Water Hazard Bordered by an unfenced backyard

[Martyn W]

27-1b.

The ball is "out of bounds." That phrase DOES have a definition:

26/3 contains almost similar language. Rewording it slightly:

A. It is the responsibility of the Committee to define accurately the boundaries of the golf course. However, if the Committee has not done so, the private property is, by definition, out of bounds and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1b.

OK, now I'm done - you don't get to reword decisions!!!!!! "private property" is NOT part of the decision. Now you are just making things up.

[iacas]

[QUOTE name="Martyn W" url="/t/83975/water-hazard-bordered-by-an-unfenced-backyard/36#post_1189394"]   OK, now I'm done - you don't get to reword decisions!!!!!! "private property" is NOT part of the decision. Now you are just making things up. [/QUOTE] Uhmmm, I know. Which is why I clearly said I was re-wording a definition. Why bother? To display precedent for a related Decision. There's no decision which addresses a ball that's clearly outside the boundaries of the course (i.e. "out of bounds"), so I looked to precedents set by other Rules or Decisions. Do you dispute that the ball that's beyond the boundaries of the golf course is "out of bounds"? Because that's the definition of "out of bounds."

[Rulesman]

If the committee haven't done anything the there are no boundaries and the course is simply undefined.

The Committee must define accurately:

(i)

the course and out of bounds ,

[iacas]

If the committee haven't done anything the there are no boundaries and the course is simply undefined.

The Committee must define accurately:

(i)

the course and out of bounds,

And yet, in this scenario, they've failed to do so. That doesn't mean the parking lot of the mini mart or the gas station across the street is in bounds.

Heck, what if some kids took all the stakes earlier that day? Then you'd have a situation where the committee did define the course and out of bounds, but there still aren't stakes present to indicate it.

[Rulesman]

So how do you know when your ball is OOB?

[iacas]

So how do you know when your ball is OOB?

The same way you know when your ball is in a water hazard that isn't marked. If your ball is "beyond the boundaries" of the golf course, it's out of bounds. It's in the definition of "out of bounds."

If there's doubt (i.e. you're on the edge of the course and someone's yard and the line isn't very clear), I imagine you should play two balls. But there are lots of situations where there's no doubt.

[mvmac]

The problem is that the course nor the scorecard actually marks "out of bounds" anywhere on the hole. One of my buddies pulled his tee shot so far left that his ball cleared the stream and landed in the grassy area. My first instinct was that the ball was out of play, but he argued that in absence of OB markings, his ball was in play. I couldn't argue this point, although it didn't "feel" right to me. Following his logic, a terribly hooked ball could still be played off some poor shmuck's back patio (although the owner might have something to say about that).

Your instincts were correct. If he was clearly off the course it should be treated as OB.

So how do you know when your ball is OOB?

I think it's pretty clear. If the ball is off the course, it's OB. Some dude's backyard isn't part of the golf course.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!definitions,Out-Of-Bounds

Out of Bounds

" Out of bounds " is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee .

[Golfingdad]

That's a great point, I'm pretty sure the club does not own the beach yet play from the beach is permitted.So the 'off GC property' argument doesn't work in that case, at least.

I would bet that they probably do own it. All of the ocean front properties in Orange County do not have defined and marked back lot lines - for obvious reasons - and instead it's typically defined as the "mean high tide line." Now that said, if you want to I suppose you could ponder why the ocean itself is treated as a hazard when it's certainly off the course property.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big C

The problem is that the course nor the scorecard actually marks "out of bounds" anywhere on the hole. One of my buddies pulled his tee shot so far left that his ball cleared the stream and landed in the grassy area. My first instinct was that the ball was out of play, but he argued that in absence of OB markings, his ball was in play. I couldn't argue this point, although it didn't "feel" right to me. Following his logic, a terribly hooked ball could still be played off some poor shmuck's back patio (although the owner might have something to say about that).

Your instincts were correct. If he was clearly off the course it should be treated as OB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

So how do you know when your ball is OOB?

I think it's pretty clear. If the ball is off the course, it's OB. Some dude's backyard isn't part of the golf course.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!definitions,Out-Of-Bounds

Out of Bounds

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by theCommittee.

Seems pretty clear to me too.  To those who deny this to be the intent of the rule - I would ask them to show me a single instance where someone's back yard, private property, is specifically included within the boundaries of any golf course.  If you can do that then I'll allow that you have at least a part of a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, if the ball lies on private property which is clearly beyond what is obviously the intended boundary of the course, then it is out of bounds, and as a committee member I would so rule.  I would then resign from the committee for being incompetent in improperly preparing the course for play.

[Martyn W]

Seems pretty clear to me too.  To those who deny this to be the intent of the rule - I would ask them to show me a single instance where someone's back yard, private property, is specifically included within the boundaries of any golf course.  If you can do that then I'll allow that you have at least a part of a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, if the ball lies on private property which is clearly beyond what is obviously the intended boundary of the course, then it is out of bounds, and as a committee member I would so rule.  I would then resign from the committee for being incompetent in improperly preparing the course for play.

I come back (again) to the definition of the course: The " course " is the whole area within any boundaries established by the Committee (see Rule 33-2 ). If no boundary has been established then ipso facto, there is none. We can argue all day about the intent of the Rule but since no Rule (not law) prohibits playing a ball from adjoining property, it is permitted.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big C

The problem is that the course nor the scorecard actually marks "out of bounds" anywhere on the hole. One of my buddies pulled his tee shot so far left that his ball cleared the stream and landed in the grassy area. My first instinct was that the ball was out of play, but he argued that in absence of OB markings, his ball was in play. I couldn't argue this point, although it didn't "feel" right to me. Following his logic, a terribly hooked ball could still be played off some poor shmuck's back patio (although the owner might have something to say about that).

Your instincts were correct. If he was clearly off the course it should be treated as OB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

So how do you know when your ball is OOB?

I think it's pretty clear. If the ball is off the course, it's OB. Some dude's backyard isn't part of the golf course.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!definitions,Out-Of-Bounds

Out of Bounds

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by theCommittee.

Seems pretty clear to me too.  To those who deny this to be the intent of the rule - I would ask them to show me a single instance where someone's back yard, private property, is specifically included within the boundaries of any golf course.  If you can do that then I'll allow that you have at least a part of a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, if the ball lies on private property which is clearly beyond what is obviously the intended boundary of the course, then it is out of bounds, and as a committee member I would so rule.  I would then resign from the committee for being incompetent in improperly preparing the course for play.

Makes sense to me too.  I don't care what the Rules say or don't say - if it even looks like my ball is on private property, whether it's marked or not, if there's any doubt I'm not playing it.  Rules or no rules, common sense tells me that I don't play a stroke from somebody's back yard.

[Martyn W]

Makes sense to me too.  I don't care what the Rules say or don't say - if it even looks like my ball is on private property, whether it's marked or not, if there's any doubt I'm not playing it.  Rules or no rules, common sense tells me that I don't play a stroke from somebody's back yard.

Mac, with all due respect this forum is about Rules of Golf. Saying that " I don't care what the Rules say " hardly adds to the discussion. No one said that the RoG are 'sensible', they are what they are.

[dkolo]

I come back (again) to the definition of the course: The "course" is the whole area within any boundaries established by the Committee (see Rule 33-2). If no boundary has been established then ipso facto, there is none. We can argue all day about the intent of the Rule but since no Rule (not law) prohibits playing a ball from adjoining property, it is permitted.

@Martyn W Is it your contention, then, that the course extends indefinitely to include the entire world if it is not clearly marked by a boundary? That's what I'm gathering from your interpretation.

[14ledo81]

[QUOTE name="Martyn W" url="/t/83975/water-hazard-bordered-by-an-unfenced-backyard/36#post_1189491"]   I come back (again) to the definition of the course: [COLOR=474B55]The "[/COLOR][COLOR=474B55] [COLOR=474B55][URL=http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14253,Course]course[/URL][/COLOR] [/COLOR][COLOR=474B55]" is the whole area within any boundaries established by the [/COLOR][COLOR=474B55] [COLOR=474B55][URL=http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14253,Committee]Committee[/URL][/COLOR] [/COLOR][COLOR=474B55] (see Rule [/COLOR][COLOR=474B55][URL=http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-33,33-2]33-2[/URL][/COLOR][COLOR=474B55]). If no boundary has been established then ipso facto, there is none. We can argue all day about the intent of the Rule but since no Rule (not law) prohibits playing a ball from adjoining property, it is permitted.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE] @Martyn W , Is it your contention, then, that the course extends indefinitely to include the entire world if it is not clearly marked by a boundary? That's what I'm gathering from your interpretation.

Well.... at least until you ran into another golf course.....

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Seems pretty clear to me too.  To those who deny this to be the intent of the rule - I would ask them to show me a single instance where someone's back yard, private property, is specifically included within the boundaries of any golf course.  If you can do that then I'll allow that you have at least a part of a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, if the ball lies on private property which is clearly beyond what is obviously the intended boundary of the course, then it is out of bounds, and as a committee member I would so rule.  I would then resign from the committee for being incompetent in improperly preparing the course for play.

I come back (again) to the definition of the course: The "course" is the whole area within any boundaries established by the Committee (see Rule 33-2). If no boundary has been established then ipso facto, there is none. We can argue all day about the intent of the Rule but since no Rule (not law) prohibits playing a ball from adjoining property, it is permitted.

By your interpretation, the course would extend beyond a fence or wall if it wasn't specifically indicated as being a boundary marker, even if it clearly divided the course from the yards of private homes adjoining the course.  That would also mean that a player would get relief from it as an obstruction, since it isn't listed as part of the course boundary.

[dkolo]

Well.... at least until you ran into another golf course.....

This is what I'm going through in my head, and why I think this interpretation would result in absurdities. Every golf course not entirely bounded by declared boundaries or signage would be part of other golf courses. My house, miles from any golf course, would be part of golf courses everywhere.

[iacas]

I come back (again) to the definition of the course: The "course" is the whole area within any boundaries established by the Committee (see Rule 33-2). If no boundary has been established then ipso facto, there is none. We can argue all day about the intent of the Rule but since no Rule (not law) prohibits playing a ball from adjoining property, it is permitted.

And I'll again come back to the definition of "out of bounds."

You seem to believe that the "boundary" must be "established" only via white stakes or a line of paint. There are plenty of other ways to denote the boundary. Plenty of very obvious ways where even a six-year-old child would be able to say where the boundary is.

"There is no boundary." Ha ha ha. Okay. C'mon, @Martyn W , surely you don't believe that the boundary of the course extends across the street, through the neighbor's yard, into their backyard neighbor's yard, etc.

[RickK]

I used to play a golf course near Houston that when built had absolutely no out of bounds markers anywhere.  On the scorecard, it did say that any streets were OB.  The street thing only came into play on 3 or 4 holes.  Now, a lot of the holes had pretty dense woods on either side so you may have had an issue with lost balls but not much issue with OB.

THEN...they started building homes around some of the holes and OB stakes were installed.  On some of those holes, you might have 4 homes headed down the fairway but past the last home still woods.  No more makers there.  So, you could bang it in the woods and you were still in bounds, if you could find it.

Today, every hole on that course has been developed with homes.  And, now...there are OB stakes up and down both sides and absence of stakes, it is noted that all fences are OB.

Funny how a course changes over the years.  I remember playing there and hearing guys complaining...I hit it here last week and it was in play...now I'm OB...not fair.  Well, yes it is, management redefined the course in that weeks time.