Water Hazard Bordered by an unfenced backyard

[Rulesman]

The committee has no right or authority to include property not belonging to the club/course as art of the course.  Therefore I would argue that regardless of markings by the committee, if a ball is in an area that is not owned by the club/course it must be, by definition, out of bounds.  In this case I think that the law of the land would override the ROG.  A Committee cannot incorporate land the club/course dies not own/control, into the course, so there are boundaries, clearly, they are just not marked.  There are always boundaries.  The fact that within the owned land the committee has complete control does not eliminate the existing property line boundaries.

In this case the problem is the combination of not marking the OB line and not marking the property line. If the committee did nothing at all in the way of marking, but the homeowner put some indication of the location of the property line, if the ball was over the ,line then IMO it would still be OB.  The OB definition references, in relevant part, the boundaries of the course.  And these depend on law not ROG.  The committee can do whatever it wants within the boundaries of the course, but the property owners legal rights on their own property will be upheld against the ROG every time, in court.

There are many courses in the UK where the 'course' is situated on publicly owned land (known as Common Land). The public may roam at will. Some of these courses have no OOB, you just play the ball wherever it is.

[Martyn W]

There are many courses in the UK where the 'course' is situated on publicly owned land (known as Common Land). The public may roam at will. Some of these courses have no OOB, you just play the ball wherever it is.

My first job as head pro was at Hounslow Heath GC near Heathrow, this is common land and we had a huge problem with people literally having picnics on the fairways - even on a green on one occasion!

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

The committee has no right or authority to include property not belonging to the club/course as art of the course.  Therefore I would argue that regardless of markings by the committee, if a ball is in an area that is not owned by the club/course it must be, by definition, out of bounds.  In this case I think that the law of the land would override the ROG.  A Committee cannot incorporate land the club/course dies not own/control, into the course, so there are boundaries, clearly, they are just not marked.  There are always boundaries.  The fact that within the owned land the committee has complete control does not eliminate the existing property line boundaries.

In this case the problem is the combination of not marking the OB line and not marking the property line. If the committee did nothing at all in the way of marking, but the homeowner put some indication of the location of the property line, if the ball was over the ,line then IMO it would still be OB.  The OB definition references, in relevant part, the boundaries of the course.  And these depend on law not ROG.  The committee can do whatever it wants within the boundaries of the course, but the property owners legal rights on their own property will be upheld against the ROG every time, in court.

There are many courses in the UK where the 'course' is situated on publicly owned land (known as Common Land). The public may roam at will. Some of these courses have no OOB, you just play the ball wherever it is.

In the US I would argue that there still must be SOME point at which the land ownership is not the same as the course ownership, and even if it is 5 miles away there is still a boundary and a property line somewhere and it still is OB on the other side of the property line.  Which is also true in the more common situation where the boundary line is much closer to the action.  The ROG cannot override property rights.

Can't say much as to how it works in the UK, obviously.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

[COLOR=181818]Strange local rule at Tidewater in Myrtle Beach.  Housing along the fairways yet there are no OB stakes.  If you hit your ball into a yard or flower bed in a yard and can find it, you get free relief on the opposite side of the cart path away from the yard.  However, if you don't find it, then it is simply a lost ball and you must replay from where ever you hit the last shot.  See people walking in these folks yards all the time searching for their ball.  And, there are no fences along the golf course.[/COLOR]

Yeah, I actually recall reading that local rule the last time I played there. Seems crazy to me to be honest. If it's someone's back yard it's clearly off the golf course. Should be OOB.

[DrvFrShow]

Common, or public land bordering public courses (i.e. owned by the county) would be handled differently regarding boundaries. Regarding privately held land, the law of the land trumps the ROG from a legal standpoint.

[Martyn W]

"Regarding privately held land, the law of the land trumps the ROG from a legal standpoint."

Not quite sure what you mean by that - a court can overturn a committee ruling? A player cannot be penalized under the RoG for breaking the law, can he?

[iacas]

"Regarding privately held land, the law of the land trumps the ROG from a legal standpoint."

Not quite sure what you mean by that - a court can overturn a committee ruling? A player cannot be penalized under the RoG for breaking the law, can he?

I think it's pretty clear what he means by that, particularly in this context.

[Martyn W]

I think it's pretty clear what he means by that, particularly in this context.

I am not being obtuse, but as I stated in a previous post,the original question was whether or not a ball on private property is OOB. We have got sidetracked by confusing the law with the RoG. I maintain that the definition of 'the course' tells us it is not. I know that the OOB definition includes 'beyond the boundaries of the course' but that brings us back to the committee's responsibility to define that boundary, legal or not.

[iacas]

I am not being obtuse, but as I stated in a previous post,the original question was whether or not a ball on private property is OOB. We have got sidetracked by confusing the law with the RoG. I maintain that the definition of 'the course' tells us it is not. I know that the OOB definition includes 'beyond the boundaries of the course' but that brings us back to the committee's responsibility to define that boundary, legal or not.

He's simply saying that the Rules of Golf do not give you a pass to break the law and trespass.

The boundary of the course is the boundary of the course. I suspect that's true whether it's marked by the course or not. Just like how a water hazard is a water hazard whether it's marked or not.

[Martyn W]

He's simply saying that the Rules of Golf do not give you a pass to break the law and trespass.

The boundary of the course is the boundary of the course. I suspect that's true whether it's marked by the course or not. Just like how a water hazard is a water hazard whether it's marked or not.

A WH is defined, boundary is not. The RoG are precisely written, we cannot 'suspect' what a definition might mean. If a homeowner takes it upon himself to put white stakes on the golf course property is that a 'boundary in your understanding?

[Asheville]

Left of #18 at Pebble Beach? OB is some guy's back yard in Hawaii?

[iacas]

A WH is defined, boundary is not. The RoG are precisely written, we cannot 'suspect' what a definition might mean.

We can "suspect" what a definition might mean. Scroll up. I did that very thing which you say cannot be done!

Lacking a definition, we get to use the English language definitions, for which "boundary" is pretty clear.

If a homeowner takes it upon himself to put white stakes on the golf course property is that a 'boundary in your understanding?

Nope. But often there's a pretty clear line between the end of the golf course and the homeowner's property. The grass will be mowed differently, there are trees on the corners of the lot, etc. You can pretty often clearly tell where the boundary line between the golf course and the private property start and end.

If a golf course is marked with white stakes but the homeowner is tired of hitting them with his lawnmower (because he mows a little bit of the golf course), so he removes them, does that cease to be the boundary of the golf course?

I would treat situations where you're clearly off the golf course property as OB.

I would also implore golf course committees to properly mark the golf course. If the homeowner removes them, put them a yard inside the course property line so he doesn't hit them.

[Martyn W]

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.

[Martyn W]

" I would treat situations where you're clearly off the golf course property as OB."

I commend you for that, I would do the same. The question however, remains. Would/could you, as a committee, disqualify a maverick player who plays out of a backyard which has not been marked?

"I would also implore golf course committees to properly mark the golf course"

Echo that. When I mark a course I always 'dot' the OB stakes. I marked a course for an NCAA event last year with OB on every hole (DeBordieu in MB) and painted over 1000 dots!

[iacas]

I commend you for that, I would do the same. The question however, remains. Would/could you, as a committee, disqualify a maverick player who plays out of a backyard which has not been marked?

I would.

Also, please quote properly.

[Martyn W]

I would.

How would you justify that to the player? Which Rule would you cite?

[iacas]

How would you justify that to the player? Which Rule would you cite?

27-1b.

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

Out of Bounds

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

When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports). When both stakes and lines are used to indicate out of bounds, the stakes identify out of bounds and the lines define out of bounds. When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is out of bounds. The out of bounds line extends vertically upwards and downwards.

A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds. A player may stand out of bounds to play a ball lying within bounds.

Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

Note 1: Stakes or lines used to define out of bounds should be white.

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to be obstructions.

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.

[Phil McGleno]

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

I would tend to agree-The word is OR not AND. This thread made me think about the trees thread I started where they are marked as water hazards when they are clearly not. Long story short-Committees suck at marking things and should do a better job.