to re-tee. In
this case, the new local rule actually decreases the pace of play.
While some of the new rules are intended to diminish conflict among competitors, this local rule does not. The question of whether a player hit the ball twice, for example, does not need be resolved under the new rules. This local rule, however, can lead to disagreements among competitors. Assume a player hits the ball out-of-bounds on long par four. The ball is not found, but all participants’ believe the ball went out-of- bounds. The player who hit the ball believes the ball traveled twenty yards further than his opponent believes. The Committee is called and it decides that without any contrary evidence, the player’s judgment should prevail. The player drops his ball at point B. His opponent argues the ball is now closer to the hole than point A. Both players draw their range finders and conclude the ball must be dropped five yards further back. In this case, the local rule increases both the time of play and the enmity among players.
There are also cases where the local rule is difficult to
apply. One example would be when a
player’s ball is out-of-bounds behind he green. A player must first estimate how far the
out-of-bounds boundary is from the flagstick (i.e., Point A). Then he may have to walk back to the fairway
to find the nearest point no closer to the flagstick (i.e., Point B). The player now has a large swath of “general
area” created by an arc connecting Point A and Point B. If the player takes anytime deciding the
best place to drop, the local rule will not increase the pace of play.
Another example would be on a hole with a sharp dogleg to
the right. If a player hooks his ball,
there could be no Point B that is not closer to the hole. The USGA suggests in such cases:
If a
ball is estimated to be lost on
the course or
last crossed the edge of the course boundary
short of the fairway, the fairway reference point may be a grass path or a
teeing ground for the hole being played cut to fairway height or less.
If a player goes back to a tee (either the one played from or a forward tee) under the local rule, he
would be hitting four without a tee. A better option might be to abandon the original ball and be hitting three with a tee. Again, the local rule does not
increase the pace of play.
This local rule option is not available if the player hits a provisional ball. A player is well advised not to hit a
provisional ball, but proceed to the out-of-bounds ball and analyze his
options. If he finds, for example, his
Point B is further from the hole than his typical drive, he can then return to
the tee and hit his third stroke. Again, whether this local rule increases the pace of play is questionable.
Cost of
Administration – Members at clubs will eventually understand the geometry
of this local rule if it is adopted. Visitors unfamiliar
with the rule could struggle. The club
could publish a lengthy rules sheet explaining how to determine Points A, B,
and C. Such a sheet is unlikely to be
read and would obscure other local rules that are more likely to come into
play.
Clubs have the option
to suspend this local rule for some tournaments. If the rule is not suspended for the club
championship, players could be insulted that their tournament is not a “higher
level of play.” If it is suspended the
Committee must make sure the suspension is included on the tournament rules sheet. The "on again off again" nature of a local rule leads to confusion and should be avoided.
These are not large administrative problems. A club must assess whether even these minor
hassles are worth the limited benefit of the local rule.
Conclusion – The
USGA’s objective was to make the game simpler and faster for the recreational
player. This local rule will not meet
these two objectives at most clubs. The
local rule is not simpler than having a player hit a provisional ball. And if the Committee is worried about the pace of play, it has better weapons in its arsenal such as conducting tournaments with Stableford scoring.
Another argument against the local rule is it violates the
principle that everyone plays by the same rules. The USGA followed this principle when it allowed all golfers, regardless of ability, to drop outside of a bunker with a two stroke penalty. To be consistent, the USGA could have made the relief procedure in this local rule an alternative to stroke and distance relief found in the Rules of Golf. It did not. It could be the USGA believed the local rule option would affect the equity of the game by favoring the long hitter. Or it could have believed having Tiger Woods drop a ball in the fairway after an out-of-bounds shot would be too big a departure from the history and traditions of the game.
While this local rule looks like it should be rejected on
its merits, many clubs will adopt it merely because it comes with the imprimatur of the USGA. This will allow for an evaluation of the local rule based on empirical evidence and not the speculation. Any comments by readers on how this rule works
in practice would be greatly appreciated.
