Nah. Nothing terribly unusual. Timing of it was why it was newsworthy. First rules official was perhaps a bit of a prick, the second official overruled him. In competitive events if you don't like a ruling you can request a second opinion from another rules official. It's fun, pisses the hell out of the first official!

I watched this myself and thought frick Poulter's right no were else it could have gone. Though the first rules official ending up being correct. Also why did it take CBS so long to show the ball flight. If this was Phil or Tiger they would have told them were to look immediately

In cases like these IMO there should be a mandatory drop zone placed near the hazard. Fair for the field, speeds up play, does not put the official on the hot seat (even when he's correct), and avoids the embarrasing situation when the ball is "accidentally" found later.

A player would need eyewitness evidence of the ball going into the hazard to drop outside the drop zone.

For a water hazard (yellow stakes) this makes sense sometimes.

But, it would be impossible for a lateral water hazard (red stakes) to be marked with a single drop zone.

Also, you don't need to change anything to take an official off the hot seat. If you think about, the only reason they are there is to make hot seat rulings. They are never called for the blatantly obvious, unless a player just wants to cover his butt on a routine matter in case some idiot viewer calls in.

I fail to see how this would have resolved anything in this instance.

Obviously the first official was correct in his ruling. The subsequent reaction by the players and incorrect second ruling only occurred because the players did not have "virtual certainty" that the ball went into the hazard. (even though I assume the players attempted to assert this to the official, which was basically BS)

A standard drop zone of course does not reduce the "virtual certainty" requirement. But a simple change in the (local?) rules to allow a mandatory drop zone, for example in case of a blind shot where it is impossible to see the ball go into the water, and override the "virtual certainty" requirement. That, along with drawing the hazard line to include the area where the ball was lost would make sense.

It is not fair to the field that certain players can essentially bully the official with the correct (and unfavorable) ruling for the benefit of getting another accommodating official who wants to keep the tournament moving and not require additional delay in re-teeing, which was required in this case. (I'm not sure if Poulter hit a provisional, if not that was his problem and he should have been considered for slow play warning)

I'm not sure how much fore caddies could have helped in this case, other than embarrasing Spieth and Poulter that they were wrong. (tbf the fore caddie would have pointed out the likely location prior to any discussion with the official)

If it is a lateral hazard traversing the length of the hole, at some point the hazard becomes visible to the player so "virtual certainty" requirement would be satisfied, and the mandatory drop zone would not apply.

Disclosure: I am not familiar with the course design and I did not see the events transpire. I can only attest to the difficulty of hitting a blind tee shot that appears to be going in the direction of a hazard, but with a stubborn opponent who requires a re-tee because there is not virtual certainty of the ball going into the hazard.

Slow play is one of the biggest issues with golf. These issues don't help, and allowing a mandatory drop zone to accommodate these cases go a long way in speeding up play along with making the game fair for everyone.

Also, I see officials called for very straightforward of rulings. I'd say this happens 1/3 of the time. I am not disagreeing with players requesting that (so long as play is not unduly delayed), but they are not "hot seat" rulings like above.

Also, forgot to mention Poulter getting a free roll with the 5 minute search, then getting the incorrect ball in hazard ruling.

It seems to me that searching for a ball for 5 minutes without finding it and without virtual certainty that the ball entered the hazard is evidence enough that the ball is lost. (unless you are Mark O'Meara of course)

Switch over to the LPGA and this number jumps to about 9/10.

Does everybody here have super vision? I can't see the ball 280 yards away

Question:

After visiting family up in Oregon for the eclipse, we decided that it would be good bonding time to meet up together for a round of golf once a month. The only problem is that I have never really golfed before, as they are aware.

So to make this short and sweet, what should you guys consider I do to limit the embarrassment that will occur in about 3 and a half weeks? I plan on attending my local driving range and buying a basic cheap pair of clubs. Other than that, I am lost.

Any books, videos, coaching...?

Thanks for any imput.

Pick up after double par, play a shamble where you use their drive if it is better. Unless you have freakish natural talent you are pretty much going to suck if you only have 3.5 weeks. Just make sure you suck quickly.

Take a series of lessons. Don't try to figure it out on your own, it's basically impossible.

I'm failing to see what this has to do with questions regarding the rules of golf.

More etiquette but yeah it should be in misc section.

Sorry for this very noobish question, but, to clarify, if you rehit from the same spot after hitting in a water hazard on say your 2nd shot, you are now on your 4th shot, having gained a stroke from the original shot and also incurring a penalty stroke. Whereas, if you completely missed the ball with your swing you are now only on your 3rd shot? The reason I ask is because if you drop your ball from the point of entry to the water hazard, at least in that case you have moved closer to the hole, whereas if you are rehitting from the original spot it seems that it might make sense to just treat it as a whiff, since, in theory one could say it was a better stroke since you actually managed to make contact with the ball. That being the case it somehow wasn't entirely clear to me that in the case of rehitting from the same spot after hitting into a water hazard, that the original stroke wasn't considered to be treated as the penalty stroke itself, even though the rules very much seem to suggest otherwise.

It just occurred to me that since you you have to drop the ball when rehitting, the lie might improve and therefore a penalty stroke makes sense after all, but what if your rehit is from the tee box, is there still a penalty considering the above considerations since in this case your lie wouldn't be improving?

This. Doesn't matter if it's from the fairway, tee box, whatever. If you hit it into the hazard your stroke counts and you incur a penalty stroke no matter where you then drop from.

Perhaps learn the 5 options you have when you hit it into a lateral(red) hazard and the 3 options you have in a yellow(regular) hazard. This will give you more options depending on your situation.

There is always a penalty stroke when you hit into a hazard. You have the option to rehit from the same spot or take a drop according to the rules by where it entered the hazard, blah blah blah...

If you hit your 2nd shot into the water you can either take a drop by the water and be hitting #4 or you can hit again from the original spot, but you are still hitting shot #4. Sometimes that is helpful because maybe you prefer that angle into a tough pin or you prefer that distance.

Got it. Txs for the clarification.

Not quite true as you have missed the third option mentioned above by ntnBO. You may play it from the hazard with no penalty, so long as you abide by the rules for playing from within the hazard.

Also, if you decide to drop, you don't necessarily drop near the water - you drop as far back as you like, keeping the point of entry in line with the flagstick you are going for.

The other two options ntnBO mentioned are for lateral hazards only, and I guess he was hoping the original poster would take the time to look them up online or in a rule book.

I was actually looking at the pertinent sections of USGA's Rules of Golf when I made my post, to be clear.

Even so, for the reasons I described above, it was still not entirely clear to me how the incursion of stroke penalties plays out. I was glad to have it concisely clarified/ reaffirmed for me.

For what it's worth, after giving it more thought, I now realize that incurring a penalty even from the tee box is sensible as the alternative of not incurring a penalty might encourage greater risk taking off the tee, fundamentally altering competitive play, for better or worse.

Nits in this thread. Obviously I didn't want to go into the detail of all the options as it would take a bit. His question was simple. My answer kept it simple. If he wanted to know the options for dropping then he could ask that or look it up.

Pointing out that saying "There is always a penalty stroke when you hit into a hazard." is incorrect is hardly nitpicking no matter what the question is.

Especially when explaining rules to someone asking basic rule questions.

The question was about rehitting the shot and hitting another shot after a drop. Not playing it from the hazard.

Hmm - I'm a nit for pointing out the correct options? Well, I was actually a competition sec. for my club for a while, so I have had to read the rules book a few times. Maybe that has made me a nit in your eyes!

One of the things I found out doing that job was that people who had made a mistake about rulings would say to me that so-and-so had told him the ruling and so that must have been correct.

This happens all of the time when someone passes on their interpretation of the rules, and it becomes the golf equivalent of chinese whispers.

Why people can't just look it up in a rule book is beyond me - they are free over here too.

I'm not a great Spieth fan, but at least he seems to know his way around a rule book - bloody pro nit!!!!

Had an interesting thing come up in a tournament today. Par 4 has a not very wide lateral hazard to the left of the fairway. On the other side of the fairway is a little strip of land (think a foot, maybe less) then it mounds up into the backyards of the houses.

My tee shot lands over the lateral hazard (marked with red stakes) and into the small strip of grass. I look around and see no out of bounds stakes. In order to get to the ball I actually would have to walk through peoples yards to get to it.

Natural thing to do would be to look at the local rules printed on the scorecard. The rules sheet given out for the tournament starts like this: 1. All local rules are not to be used.

So I look over the tournament rules sheet and there is nothing to address this.

So do you:

1) Call it out of bounds and re-tee?
2) Call it a lateral water hazard and drop on the right side of the hazard?
3) Play it as it lies as if it was in a lateral hazard?
4) Play it as it lies during the normal course of play?