Water Hazard Bordered by an unfenced backyard

[iacas]

How can you possibly determine the precise location of a property line? The guy in the group ahead of you may have used his common sense to determine that his ball is in bounds and when your ball is in the same position, your common sense tells you it is OOB. How is that equitable?

Why not? Golfers are already asked to do the same thing when playing from a water hazard that's incorrectly marked or unmarked. And again, @Martyn W , quite often it's pretty darn easy to tell. The grass is mowed differently. The ball is underneath a swing set. Or it's in a child's sand box - pretty sure that's not a "bunker."

If you truly cannot tell where the golf course ends and the private property begins, play two balls under 3-3 and ask the committee later. I think you're laughably wrong about golf courses extending indefinitely regardless of common sense, public roadways, clear property line markers like a family's personal effects or different mowing patterns consistent with their lawn and inconsistent with the golf course, etc.

Heck, looking at some overheads of some golf courses on Google Earth… and you can tell where the golf course property begins and ends.

[mvmac]

How can you possibly determine the precise location of a property line? The guy in the group ahead of you may have used his common sense to determine that his ball is in bounds and when your ball is in the same position, your common sense tells you it is OOB. How is that equitable?

How can you possibly not know when you're on someone else's property? How do you know when you're in the rough, in the fairway, or on the putting green? Backyards, front yards, parks don't look the same as a golf course and you should be able to differentiate between private property and the course.

I agree with @iacas 's point about being able to tell even on Google Earth.

[ColinL]

Why not? Golfers are already asked to do the same thing when playing from a water hazard that's incorrectly marked or unmarked. And again, @Martyn W, quite often it's pretty darn easy to tell. The grass is mowed differently. The ball is underneath a swing set. Or it's in a child's sand box - pretty sure that's not a "bunker."

If you truly cannot tell where the golf course ends and the private property begins, play two balls under 3-3 and ask the committee later. I think you're laughably wrong about golf courses extending indefinitely regardless of common sense, public roadways, clear property line markers like a family's personal effects or different mowing patterns consistent with their lawn and inconsistent with the golf course, etc.

Heck, looking at some overheads of some golf courses on Google Earth… and you can tell where the golf course property begins and ends.

The two Decisions you have mentioned,  26/2 and 26/3 do not give a player licence to invent an OOB line where it  is marked or defined.  They are specifically and narrowly concerned with water hazards, telling us

a. how to proceed if a water hazard is not marked at all  by determining that it is a water hazard by applying the Definition of a water hazard and using its natural margins;

b. how to proceed if a water hazard has been badly marked and there is a part of it (clearly known to be part of it because of the Definition) outside the white/red stakes or line.

They are not applicable  to a situation where out of bounds cannot be established because of a failure to mark or define the boundary.  While it may seem obvious where a boundary should be - such as a fence between a hole and a garden or a wall beyond which is a farmer's field - there is no Definition to that effect that the player can fall back on if the Committee hasn't done its job.  In the case of an unmarked or wrongly marked water hazard, there is s Definition  Therein lies the essential difference between the OP's dilemma and Decisions 26/2 and 26/3.

There is a difference between the unarguable fact that in many  instances it will be obvious where the boundary of a course should be and the point that in terms of the Rules, if that boundary is neither marked nor defined, it does not exist.  That is a rules-based concept that goes along with other oddities such as being able to have a ball in plain view and know it is lost .    In practical terms, the non-existence of a marked or defined boundary may not matter in general play because as so many keep saying, it's pretty obvious where it should be, but we need to keep in mind that the Rules do not allow for a player to decide if his ball is in our out of bounds in those circumstances.  He will get on and do so no doubt, but he will not be doing so under any applicable rule.   And because there is no applicable rule, there can be  a real problem where there is no obvious demarcation between course and beyond.   Keeping on saying that a player will know when his ball is in someone's garden does not help resolve the difficulty where we don't know and cannot tell where a boundary lies, or even know whether it is intended that there be none.   The plain answer, and it is my answer to the OP,   it is not possible to resolve it and a ball lying in the area of grass he describes  is in play as far as the rules are concerned.  Whether it is sensible to play it given the proximity of the houses etc is a pragmatic matter for the player to decide.  If he decides not to, he must deem it unplayable ( which in theory could mean going back along the line from the hole through where his ball lay and playing from the other side of the street back over the houses )

[sjduffers]

The case already mentioned about a course neighboring another course (at St Andrews) is interesting. Some times they are multiple courses interweaved with each other, along more than just one hole, but they are all on one single golf property. Should the "boundaries of the course",  in the absence of white lines/stakes, then mean the boundaries of the course being played (and if so where is the boundary for holes adjacent to another course?) or the boundaries of the golf property, which includes multiple courses?

Intuitively, and not necessarily realizing that the ball is now on another course (if not very familiar with the layout), anyone would play a ball on the next course as in-bounds, wouldn't they?  So what to make of the wording of "boundaries of the course" in the definition of out of bounds then? Do we need a rule change to express that the "course" is meant to mean "golf course property", or should it be interpreted like @Martyn W does?  At the same time, I agree with everyone that we shouldn't consider someone's backyard a part of the course...

Fascinating discussion!

[iacas]

@ColinL I'm on my phone and rating courses today so I won't be able to respond in depth until much later. DUH those decisions are about water hazards. C'mon. I disagree with you. The definition of "out of bounds" says beyond the boundary OR as marked. There is a definition. It's for "out of bounds." Players can determine the line of an unmarked hazard so I contend that they can determine the line of unmarked OB. Again, in the middle of a swing set surrounded by a differently mowed yard? You're not on the golf course. If it's obvious then I say the ball is OB. If it's not obvious I say play two under 3-3.

[turtleback]

@ColinL I'm on my phone and rating courses today so I won't be able to respond in depth until much later.

DUH those decisions are about water hazards. C'mon.

I disagree with you. The definition of "out of bounds" says beyond the boundary OR as marked. There is a definition. It's for "out of bounds."

Players can determine the line of an unmarked hazard so I contend that they can determine the line of unmarked OB. Again, in the middle of a swing set surrounded by a differently mowed yard? You're not on the golf course.

If it's obvious then I say the ball is OB. If it's not obvious I say play two under 3-3.

That better not involve hitting a ball out of my backyard.

Here is the essential problem, the Committee's irresponsibility to their duties can put the player in a completely untenable golf position, one in which the committee's failure to do their job requires the player, in order to comply with the rules, to illegally trespass on someone else's property.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

@ColinL I'm on my phone and rating courses today so I won't be able to respond in depth until much later.

DUH those decisions are about water hazards. C'mon.

I disagree with you. The definition of "out of bounds" says beyond the boundary OR as marked. There is a definition. It's for "out of bounds."

Players can determine the line of an unmarked hazard so I contend that they can determine the line of unmarked OB. Again, in the middle of a swing set surrounded by a differently mowed yard? You're not on the golf course.

If it's obvious then I say the ball is OB. If it's not obvious I say play two under 3-3.

That better not involve hitting a ball out of my backyard.

Here is the essential problem, the Committee's irresponsibility to their duties can put the player in a completely untenable golf position, one in which the committee's failure to do their job requires the player, in order to comply with the rules, to illegally trespass on someone else's property.

It makes me feel the need to temper my obedience to the rules in such a case.  I'm not going to risk incurring a legal issue in trying to avoid a penalty.  In such a case, I'm ruling that the water hazard extends indefinitely with play prohibited and I'll proceed under Rule 26-1.  Right or wrong, it's far less wrong than leaving a divot in someones yard, and since there is nothing defining out of bounds, I don't feel obligated to take stroke and distance.

[DrvFrShow]

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.

The difference in this case is that Pebble Beach is a public golf course (just has very high green fees, and the California Coast Line is public as well, so you have public land bordering public land. Therefore the argument is different than public land bordering private land.

[JKolya]

Pretty sure he could ground his club too-If the area is not marked it does not stop it from being a water hazard. So the water hazard stops and then it is just through the green in the grassy area.

Would he not still be in the hazard since the backside of it is not marked? The right side of the hazard is marked, but the left side is not, so he is still in the hazard, and therefore cannot ground his club?

How can you possibly determine the precise location of a property line? The guy in the group ahead of you may have used his common sense to determine that his ball is in bounds and when your ball is in the same position, your Icommon sense tells you it is OOB. How is that equitable?

I agree that you cannot, legally, determine the precise location of the property line, but there can be clues that aid the common sense decision. On my course, which is marked well, if it was not the clear distinction is how the grass is mowed. Our side is high grass and the second you hit private property it is well mowed. Obviously that would not always be the case - such as a property line in a wooded area, but it is one possible clue.

The difference in this case is that Pebble Beach is a public golf course (just has very high green fees, and the California Coast Line is public as well, so you have public land bordering public land. Therefore the argument is different than public land bordering private land.

It is a public course in that anyone can play it, but it is not public property or owned by the state. So in that sense, the land is private. When it comes to play though, you never see amateurs play from the the beach which is normally marked as OB. Its just during the PGA event that it is not marked that way.

[DrvFrShow]

For obvious reasons. They don't want amateurs climbing down to the beach to hit shots and holding up play.

[Hardluckster]

ColinL and MartynW are correct. The ball can be played, by the RoG, from the grassy area on the opposite side of the water. Whether it should be played, from a pragmatic point of view, would depend on the particular situation and personal beliefs. The questIon posed by the OP, as I understand it, was not whether it should be played but rather was it legal according to the rules. Clearly the rules allow it. Any committee that would rule it a violation would do so without a qualifying rule, imo. The alternative would require the addition of surveyor's maps in the course guide (or maybe the players would need to provide their own maps?). Some argue that boundaries for private property are easily distinguished, and while that may be true in some cases (not really relevant, imo, but true), it does not 'define' the boundary of the course. The rules do not allow that. Yard swings, flower beds, different lengths of grass, or a line of trees may provide some clue as to the property line but they do not define it according to the RoG. Additionally, these markings could just as easily be wrongly placed (either extending beyond the actual homeowner's property line or not extending far enough). Would I play a golf ball from a point that I thought was clearly in someone's back yard? No, most likely not (although I would not completely rule out the possibility either). That is not the question.

[mvmac]

The questIon posed by the OP, as I understand it, was not whether it should be played but rather was it legal according to the rules. Clearly the rules allow it. Any committee that would rule it a violation would do so without a qualifying rule, imo.

The ball landed on someone else's property, that would be "beyond the boundaries" of the course and OB as the RoG define it.

[Hardluckster]

The ball landed on someone else's property, that would be "beyond the boundaries" of the course and OB as the RoG define it.

Yes, I would agree if the boundary were marked. Since it was not marked in the scenario presented by the OP, then it would not be "beyond the boundaries". I have a friend who lives on the fairway of a dogleg par 5 (marked correctly as OB by the local course, btw). He routinely mows his grass a foot or so beyond his yard's boundary onto golf course property. If the course wasn't correctly marked and we were to be required to "estimate" where the property line met the course property, we would have to incorrectly rule balls OB that were actually in play. In the diagram below, there are no course boundary marks. Where is the course property line? Is it the right edge of the water hazard? Is it the left side of the landscaping? Is it the right side of the landscaping? We have no way to know, therefore I would submit that it doesn't exist. Now, I would most likely never hit from anywhere right of the left side of the landscaping, but I would also not be able to say with definitiveness that something else wasn't in play; therefore it is my opinion that any committee that penalized a player for hitting from those positions has no validation for their decision.

[DrvFrShow]

However, the property owner can penalize people.... by making your ball disappear. Then it becomes a lost ball.

[Hardluckster]

However, the property owner can penalize people.... by making your ball disappear. Then it becomes a lost ball.

On that I agree. He could do that even if it wasn't his property. :-)

[Martyn W]

However, the property owner can penalize people.... by making your ball disappear. Then it becomes a lost ball.

Not necessarily, see 18-1

[DrvFrShow]

Not necessarily, see 18-1

18-1 . By Outside Agency

If a ball at rest is moved by an outside agency , there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency . In order to apply this Rule , it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1 .

[Martyn W]

18-1. By Outside Agency

If a ball at rest is moved by an outside agency, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1.

The part you bolded applies only in the absence of KVC