Out-of-Bounds Rule Change Discussion

[Fourputt]

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.  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.

At the same time, I've seen guys take 3 or 4 balls to get one in play.  In that case you have given the player a bonus for hitting out of bounds if you just let him drop.  The point of the penalties assessed in the Rules of Golf is to ensure that the player doesn't benefit from his misstep.  That's why some are one stroke, some are two strokes, and some may be stroke and distance.  It isn't levied according to the severity of the offense so much as it is to negate any advantage the player might get if he wasn't penalized.

In the current discussion, the rules see it as a ball hit out of bounds has come to rest in a place which is not part of the golf course.  Therefore it could not be played even if found .  The last place where the ball was at rest on the course was where that stroke was played from, so you don't get any credit for the stroke at all, but must replay from that spot.  If the ball comes to rest in a hazard, it is still on the course , and if found, it might still be possible to play a stroke at it.  Thus the player is penalized one stroke to represent the stroke which would have been required to hit the ball out of the hazard had it been found.  He gets the benefit of any distance gained before the ball crossed into the hazard as a reward for keeping the ball on the course.

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

That's all well and good. I call it diabolically sadistic when they make you challenge OB to have a reasonable chance at par.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

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.

Yeah, cuz balls hitting sprinkler heads in the fairway and bouncing OB happen so frequently. :P

Originally Posted by broomhandle

That's all well and good. I call it diabolically sadistic when they make you challenge OB to have a reasonable chance at par.

My example didn't include that. It was more a chance at eagle/easy birdie.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

May be it is just me, but if I hit (rarely...) into woods, I almost always hit provisional. So for me it would just cut the search time.

I guess this OB thing is more of a problem on US style golf neigbourhoods as there is not that much space for wide fairways. Perhaps they should make those more executive style, so you could leave driver home...

[Jimbo Slice]

I played a few rounds in Boulder City near Vegas, and that course has limited OB. Most holes run parallel with one another and some have holes on both sides, no OB stakes. The little OB it does have averages 10-20 yards further off the fairway then my home course. It's a far stretch for even me to hit OB out there. The first five holes are just easy with no water and limited OB. The first two holes have no water or OB at all. Look at these first five holes. The two holes in the middle are one and two. I had to read up on playing adjacent fairways and legalities of it because of this course. No OB stakes anywhere.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Jimbo Slice

I played a few rounds in Boulder City near Vegas, and that course has limited OB. Most holes run parallel with one another and some have holes on both sides, no OB stakes. The little OB it does have averages 10-20 yards further off the fairway then my home course. It's a far stretch for even me to hit OB out there. The first five holes are just easy with no water and limited OB. The first two holes have no water or OB at all. Look at these first five holes. The two holes in the middle are one and two. I had to read up on playing adjacent fairways and legalities of it because of this course. No OB stakes anywhere.

Looking at the picture, in many instances, the course seems to favor a shot that is really off line (and on the adjacent fairway) as opposed to a shot that is less off line and in the rough/trees/bunker

[ghalfaire]

Interesting.  My home course has no OB and it isn't a picnic here.  Lots of woods around the course and if you're deep enough an Unplayable is a good move, if you can find the ball,  and go back to the tee.  If you're smart you'll hit a provisional if you're drive is in the woods.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Note that I was playing devil's advocate.

The point was, Fourputt's characterization of the USGA position on imposing arbitrary OB regions within the course is that this is a bad thing. This implies that imposing OB for purely strategic reasons is discouraged.

Think of it this way: why is it permissible to make strategic use of the edges of the course as OB, but unacceptable to simply declare a region to be OB for a particular hole for strategic reasons? The position that Fourputt describes strongly suggests that OB is, in the opinion of the powers that be, a necessary evil because courses are of finite size.

I actually agree that strategic placement of OB is fine. In fact, I also don't like the rules limiting the declaration of water hazards for a similar reason: it prevents a course from using the rules to create a strategically interesting course, simply because they don't have water in the right places. I understand the concept that the course is what it is and the rules should be applied accordingly, but I don't think that is the only reasonable method. It certainly doesn't automatically lead to the best golfing experience, whatever that is.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

The point was, Fourputt's characterization of the USGA position on imposing arbitrary OB regions within the course is that this is a bad thing. This implies that imposing OB for purely strategic reasons is discouraged.

I may have skimmed too much but I think Fourputt was talking about interior out of bounds.

Originally Posted by zeg

Think of it this way: why is it permissible to make strategic use of the edges of the course as OB, but unacceptable to simply declare a region to be OB for a particular hole for strategic reasons? The position that Fourputt describes strongly suggests that OB is, in the opinion of the powers that be, a necessary evil because courses are of finite size.

I think the USGA feels interior OB is a contrivance and not something you'd expect. For example we had one hole that was a 90° hole, and you could drive the green with a 3-wood or even a 5-wood, but you had to hit over another tee and another green to get to your green. The interior angle of the dogleg was marked as OB for awhile, then the club planted some trees left of the tee to stop players from wanting to try to cut across.

Plus, what area is actual out of bounds in this case? Do the ends of the triangle connect to form a triangle of OB area? Because if so then the one green was entirely out of bounds. So the USGA is likely against interior OB because it really doesn't even make sense.

And it's not even how the words are. OUT OF BOUNDS. Not "a stiffer penalty." Course architects have plenty of things at their disposal to punish players more severely within the boundary of the golf course, but when players leave the bounds of the course (or lose their ball), well, that's automatically worse. They've left the entire playing area.

Originally Posted by zeg

I actually agree that strategic placement of OB is fine. In fact, I also don't like the rules limiting the declaration of water hazards for a similar reason: it prevents a course from using the rules to create a strategically interesting course, simply because they don't have water in the right places. I understand the concept that the course is what it is and the rules should be applied accordingly, but I don't think that is the only reasonable method. It certainly doesn't automatically lead to the best golfing experience, whatever that is.

Of course, they are welcome to add water if they'd like. Or use one of the many other ways to offer degrees of penalty.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by zeg

Note that I was playing devil's advocate.

The point was, Fourputt's characterization of the USGA position on imposing arbitrary OB regions within the course is that this is a bad thing. This implies that imposing OB for purely strategic reasons is discouraged.

Think of it this way: why is it permissible to make strategic use of the edges of the course as OB, but unacceptable to simply declare a region to be OB for a particular hole for strategic reasons? The position that Fourputt describes strongly suggests that OB is, in the opinion of the powers that be, a necessary evil because courses are of finite size.

I actually agree that strategic placement of OB is fine. In fact, I also don't like the rules limiting the declaration of water hazards for a similar reason: it prevents a course from using the rules to create a strategically interesting course, simply because they don't have water in the right places. I understand the concept that the course is what it is and the rules should be applied accordingly, but I don't think that is the only reasonable method. It certainly doesn't automatically lead to the best golfing experience, whatever that is.

I agree...the original rules of golf only addressed the possibility of a lost ball and made no mention of OB.  Golf is a strategic game and the reality is that land is finite- why not give course designers as wide a range of options as possible to make a course strategic and fair.

Personally, I think the rules could be simplified by making the various penalty situations (hazard/ob/lb) play similar to each other while at the same time giving the course designer more freedom to create a penalty possibility even when there is not a boundary or water.  Done properly, this could result in a course being strategically demanding with a set of rules that were easier to understand with fewer situations that caused a slowdown in play.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I agree...the original rules of golf only addressed the possibility of a lost ball and made no mention of OB.  Golf is a strategic game and the reality is that land is finite- why not give course designers as wide a range of options as possible to make a course strategic and fair.

Personally, I think the rules could be simplified by making the various penalty situations (hazard/ob/lb) play similar to each other while at the same time giving the course designer more freedom to create a penalty possibility even when there is not a boundary or water.  Done properly, this could result in a course being strategically demanding with a set of rules that were easier to understand with fewer situations that caused a slowdown in play.

You still seem to have the wrong idea of what a penalty stroke is for.  They aren't imposed for punishment, they are imposed so the a player can't take advantage of hitting his ball to places where the rules forbid it (out of bounds), or to places where play is difficult or impossible (water hazards, or obstructed swing or line of play).  What you suggest would give courses free reign to create torture tracks which nobody in his right mind would want to play.

The point of golf is to play your ball.   Even if it's in the woods, you may have a recovery shot - I have played from such lies many, many times in the last 40 years, and making those shots work is half the fun of golf.  If every time I hit a stray shot it goes out of bounds, then I'm never, ever playing that course a second time.  That isn't strategy, it's frustrating self-flagellation.  I tend to have the same sort of aversion to courses where water hazards are overused too.  I play golf to play my ball, and I like to play 95% of the time as the game is intended, meaning that I don't want to have to touch my ball between tee and green.  If I can get a club on the ball I will play from tree roots and gravel.  I've played great shots from paved cart paths.  Like most players I don't hit every shot exactly where I aim it, and I don't feel that I should be punished for every misstep I make.  A good course should be a mix of fun and challenge, not horror and frustration.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You still seem to have the wrong idea of what a penalty stroke is for.  They aren't imposed for punishment, they are imposed so the a player can't take advantage of hitting his ball to places where the rules forbid it (out of bounds), or to places where play is difficult or impossible (water hazards, or obstructed swing or line of play).  What you suggest would give courses free reign to create torture tracks which nobody in his right mind would want to play.

The point of golf is to play your ball.   Even if it's in the woods, you may have a recovery shot - I have played from such lies many, many times in the last 40 years, and making those shots work is half the fun of golf.  If every time I hit a stray shot it goes out of bounds, then I'm never, ever playing that course a second time.  That isn't strategy, it's frustrating self-flagellation.  I tend to have the same sort of aversion to courses where water hazards are overused too.  I play golf to play my ball, and I like to play 95% of the time as the game is intended, meaning that I don't want to have to touch my ball between tee and green.  If I can get a club on the ball I will play from tree roots and gravel.  I've played great shots from paved cart paths.  Like most players I don't hit every shot exactly where I aim it, and I don't feel that I should be punished for every misstep I make.  A good course should be a mix of fun and challenge, not horror and frustration.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying and feel the same way about not wanting to play a course that is unreasonably difficult.  That is why I feel that course designers should have the leeway to use OB and hazards at their discretion.  In my mind, calling a boundary fence that is close to a driving area a hazard, is less penal than having to call it OB.  Same can be said for a densely wooded area where it can actually be more forgiving if it was a hazard instead of nothing and a likely lost ball.  It seems like others think I want to make the game too easy, while you think I want to make it too hard, so maybe I have it somewhere in the middle.

As far as your bolded statement goes, I am not sure if I under stand the difference of "not being able to take advantage of" and punishment.  If there is an OB next to a fairway that is changed to a ESA like lateral hazard, I still think the hole favors the player who puts it on the fairway as opposed to in the hazard.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying and feel the same way about not wanting to play a course that is unreasonably difficult.  That is why I feel that course designers should have the leeway to use OB and hazards at their discretion.  In my mind, calling a boundary fence that is close to a driving area a hazard, is less penal than having to call it OB.  Same can be said for a densely wooded area where it can actually be more forgiving if it was a hazard instead of nothing and a likely lost ball.  It seems like others think I want to make the game too easy, while you think I want to make it too hard, so maybe I have it somewhere in the middle.

As far as your bolded statement goes, I am not sure if I under stand the difference of "not being able to take advantage of" and punishment.  If there is an OB next to a fairway that is changed to a ESA like lateral hazard, I still think the hole favors the player who puts it on the fairway as opposed to in the hazard.

My intent was slightly mis-stated.  The point of the penalty is to ensure that the player is penalized at least as much as the potential advantage he would have gained from breaking the rule.  As it was stated in the original rules in 1745, the one stroke assessed for removing one's ball from "wattery filth" is because the committee regarded it as giving a privilege to the golfer to be able to retrieve his ball and continue the round.  The penalty represented the stroke he would have used to get out had he played from the hazard.  That same fundamental principle has been applied to rule changes and additions over the years.

There are a few penalties which are more penal in nature.  Ball moving - one stroke penalty for breaching a fundamental rule, and must be replaced.  That's penal because once the ball is replaced there is no possible advantage to be negated.  You are simply penalized for breach of a rule.  The 2 stroke penalty for not replacing the ball after causing it to move is a balancing penalty - it ensures that any advantage the player may have gained for improperly playing from a wrong place is negated.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

Plus, what area is actual out of bounds in this case? Do the ends of the triangle connect to form a triangle of OB area? Because if so then the one green was entirely out of bounds. So the USGA is likely against interior OB because it really doesn't even make sense.

Well, these problems aren't problems with interior OB, they're problems with "conditional OB," i.e., a region that is only OB for play on certain holes. It's not difficult to mark a closed interior area with white stakes all around, and this is done for maintenance yards and other obviously non-course regions, such as the houses that are either "islands" or narrow "peninsulas" in, say, the Pebble Beach course.

Originally Posted by iacas

And it's not even how the words are. OUT OF BOUNDS. Not "a stiffer penalty." Course architects have plenty of things at their disposal to punish players more severely within the boundary of the golf course, but when players leave the bounds of the course (or lose their ball), well, that's automatically worse. They've left the entire playing area.

Again, I understand the concepts here, but they strike me as contrived. First of all, yes, the words are "OOB," but it's not really a stretch to call it a "stiffer penalty." Nearly everyone in this discussion seems to have acknowledged the strategic value/importance of OOB on a hole. It's an indisputable fact that architects consider this and use it as a strategic element, and that (sensible) players respond accordingly.

Originally Posted by iacas

Of course, they are welcome to add water if they'd like. Or use one of the many other ways to offer degrees of penalty.

Ok, but that's silly. That's restricting the options of a course designer simply because they lack the budget to move the earth around, or live in a climate where extensive use of water would be environmentally or practically irresponsible. Sure, it's interesting that courses reflect the natural environment, and that courses in the American Southwest are often different than those in Scotland. However, the rules don't take any issue with an army of earth moving machines coming in and molding the landscape into the strategic form that a well-funded architect envisions, natural landscape be damned. This simply doesn't strike me as a logically defensible boundary.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

Ok, but that's silly. That's restricting the options of a course designer simply because they lack the budget to move the earth around, or live in a climate where extensive use of water would be environmentally or practically irresponsible. Sure, it's interesting that courses reflect the natural environment, and that courses in the American Southwest are often different than those in Scotland. However, the rules don't take any issue with an army of earth moving machines coming in and molding the landscape into the strategic form that a well-funded architect envisions, natural landscape be damned. This simply doesn't strike me as a logically defensible boundary.

I'm not even sure what your point is anymore, and I'm not sure you do either. My response about using water was tongue in cheek, and you missed that. Water hazards are water hazards. They have to have water in them. An architect has several methods at his disposal - including tall grass, rocks, bushes, etc. - to penalize players to varying degrees.

OB is a stiffer (the stiffest) penalty. I'm okay with that. Some architects, being aware of the course boundaries, use it effectively. Others do not. Doesn't mean the rules should be changed.

[reedf]

My home course makes good use of an "internal" OB area. This pic is hole #2, the green circle is the tee box, the yellow line is the inteded line of play for the hole. The red line is a creek. The white line marks OB for hole #2 only. As you can see from the arial view, if this were not marked, the easiest route would be going down the #4 fairway. As you can imagine that would create a mess for players constantly going opposite directions on the same fairway. As far as "boundary" OB areas, the penalty is the same for a lost ball, and since you can't search for your ball or retrieve it without trespassing, it's just lost.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by reedf

They could "solve" that problem, too, by putting a tree or a fence or something to block the path up that other fairway.

I don't agree with having internal OB like that when the solution (a tree, a fence, etc.) seems so simple and doesn't create a weird internal OB like that.

I'm not a fan of internal OB. I think OB should be reserved for things that are literally out of the boundary of the course.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by iacas

They could "solve" that problem, too, by putting a tree or a fence or something to block the path up that other fairway.

I don't agree with having internal OB like that when the solution (a tree, a fence, etc.) seems so simple and doesn't create a weird internal OB like that.

I'm not a fan of internal OB. I think OB should be reserved for things that are literally out of the boundary of the course.

From a philosophical standpoint I agree with you on internal OB.  In practice though, I'd prefer internal OB over a course putting up a fence or trees (I doubt a single tree would be enough to prevent every player from still fading their drive into that fairway), since the cost of doing that is probably going to be passed on in greens fees.