Out-of-Bounds Rule Change Discussion

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

By your way of thinking, it would make any course built on a classic parkland style layout with a few parallel holes into the same sort of pain in the ass as one that threads through a residential development, with OB everywhere.  That's just a bad idea.

I said to give the course designer the OPTION to make it a penalty, not a requirement that it is treated as an OB.  Put another way, I think the course designer (or rules committee) should have the option to allow play from wrong holes without penalty, penalize it like a lateral ESA water hazard or treat it as an OB.  Right now, they are not allowed to do the 2nd and the 3rd is frowned upon.

I agree with you that it is a PIA to have OB everywhere, which is why I think the course designer should have the option to designate that some OBs play like a lateral ESA water hazard (or, as I have said in other threads, simplify the rules to make OBs, LBs and lateral WH play similar to each other which is how I see a lot of players play them anyways).

[Hoganwoods]

It's annoying when they put OB stakes within the confines of the golf course.  It's the same thing as putting lateral hazards around all the wooded areas to speed up play. Both are lazy...

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Hoganwoods

It's annoying when they put OB stakes within the confines of the golf course.  It's the same thing as putting lateral hazards around all the wooded areas to speed up play. Both are lazy...

Bingo!  Give the man a seegar!.

Marking such areas as hazards is both lazy and ignorant.  You don't need to mark a forest as a water hazard if you just make the small effort to inform players that the forest is out of bounds, and any time they hit in that direction, they should play a provisional ball.  You have eliminated the pace of play issue and stayed within the rules.  Case closed.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Bingo!  Give the man a seegar!.

Marking such areas as hazards is both lazy and ignorant.  You don't need to mark a forest as a water hazard if you just make the small effort to inform players that the forest is out of bounds, and any time they hit in that direction, they should play a provisional ball.  You have eliminated the pace of play issue and stayed within the rules.  Case closed.

If I had a dollar for every time I told another player that they may want to hit a provisional as there is a good chance their ball is lost and got the "I'll just drop one up there" reply...

I, on the other hand, will play a provisional and then take the full 5 minutes to look for my first if there is a chance I will find it.  OTOH, if it was a wooded area where the best I could expect to do is chip/punch out, then I would be much more apt, if it was within the rules, to play it as a lateral and give up on the first ball sooner.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You should never be penalized  the same for keeping your ball through the green as if you hit your ball off the course.  That just flies in the face of all logic.  Sometimes an errant shot will get a good break.  That is just part of the charm of golf.

I disagree. It flies in the face of the particular logic that has been adopted. If you really wanted to carry the self-consistent logic out fully, the rules would require or strongly encourage course architects to ensure there was at least, say, 50 yards between the edge of any fairway and the boundary of the course. There's really not an intrinsic logical reason why placing a hole near to the edge of the course property should be an acceptable practice but arbitrarily designating the edge of a hole to be OB is not.

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by zeg

It flies in the face of the particular logic that has been adopted.

Good point.

You could also go the other way and assume that every hole intrinsically has an OB on each side where you leave the boundary of that hole.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Sometimes an errant shot will get a good break.  That is just part of the charm of golf.

And sometimes a good shot will get a bad break.  That is part of the frustration of golf.  Which is also part of its charm.

[boogielicious]

It is interesting that Jack Nicklaus thinks that this particular rule is one that should be changed.  Rules are rules and we abide by them, but they can be changed for the speed and flow of the game like in other sports.  You could keep it a two stroke penalty and just play where it went out.  In some situations that could be more of a penalty than stroke and distance.  I've seen PGA pros replay the tee shot and still make par.  If they had to hit from where it went out of bounds, the may not have a shot at the green.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

...The type of situation that they frown on is creating an out of bounds line between 2 holes just to keep players from taking an unplanned shortcut, or "for safety".  There are other ways of handling such situations, but too often a course takes the easy way out and just pounds a few white stakes into the ground...

I'm just curious - in the case where the course didn't want the golfers to take a shortcut, what other ways of handling the situation are there other than putting up in-course OB stakes?

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoganwoods

It's annoying when they put OB stakes within the confines of the golf course.  It's the same thing as putting lateral hazards around all the wooded areas to speed up play. Both are lazy...

Bingo!  Give the man a seegar!.

Marking such areas as hazards is both lazy and ignorant.  You don't need to mark a forest as a water hazard if you just make the small effort to inform players that the forest is out of bounds, and any time they hit in that direction, they should play a provisional ball.  You have eliminated the pace of play issue and stayed within the rules.  Case closed.

If a forest is not marked at all, then I'm going to spend more time looking for my ball than I would if it was marked as a lateral hazard and I could just take a drop. (Especially if it was a situation where I knew that even if I did find it I'd need to chip out and lose a stroke anyway.) So it sure seems to me that putting up lateral hazard stakes would increase pace of play.

If a forest is marked as OB then yes, it eliminates any time spent looking for the ball but it requires the extra time to hit a provisional (or possibly two... it happens.)  Hitting provisionals won't take as long as a 5 minute search but it's not insignificant either.

Could be I'm missing something, but it seems to me the best scenario for pace of play is putting up lateral stakes. (Which is certainly not as lazy as not marking it at all, and no less lazy than putting up OB stakes.)

Originally Posted by boogielicious

You could keep it a two stroke penalty and just play where it went out.

That might work. Would you still be able to use a provisional though? If so would the golfer get to decide whether to use his provisional or take a drop?  Currently a provisional must be played unless the first ball is found, but the first one may not be findable if it's OB... Just thinking out loud...

[Hoganwoods]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

That might work. Would you still be able to use a provisional though? If so would the golfer get to decide whether to use his provisional or take a drop?  Currently a provisional must be played unless the first ball is found, but the first one may not be findable if it's OB... Just thinking out loud...

No one is disputing that it improves pace of play, it does for sure, but a wooded area is not a hazard and so the stakes are being used improperly.  I played a course last week that had red stakes on most holes for fairway wooded areas.  The woods aren't a hazard and you should have to play under the lost ball scenerio should you not be able to find your ball after you knock it in there. With the lateral hazard in place, you basically save a stroke each time.  I guess the only upside is pace of play, but I personally feel like I'm cheating when I'm dropping for free and I'm not in a hazard.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Hoganwoods

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

That might work. Would you still be able to use a provisional though? If so would the golfer get to decide whether to use his provisional or take a drop?  Currently a provisional must be played unless the first ball is found, but the first one may not be findable if it's OB... Just thinking out loud...

No one is disputing that it improves pace of play, it does for sure, but a wooded area is not a hazard and so the stakes are being used improperly.  I played a course last week that had red stakes on most holes for fairway wooded areas.  The woods aren't a hazard and you should have to play under the lost ball scenerio should you not be able to find your ball after you knock it in there. With the lateral hazard in place, you basically save a stroke each time.  I guess the only upside is pace of play, but I personally feel like I'm cheating when I'm dropping for free and I'm not in a hazard.

I agree with you (and Fourputt) on that, I was basically just defending the charge of laziness on the part of course management.  I.e., not doing anything would be lazy, but putting up lateral stakes is at least improving the pace of play, and is no more lazy than any other course of action, as far as I can tell.

[broomhandle]

Quote:

would the golfer get to decide whether to use his provisional or take a drop?

I thought that was one of the guiding principles of provisional rules. The Golfer NEVER puts himself in a position of selecting the better situation.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by broomhandle

Quote:

would the golfer get to decide whether to use his provisional or take a drop?

I thought that was one of the guiding principles of provisional rules. The Golfer NEVER puts himself in a position of selecting the better situation.

Yep. In the context of this discussion though (potentially changing the OB rule), if you were going to allow a drop from OB, you would either need to eliminate the option of the provisional or allow the golfer to choose between the provisional and the drop. Either way, the rules of golf would need to be changed, but that's exactly what we're talking about with changing the OB rule. I'm just trying to think through the ramifications.  May be that smarter people than me have already done so and that's why the rule is what it currently is.

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Yep. In the context of this discussion though (potentially changing the OB rule), if you were going to allow a drop from OB, you would either need to eliminate the option of the provisional or allow the golfer to choose between the provisional and the drop. Either way, the rules of golf would need to be changed, but that's exactly what we're talking about with changing the OB rule. I'm just trying to think through the ramifications.  May be that smarter people than me have already done so and that's why the rule is what it currently is.

I would suggest the option is on the tee. Hit the provisional and the drop option is gone.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

I would suggest the option is on the tee. Hit the provisional and the drop option is gone.

This is how it's done when the rarely applied local rule permitting a provisional for a water hazard is in place. In that case, if you opt to play a provisional, if you find your first, you may play it as it lies or play the provisional. By playing a provisional, you waive your right to take a drop. (This is only supposed to be applied when it's impossible to tell whether you're in the hazard or not from the tee, and when it'd almost always be impractical to take the drop or determine the reference point for the drop, IIRC).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

I disagree. It flies in the face of the particular logic that has been adopted. If you really wanted to carry the self-consistent logic out fully, the rules would require or strongly encourage course architects to ensure there was at least, say, 50 yards between the edge of any fairway and the boundary of the course. There's really not an intrinsic logical reason why placing a hole near to the edge of the course property should be an acceptable practice but arbitrarily designating the edge of a hole to be OB is not.

Why?

OB can be a strategic choice, too. Want to get home in two on this par five? Well go for it - but OB is 20 yards away. Or take the long route home, play safe, and don't risk OB.

It's a perfectly acceptable practice, and it seems perfectly logical to me. Many of the best holes in the game have OB close to the hole (18 at Carnoustie - look at what it did to Jean van de Velde - made him play way up the right-hand side where he hit a railing). It's a perfectly strategic element and good architects will work it into the design of the hole(s), not just stick a hole there without any thought for the penalty of OB.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

It is interesting that Jack Nicklaus thinks that this particular rule is one that should be changed.  Rules are rules and we abide by them, but they can be changed for the speed and flow of the game like in other sports.

I agree and think that Arnold Palmer has also been quoted as saying that it makes no sense that a ball that lands in the fairway and hits a sprinkler and goes OB should count more than a whiff.

Originally Posted by boogielicious

You could keep it a two stroke penalty and just play where it went out.  In some situations that could be more of a penalty than stroke and distance.  I've seen PGA pros replay the tee shot and still make par.  If they had to hit from where it went out of bounds, the may not have a shot at the green.

I haven`t made an Eagle in at least a few years, but made par with a lost ball the other day.  I looked for my drive but wasn`t too upset not to find it as my provisional ended up 4 feet from the hole.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

I would suggest the option is on the tee. Hit the provisional and the drop option is gone.

This is how my simplified rules look at the moment.