MODERN GOLFING THOUGHT

Evening Star, Issue 19793, 17 February 1928, Page 14

MODERN GOLFING THOUGHT

ONE STROKE AS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY

[Written by Harrt Vakdon, for the 1 Evening Star;’ ]

An impression which asserts itself more 'strongly than ever is that a new school of logic in regard to the rules and customs of golf, as well as a new generation of first-class, golfers, is fast tilking possession of thb game. In these times, it is a hopeless task to extol the virtues of the great original tradition and law of the pastime that “a ball must be played wherever it lies or the hole be given up.” Modern thought expresses the view even more strongly than it did a few years ago that nobody ought to have to give up a hole because the ball is unplayable. To be sure, latter-day legislation allows a certain degree of relief from the old summary capital punishment, for it is prescribed that when a ball is lost or unplayable, the victim of the circumstance may go back to the place from which he struck it and have another shot, the penalty being stroke and distance. But it seems clear to me, after mixing with all shades of reasoning during the past year, that this concession—which previous generations would have regarded as stark ■ revolution—is* not considered nearly sufficient. Repeatedly people point out that it means, to all intents and purposes, a penalty of two strokes for an unplayable ball or a lost ball, and that such a penalty is too heavy, to give its sufferer any appreciable chance of saving the hole. It is claimed, in short, that the contesting of the hole is reduced to a travesty and a waste of time. Let us set down the argument of the new school of thought. It explains that, after the drives, one side’s ball is just on the fairway, while the other side’s is just off it—perhaps lost or unplayable in a bush. The latter side has to go back and play a third shot from the tee. What happens then, is that the more fortunate person, having two strokes in hand makes his way forward cautiously and pawkily, instead of hitting true and sporting golf shots. In that way, he is virtually certain to win the' hole, without having played the real game,_ with all the tention, and it is not difficult to forechances that it is supposed to involve. A VIEW OF PROGRESS.

Such, at any rate, is the modern consee that in the near tuture the new golfing people will expect the penalty for a lost ball or an unpayable ball to be no more than loss of distance—equivalent to a penalty of only one stroke, which would leave the other side still to fight hard to win the hole. The very thought of such a change is enough to make the old stalwarts of the links boil with indignation. The truth is, however, that the present community knows loss, and cares less, every year, about the practices of the ancients. They point out that, at one time, people were hanged for stealing and various other offences that are not now deemed to merit such diastic treatment. They argue that this is the result of , enlightened public opinion, and that precisely similar progress is asserting itself in connection with the rules of golf. Hovlake, admittedly one of the finest golf courses in the world, provides a particularly favorable nursery for the new line of thought. It is the only champion course on which the penalty for getting out of bounds is limited to loss of distance. At Hovlake there are ten holes at which the player may be out of bounds, and at several of these holes he may land in the prohibited area not only from the tec, out also in making his way through the green. These ever recurring linos of clcuinrcn-tion a great element in the architecture of The course as a test_ of the game. If play were permitted, as it could be, in many of the present out-of-bounds areas, such as the enclosed fields more or less in the middle of the links, the foreshore, and the roads, the holes would lose their present character. If tradition were observed these places would not he out of bounds, but they are made so for the purpose of creating difficult shots.

CULT OF CONSISTENCY

As they are so numerous iind so near, -in most instances, to the best line for the hole, the club decided from the outset that a penalty of loss of distance only for getting into them would satisfy the demands of justice. It was for this reason, I believe, that when the Rides Committee of St. Andrews nominated stroke and dis: lance as the legal punishment fop a ball out of bounds, it added a. proviso that the penalty stroke might be remitted, by local rule. And the leniency thus allowed at Hoylake affords fine encouragement to modern logic in regard to golf law. Iti is remarked that a ball may bo lost or unplayable on the course, thus entailing the usually crushing burden of loss of stroke and distance, whereas a more erratic shot, which sends the hall out of bounds, escapes with loss of distance only. The sixth hole is cited as an example of the places where such inequalities may occur. From a drive only just off -the line to the right it is possible to lie unplayable in a bush, with the loss of two strokes. A drive hooked into the orchard on the left means the loss of only one stroke. . . ~ Personally, I think it is a pity that golf is changing so vastly in its fundamental sentiments, but we ha\o to take the world as we find it. There can he no question that, by allowing clubs to reduce the penalty for out of hounds to loss of distance only, the Rules Committee has helped to make out a good case for those who would have the lost ball and the unplayable ball placed on the same basis.