Out-of-Bounds Rule Change Discussion

[lumpuckeroo]

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.

I completely agree, to me internal OB is a crutch for a poorly designed course.  I regularly play on two courses that have internal OB, in both cases, moving the tees or green complex and a couple of well placed trees would solve issues of trying to cut corners, IMHO.

What adds to my frustration on one of the courses is they have two par 5's that are pretty much a 90 degree dogleg.  One, the tee is 30 feet about the green, the other has the tee 30 feet below the green.  Much easier to go inside the corner from the elevated tee box, and it doesn't have the internal OB, doesn't make sense why they picked one over the other for the internal OB.

[ndb8fxe]

Originally Posted by Jimbo Slice

When I first started I thought OB was played like a water hazard. Not till I started reading about the rules on this forum did I learn otherwise. After learning about it, I thought it was a bit odd, but quickly got used to it. Stroke plus distance makes sense to me now, and I've had to put it into use quite often.

My home course demands decent driver accuracy. 17 out of 18 holes have a lateral water hazard on one side and OB hugging the other. The average yardage between the two hazards in the common landing zones is 75 yards. If your aiming right inbetween the two hazards and miss hit by 40 yards in either direction, your gonna be in one or the other. So I have indeed learned to lean more towards the water. This is something I have to take into consideration on almost every tee shot, and OB gets old fast. So does water for that matter.

Not to change the subject, but is that Desert Rose golf course?  I played there several years ago.  I know why you play there as it seemed to be the best deal in town.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by zeg

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luu5

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...

Zeg- what is the strategic choice a player should make when there is OB right and left?  Hit it down the middle?  I have hit it OoB RIGHT AND LEFT on both 1 and 2 at Keystone`s River course.  The fairways there are wide, so I think these are generally good golf holes, but #1 really presents a catch-22  to less skilled golfers as it has a forced carry, so playing safe with an iron is not really an option.  Basically, you just have to man up and hit one down the middle, but here is where I find the OOB rule introducing a lot of luck into your scores.

As an example, a few weeks ago, I hit a drive left on 1 that kicked left and went out by a couple of feet. result- stroke and distance.  Yesterday, I hit a similar drive that didn`t bounce left and I incurred no penalty and made an easy par 5.  Very similar shots, but very different outcomes on the same hole.  Yes, I know that luck is part of the game, but there will still be plenty of rub of the green even if the course designer has the option to call a boundary line an ESA type hazard with no distance penalty rather than forcing them to make it stroke and distance.

How many on this board prefer to play an Executive style course or a course where it makes little sense to hit your longer clubs?

I enjoyed playing Breckenridge this week, but was a bit disappointed that it didn`t make strategic sense for me to hit driver on 3 of the 4 par 5s.  For many players, it is not as much fun to hit only irons on an executive style course.  The course in US style golf neighborhoods is there to help sell the homes at a good price.  My guess is home values will be more on a full length championship course that more people are interested in playing rather than homes on an executive course which will likely have to charge lower green fees to try and attract players.

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

I think his point was that the rules should be more flexible to avoid causing architects to have to spent a lot of money to make a fair course.

To me, the fair thing about having a water hazard as a penalty is that it takes some of the luck element out of it that tall grass, rocks, bushes, etc. add.  i.e. If Tiger Woods and I hit 20 yards off line into the middle of a lake, then the harm our score is going to be virtually the same every time.  OTOH, if Tiger Woods and I hit our ball 20 yards off line into an area of tall grass, rocks or bushes, I am going to end up with a lost ball some of the time, a playable lie some of the time and something in between the rest.  Tiger will likely benefit from losing his ball a lot less than me, even if his eye sight and ball tracking abilities are no better than mine.  With both Tiger and regular golfers, scores will vary a lot more in a penal area of tall grass, rocks, or bushes as opposed a marked hazard (whether it has actual water or not).

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

It doesn't take a major addition to discourage play in a given direction.  A couple of bushy pines or spruce trees fairly close to the tee would do the trick.  My home course has two holes where some added trees soved problems.  In one, between the 9th and 18th holes they planted a row of relatively quick growing poplars to discourage players from hitting their tee shot to the 9th fairway, and then later added a small grove of spruces which block the view of the 18th green from the 9th fairway.  Problem solved.  It's no longer advantageous to play down the wrong hole.

The par 5 6th hole plays along the northern boundary of the course, with a lake in front of the tee. The hole is a double dogleg, requiring either a layup off the tee, or a 240 yard carry minumum to carry the lake and the trees at the far end of it.  Just over the OB fence to the left is a special school for disabled kids, and too often when the big hitters tried to carry the lake, they would hook the ball over into the school yard, creating a dangerous situation for the kids there.  The course planted two 12 foot tall bushy pine trees to block the left side of the tee box, making it necessary to hit a nearly impossible Tiger type hook to play across the lake.  Now the big hitters drive right to the end of the layup fairway, then have a tricky 240 yard shot (over 200 yardl carry over native rough and an irrigation ditch) to a green where they can only see the top of the flagstick, with water right and short, and a big tree onl the right too.  It still makes it a possible go for it hole, but it's a much safer hole now too.

There are pretty simple solutions which make a course both fair and conform to the rules.

[turtleback]

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.

Just for fun, here are those original rules from 1744.  I think it reading them it seems pretty apparent that there was no reason for an OB rule because guys just went out and played on a patch of public land - i.e., there were no boundaries.  Interesting that they did not anticipate the notion of stroke play.  Penalty strokes are strokes you allow your Adversary.

1.  You must Tee your Ball within a Club's length of the Hole.

2.  Your Tee must be upon the Ground.

3.  You are not to change the Ball which you Strike off the Tee.

4.   You are not to remove Stones, Bones or any Break Club, for the sake of playing your Ball, Except upon the fair Green within a Club's length of your Ball.

5.   If your Ball comes among watter, or any wattery filth, you are at liberty to take out your Ball & bringing it behind the hazard and Teeing it, you may play it with any Club

and allow your Adversary a Stroke for so getting out your Ball.

6.  If your Balls be found any where touching one another, You are to lift the first Ball, till you play the last.

7.  At Holling, you are to play your Ball honestly for the Hole, and not to play upon your Adversary’s Ball, not lying in your way to the Hole.

8.  If you shoud lose your Ball, by it's being taken up, or any other way, you are to go back to the Spot, where you struck last, & drop another Ball, And allow your adversary a Stroke for the misfortune.

9.  No man at Holling his Ball, is to be allowed, to mark his way to the Hole with his Club, or anything else.

10.  If a Ball be stopp’d by any Person, Horse, Dog or anything else, The Ball so stop’d must be play’d where it lyes.

11.   If you draw your Club in Order to Strike, & proceed so far in the Stroke as to be bringing down your Club; If then, your Club shall break, in any way, it is to be Accounted a

Stroke.

12.  He whose Ball lyes farthest from the Hole is obliged to play first.

13.  Neither Trench, Ditch or Dyke, made for the preservation of the Links, nor the Scholar's Holes, or the Soldier's Lines, Shall be accounted a Hazard; But the Ball is to be taken out and play’d with any Iron Club.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1744.html

Thanks to FourPutt who turned me on to this site.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

Adding a tree or two near a tee box costs significantly less than many other things a golf course will routinely do. Heck, something as simple as putting the tee sign on the right forward edge of that tee might prevent people from hitting to the right.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

Adding a tree or two near a tee box costs significantly less than many other things a golf course will routinely do. Heck, something as simple as putting the tee sign on the right forward edge of that tee might prevent people from hitting to the right.

Agreed, I'm just not convinced that for this particular situation that a tee sign, one tree, or even two trees would effectively block *everyone* from purposely driving into the adjacent fairway. (At least not without making the tee shot into the correct fairway more tight). Seems like you'd have to have a line of (very tall = expensive) trees for quite a stretch down the fairway to prevent any fade from successfully finding the shortcut. I could be wrong, but I'm just saying the current course managers and customers shouldn't necessarily have to be on the hook financially for changes necessitated by a bad original course design.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Just for fun, here are those original rules from 1744.  I think it reading them it seems pretty apparent that there was no reason for an OB rule because guys just went out and played on a patch of public land - i.e., there were no boundaries.  Interesting that they did not anticipate the notion of stroke play.  Penalty strokes are strokes you allow your Adversary.

5.   If your Ball comes among watter, or any wattery filth, you are at liberty to take out your Ball & bringing it behind the hazard and Teeing it, you may play it with any Club

and allow your Adversary a Stroke for so getting out your Ball.

8.  If you shoud lose your Ball, by it's being taken up, or any other way, you are to go back to the Spot, where you struck last, & drop another Ball, And allow your adversary a Stroke for the misfortune.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1744.html

Thanks to FourPutt who turned me on to this site.

Interesting that they let you tee it up instead of taking a drop behind a hazard.  I certainly have had times when my drop rolled into an unfavorable lie.

Do you know how they played the lost ball penalty?  It says that you allow your opponent a stroke, but it is not clear if you count both your original shot AND your re-hit or just count one of these plus the stroke.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Zeg- what is the strategic choice a player should make when there is OB right and left?  Hit it down the middle?  I have hit it OoB RIGHT AND LEFT on both 1 and 2 at Keystone`s River course.  The fairways there are wide, so I think these are generally good golf holes, but #1 really presents a catch-22  to less skilled golfers as it has a forced carry, so playing safe with an iron is not really an option.  Basically, you just have to man up and hit one down the middle, but here is where I find the OOB rule introducing a lot of luck into your scores.

Well, it might force you to club down more strongly than rough or trees, I suppose. But I would think that in most cases that would be a poor design for the hole. With freedom comes responsibility---not to design a course badly.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think his point was that the rules should be more flexible to avoid causing architects to have to spent a lot of money to make a fair course.

This is more or less my point (no, I didn't forget it, but it was a somewhat off-topic aside at the end of the post where I brought it up). The rules make sense in their own way, but I don't think their inflexibility on these matters is particularly logical. I've played desert courses where their illegal local rule permitting natural desert areas to be played like water hazards pretty unquestionably improves play on the course.

(edit)

Also, just to explain how this came from the original post about OB and the "50 yards from the edge of the fairway" business, the point was that, logically speaking, either using OB as a strategic element is valid or not. If it is, then if internal OB can be created without causing other problems (as it often can, e.g., for maintenance yards and what not), then why doesn't the USGA like it? If it's not, then why don't they try to avoid bringing it into play at all. The current situation is understandable, but not particularly logically consistent.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Interesting that they let you tee it up instead of taking a drop behind a hazard.  I certainly have had times when my drop rolled into an unfavorable lie.

Do you know how they played the lost ball penalty?  It says that you allow your opponent a stroke, but it is not clear if you count both your original shot AND your re-hit or just count one of these plus the stroke.

You still count every stroke.   That hasn't changed in 267 years.  Even though the definitions weren't written into those first rules, they were essentially common knowledge.  Note that it does say the even if your club breaks on the downswing (a fairly common event in those days), it was still counted as a stroke.

Also keep in mind that in those days play was virtually all match play, so they didn't document every possible eventuality like we have to today to protect large fields.  The rules were finally documented so that neighboring clubs could hold competitions with a fairly consistent set of rules, thus attempting to avoid disputes caused by differing club policies.  However, the differing conditions at different clubs still caused the creation of a plethora of local rules, which still caused a lot of confusion.  It was in an effort to get all of those local rules under control that clubs started to collaborate on a mostly common set of rules.  Over the years the rules have merged and then diverged several times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

(edit)

Also, just to explain how this came from the original post about OB and the "50 yards from the edge of the fairway" business, the point was that, logically speaking, either using OB as a strategic element is valid or not. If it is, then if internal OB can be created without causing other problems (as it often can, e.g., for maintenance yards and what not), then why doesn't the USGA like it? If it's not, then why don't they try to avoid bringing it into play at all. The current situation is understandable, but not particularly logically consistent.

Calling a maintenance yard out of bounds is not remotely the same as having a single out of bounds line between two holes and having it only in effect from one of the holes, or even making it out of bounds for either hole.  Both of those holes are part of the golf course and as such are expected to be used for play in the course of a round.  They have no business being called out of bounds.  The maintenance yard is NOT part of the course - it is not an area where you are expected to play from.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Calling a maintenance yard out of bounds is not remotely the same as having a single out of bounds line between two holes and having it only in effect from one of the holes, or even making it out of bounds for either hole.  Both of those holes are part of the golf course and as such are expected to be used for play in the course of a round.  They have no business being called out of bounds.  The maintenance yard is NOT part of the course - it is not an area where you are expected to play from.

I agreed earlier that conditional OB has its own problems. It's allowed, though discouraged, so even that is viewed as acceptable in some conditions. But I'm not really talking about that.

A maintenance yard is not that different from an enclosed area of OB that contains something other than maintenance equipment. It's a part of course property that for one reason or another has been deemed not to be part of the course for purposes of the play of the game. To me, if the committee says, "This ground is not part of the course," that's all they need to say. Any expectation about where you can play your ball from goes away when you see the white stakes.

It's not something I would want to see used very often, but I fail to understand the logic being applied.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by zeg

I agreed earlier that conditional OB has its own problems. It's allowed, though discouraged, so even that is viewed as acceptable in some conditions. But I'm not really talking about that.

A maintenance yard is not that different from an enclosed area of OB that contains something other than maintenance equipment. It's a part of course property that for one reason or another has been deemed not to be part of the course for purposes of the play of the game. To me, if the committee says, "This ground is not part of the course," that's all they need to say. Any expectation about where you can play your ball from goes away when you see the white stakes.

It's not something I would want to see used very often, but I fail to understand the logic being applied.

An enclosed area of out of bounds somewhere within the outer boundaries of the course is something entirely different because the marked region is out of bounds no matter how or from what direction ones ball comes to be inside of it.  There can be any number of good reasons for designating such a piece of land as out of bounds (it could be a tree or turf nursery, a maintenance area, or a large area of untended land where no play is allowed for pace of play or safety reasons).  In such an area, the ball is only out of bounds if it lies within a clearly defined area.  If the ball caries across the region designated as out of bounds, then it is still in play, even if that happens to be in another fairway.  The case I mentioned above is different because the ball is still on what should be a playable part of the course, but it has been arbitrarily marked out of bounds with a single line of stakes due to simple laziness on the part of the course management.

[lville lefty]

Appreciate all of the replies to this post.  Loved the reply by Turtleback with the original rules.  I had never seen them before.  It appears the majority of the responses are in support of the OB rule as it stands.  I have no issue with the rule other than to ask, what rule, if any, would you change in an effort to improve pace of play? Or maybe you think improving pace of play should never compromise or be an impetus to change the rules of golf.

[reedf]

Originally Posted by lville left

Or maybe you think improving pace of play should never compromise or be an impetus to change the rules of golf.

this^^^^^^

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by lville lefty

Appreciate all of the replies to this post.  Loved the reply by Turtleback with the original rules.  I had never seen them before.  It appears the majority of the responses are in support of the OB rule as it stands.  I have no issue with the rule other than to ask, what rule, if any, would you change in an effort to improve pace of play?  Or maybe you think improving pace of play should never compromise or be an impetus to change the rules of golf.

I think the rules should be changed to increase the pace of play, but unless you are talking Am tournaments of non-scratch golfers, pace of play is not likely to change a ton on an every day basis as most golfers don`t bother to follow the current rules anyway.

There are a number of reasons that I think most golfers don`t follow the rules including:

Many don`t know the rules which are complicated to learn for a newbie

Following some rules, like going back to the tee for a ball you didn`t expect to lose, would slow down the pace of play

Some perceive certain rules as unfair- i.e. having nowhere reasonable within 2 club lengths or going straight backwards to drop when you take an unplayable or having to play a lost ball when you are 90+% (but not virtually certain) that it is in a hazard.

I try to follow the rules as much as possible and have played with a lot of different players this season.  Most are at least somewhat surprised whenever I hit a provisional.  To them, it is much more natural to play a mulligan or just drop one out there somewhere.  I have had a few times this season where I potentially had multiple lost balls on the same hole...taking 5 minutes each to look for your original and first provisional is certainly a good way to make for a very slow hole.

I understand that using the potential for a lost ball and out of bounds can be part of a strategy device by course designers, but when looking at all the factors, I favor simplifying the rules to make OOB, Lost balls, and water hazards all play more similar to lateral water hazards with the designer having the ability to create hazards even if there is not water.  I would also be inclined to liberalize the drop rules for these as well as unplayable lies and feel that these changes would get more people playing by the rules even if it was by accident.  It would also result in a faster speed of play for those few that actually follow the current rules.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think the rules should be changed to increase the pace of play, but unless you are talking Am tournaments of non-scratch golfers, pace of play is not likely to change a ton on an every day basis as most golfers don`t bother to follow the current rules anyway.

There are a number of reasons that I think most golfers don`t follow the rules including:

Many don`t know the rules which are complicated to learn for a newbie

Following some rules, like going back to the tee for a ball you didn`t expect to lose, would slow down the pace of play

Some perceive certain rules as unfair- i.e. having nowhere reasonable within 2 club lengths or going straight backwards to drop when you take an unplayable or having to play a lost ball when you are 90+% (but not virtually certain) that it is in a hazard.

This is a key reason for not changing any rules for such an ambiguous reason as pace of play.  Most casual players only have the most tenuous grip on the rules anyway, and don't care to know any more.  That is even true of many who may be more well versed in the rules, but still don't feel that they are important in everyday play.  Why make changes aimed at helping those players who don't care in the first place (and possibly create inconsistencies in the rules by doing so)?

Most players only develop any sort if interest or expertise in the rules after they discover the fun and challenge of competitive golf.  By that I don't mean just statewide or citywide tournaments, but well organized monthly club competitions should attract ones interest in correct play.  After a player embarrasses himself through ignorance a couple of times in competitions, he usually gets a better appreciation of the rules.

If he's anything like me, he begins to understand that there is a base logic or foundation for most of the commonly encountered playing rules, a logic that reaches all the way back to those original 13 rules.  It's not that easy to just make a knee jerk change without going counter to those underlying principles.  This is why rule changes only come about slowly and with much discussion between the joint rules committees of the USGA and the R&A.;

[David in FL]

there is a base logic or foundation for most of the commonly encountered playing rules, a logic that reaches all the way back to those original 13 rules.  It's not that easy to just make a knee jerk change without going counter to those underlying principles.  This is why rule changes only come about slowly and with much discussion between the joint rules committees of the USGA and the R&A.;

Extraordinarily well said! This is why some of us are referred to as rules nazis. It's not that we don't want people to enjoy the game. Quite the opposite. We want everyone to appreciate this great game for what it is, and has been, For nearly 300 years now!

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by zeg

Exactly this. There are gradations of penalty all over the course. If you play the ball accurately, you stay on the fairway and short grass. If you miss a small amount, you're "penalized" by the rough, sometimes in several grades as the shot becomes increasingly errant. If you hit a somewhat worse shot, you may end up in a bunker, or perhaps a water hazard. Finally, the worst penalty for an errant shot is OB, where you pay with stroke and distance.

As was suggested above, you need to know where the OB is and play accordingly. As a practical matter, it's usually OB because it's off the property, but in some cases it's strategically placed on golf course property. You need to be aware of it, and play away from it or pay the price.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But that's a problem for the course, not for the rules.  The rules not only don't contemplate such an out of bounds condition, but I know that the USGA frowns on such a use for OB.  They strongly recommend that out of bounds should only be designated when the area so marked is beyond the boundary of the course.

I played a course during a club tournament earlier this year that pissed me off more than any other moment I've been on a golf course.  Allow me to explain:

1) I played this course 2 years ago, and on the Par 3 third hole, there was OB to the left of a row of trees that was about 5 yards right of the line marking the adjacent property.  That row of trees was about 15 yards left of the cart path, which is about 7 yards left of the green.

2) Apparently this year, they changed the OB line to be anything left of the cart path.  It is MY fault that I didn't read the scorecard before the round and simply assumed the OB line was the same, natural line marked by the visual row of trees next to the property line.

3) I hit a pull/draw that started at the flag and landed about 3 yards off the left edge of the green, which happens to be a mound that slopes toward the cart path.  Of course the ball trickled to the cart path and past it by a couple yards.

So, my ball was still about 13 yards right of the row of trees, 18 yards right of the property line, and only about 10 yards left of the green.  It's still on course property in very light rough.  I could get up-and-down for par from there maybe 40% of the time.  Yet I have to hit 3 off the tee because I'm "OB."

I was actually walking off the tee box thinking "I can get up-and-down from there" before one of my playing partners alerted me that I was OB and needed to re-tee.  I nearly lost it, thinking about how stupid it was for that to be OB.  We actually talked to the pro shop afterwards and they said they were considering moving the OB line back to where it was before.  But that hole really got to me mentally and took me out of the next 3-4 holes before I regrouped.

I should also add that there is a water hazard right of the green on this hole which stretches from the tee box to the back of the green.  So playing it safe to the right isn't an option until you realize that OB isn't 25+ yards left of the green, but instead only about 7 yards left of the green.