The New York herald., 1922-01-02
LOST BALL RULE
CHANGE Is URGED
English Golfers Also Excited
Over Stroke and Distance
Penalty.

Word comes from England that st.
Andrews once moro has tackled the
question OF standardizing the golf ball
and that this topic shares the leading
place in Off season discussions with the
proposition to amend the rule which
calls for penalty of both stroke and
distance for a lost ball. There is a
strong movement In this country toward
rule which would penalize a golfer
only stroke for lost ball, but the
prevailing sentiment on the other side
opposes this change.
Max Behr some time ago wrote to the
London Field on that topic, and It dis
cusses his communication in this way:
Mr.. Behr Is now writing as special
pleader. He, in common with MANY of
his Fellow countrymen, holds that the
penalty OF stroke and distance il too
heavy for the offense committed by tho
player who has placed his ball in a
position where. for one reason or an
other. 1t cannot be played. This penalty
practically amounts to the loss of two
strokes. Mr.. Behr considers that the
loss of one stroke is sufficient punish
ment for an error which renders the ball
unplayable.
This loss can be exacted either by
ordaining that the player shall play
another ball as nearly as possible from
the place whence he played his first or
by allowing him to drop another ball as
nearly as possible to the place where the
iirst has, or is presumed to have. come
10 rest. We hold strongly the contrary
opinion and plump for stroke and dis
lance. Golf Is game of risks and on
the golf courses of this imperfect world
tne risks are of two kinds. The player
is at one moment faced with the peces-
sity OF circumventing hazards from,
Which' IL he plays his ball into them. he
can recover it by his own skill and
power
Penalty for Greater Risk.
AT another he has the opportunity
OF playing out of bounds or into a situa-
tioh from which ball. even If found.
can only be extricated by lifting III
our Judgment golf would be a less en-
hliarating sport If its rules failed to as-'
sumo that the second of the two risks
Is the more serious On the average a
player escapes from a bunker or from
rough at the expense of one stroke. and
ne may subsequently recover this loss
ny laying his approach dead or holing
a long putt. When he takes the greater
rish OF gong out of bounds or otherwise
rendering his ball unplayable he should
be obliged to accept penalty for which
two recovering strokes are required to
compensate; not only must he execute
specially brilliant coup, his opponene
must also duff a shot completely IL the
hole is to be halved
The American view supported by Mr..
Behr Is unfair to the opponent of the
errant payer man who has played
tne mole IN the par figure has the right
10 win it from another who has been
out OF bounds or in a water hazard or
on the spacious and gardened courses
OF to-day, has struck his ball into n
place where 1t cannot be found. or II
found, played.
Nothing but an extraordinary acc,.
dent, such as the holing of an approach.
should deprive him of his just reward.
me advocates OF distance only as the
penalty for lifting ball penalize the
virtuous golfer by showing mercv 20
the unrighteous and undeserving. That
is manifestly improper and unsportinr
AS Mr. Behr shows in his letter, this
truth was not Immediately and univer-
sally recognized
The Old Rules Before 1873.
Time was when distance only wa,
considered sufficient penalty for the
lifting of ball. Then in 1888 the
hoyal and Ancient Club exacted "a
the player who had taken the rreate,
risk and failed to avoid the conSe.
auences. That date is sufficiently re.
mote from the present to justify our
statement that stroke and distance
is OF highly respectable antiquity Later
the penalty was increased and the ru,e
Lost Ball, Lost Hole came into nae
Now the Rules of Golf Committee. de,
string, 1t is understood. to meet a gen.
erai demand, has reverted to stroke and
distance.
I'VE hold that they have acted rightly
IN pr,hciple' wrongly in detail, because
they have allowed the RoyaI Iivornooy
Mid-Surrey and other clubs to assess
the penalty for a ball played out Of
bounds at distance only, and also have
failed TO secure uniformity OF penalty
In Che case of all unplayable balls by
omitting to delete the rule about recog-
nized water hazards and casual water
In hazards"