Anybody Know Why?

[Canary Kid]

I apologise if this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone has an insight into the logic as to why, under the rules:

- a ball lost in the water gives rise to a ONE shot penalty, with the ball being played from there, but

- a ball lost elsewhere requires “shot and distance” which, in effect, is a TWO shot penalty.

After all, both balls are equally lost!

 

[trevor]

Good point. Is it because you know it’s in the water hazard whereas it could be lost anywhere else ie nobody had seen where it went.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I apologise if this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone has an insight into the logic as to why, under the rules:

- a ball lost in the water gives rise to a ONE shot penalty, with the ball being played from there, but

- a ball lost elsewhere requires “shot and distance” which, in effect, is a TWO shot penalty.

After all, both balls are equally lost!

Only one ball is lost, the other is in a pond, but you know where it is; it’s in a hazard (or whatever the current name for a hazard is)

 

[Canary Kid]

Hmmm. But why is one penalised more for a wayward shot that goes into the rough, than for one that goes into the water. Both could be equally wayward! What’s the LOGIC?

 

[Curls]

The one in the bushes might be found and played if the Gods are benevolent.

The one in the water...

 

[Mel Smooth]

Daft golf rule.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into a lateral hazard, and play from there with a 1 shot penalty.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into o.o.b and you're going back 300 yards with the same penalty.

 

[Italian outcast]

Daft golf rule.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into a lateral hazard, and play from there with a 1 shot penalty.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into o.o.b and you're going back 300 yards with the same penalty.

I'd be happy with either penalty under these circumstances (from time to time)

 

[bladeplayer]

I apologise if this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone has an insight into the logic as to why, under the rules:

- a ball lost in the water gives rise to a ONE shot penalty, with the ball being played from there, but

- a ball lost elsewhere requires “shot and distance” which, in effect, is a TWO shot penalty.

After all, both balls are equally lost!

U dont have reference point to drop from in second case . So to avoid playing from wrong place u have no option but to go.back to point u played from

Im aware ur guessing where it actualy crossed penalty area .. but its as close as possible to point it crossed

 

[Swango1980]

Daft golf rule.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into a lateral hazard, and play from there with a 1 shot penalty.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into o.o.b and you're going back 300 yards with the same penalty.

You could hit a shot 300 yards, land out of bounds, but then roll 4 inches in to bounds. No penalty.

Life is just so unfair.

I'd say, in most cases, a shot lost in a water penalty area is not as bad as a shot lost generally, especially as water penalty areas are often placed in the middle of the hole or just off fairway. If you lose the ball elsewhere, normally it's because you've hit it wide. Generally speaking of course. So, a ball lost outside a penalty area is probably worse than lost in a penalty area, so you deserve your extra punishment .

That being said, no doubt that's not the reason for it. If you lose your ball in the general area though, you probably deserve a 2 shot penalty. The remedy, hit it on the fairways and greens.

 

[IanM]

Well. You know (mostly) what hazards lie ahead. So take some extra care to avoid the OOB!

 

[ScienceBoy]

Daft golf rule.

I disagree, OOB is outside the bounds of play. Water is a hazard in play.

OOB should be a larger penalty.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I guess there is the philosophical point that asks if you see your ball enter the water of a pond and see the splash then you know pretty much exactly where it is so it is not lost - you just can’t get to it to identify it.

Raises the question in my mind about the ball that can be seen up the tree into which a ball was hit but not seen to drop - so the ball is likely to be the players ball - but the player can’t get to it to identify it.

 

[robinthehood]

I disagree, OOB is outside the bounds of play. Water is a hazard in play.

OOB should be a larger penalty.

? It's already a garunteed triple for most....

 

[Foxholer]

? It's already a garunteed triple for most....

Perhaps 'OOB should be the larger penalty' was the intended message!

 

[chrisd]

I guess it's that when you see it go in the pond, lake or stream you know where it is and probably/possible you could have found, and played it, but for the water, but when in deep cack you always have the opportunity to find it and play it (maybe under penalty) which is denied in the water.

 

[ScienceBoy]

? It's already a garunteed triple for most....

All part of the strategy of risk/reward golf.

 

[rulefan]

I apologise if this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone has an insight into the logic as to why, under the rules:

- a ball lost in the water gives rise to a ONE shot penalty, with the ball being played from there, but

- a ball lost elsewhere requires “shot and distance” which, in effect, is a TWO shot penalty.

After all, both balls are equally lost!

The ball known to be in the water is known to be on the course. The ball that cannot be found is not known to be on the course.
The situations are different so the treatment is different. This question has been raised many times over the years and the R&S/USGA have changed the penalty a couple of times but have pretty rapidly changed back to the current rule/penalty. They are not going to change it again soon.

 

[Grant85]

Daft golf rule.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into a lateral hazard, and play from there with a 1 shot penalty.

You can hit a shot 300 yards and it rolls 4 inches into o.o.b and you're going back 300 yards with the same penalty.

Yes of course, but a committee or designer can decide whether to make certain boundaries lateral or OOB hazards.

Often OOB is used as a much more active deterrent to players, for example when there are public footpaths or private property etc. encouraging players to take a much more defensive line away from this boundary. Whereas a lateral hazard is where a designer may want to create more of a risk / reward dynamic on a hole.

 

[jim8flog]

A ball in a 'water' penalty area is not necessarily a one shot penalty because it could be played from within the penalty area. Therefore the penalty has to be the same for the player who decides to pick up the ball and play it from outside of the penalty as for the player who decides to leave the ball in the penalty area and play another ball ball from outside.

 

[Canary Kid]

A ball in a 'water' penalty area is not necessarily a one shot penalty because it could be played from within the penalty area. Therefore the penalty has to be the same for the player who decides to pick up the ball and play it from outside of the penalty as for the player who decides to leave the ball in the penalty area and play another ball ball from outside.

Maybe, but it doesn’t explain the logic of a stricter penalty for a lost ball. Both can be the result of equally wayward shots.