Is it really OOB?

[blouro1128]

I play at a course that has a dog leg right. From the tee box it's possible to reach the green if you cut the dog leg diagonally (forming a triangle with the ball path and the fairway). For safety reasons, a green that is very close, they've put up a net probably about 20' high between the tee box and the green, along with a sign on the box that states, "Over the net and to the right of white stakes is out of bounds". Even with the net, depending on the placement of the tees, it's still possible to hit your tee shot over the net and onto the green. It's by no means an easy shot, but none the less possible. 

We've debated this back and forth for a while, arguing that where the ball lies is what determines the ruling. For example if a ball travels out of bounds hits a rock and lands back in bounds there is no penalty. The pro at the course states that if the ball travels over the net it is OOB regardless if you stick the green. 

To put an end to this debate, per the rules (not by how nice of a shot it is), how would you rule it? The sign reads as above and you tee off, purposely or not, aimed over the net. The ball travels over the net and sticks the green, is it really OOB? 

[Fourputt]

If that is the policy of the course for safety reasons, then it's out of bounds.  In a competition played by the rules of golf, I don't think that it could be enforced, but for any other play, I think that safety comes first.  What it tells me is that it's not a very good design, but it is what it is.

[TourSpoon]

IMO, if you have Local Rules, you have to follow them. If it's a suggestion, then it's fair game. 

Edited September 5, 2016 by TourSpoon

[Golfingdad]

What would his ruling be if you made a hole-in-one?

Point is, I disagree with the course there.

[rehmwa]

I guess I don't care if it's OOB 'officially' or not.  I'd prefer they just put a sign up and a bigger net and note that it's for safety - and anyone selfish and irresponsible enough to try to hit that shot is caught, they'll be escorted off the property or even turned into the law if appropriate.

Bad course design, they need to plant some big trees asap and take away the very option.

[TourSpoon]

2 hours ago, blouro1128 said:

We've debated this back and forth for a while, arguing that where the ball lies is what determines the ruling

Well, that is the true test. If you end up on the green, you are on the green. I have never seen where the path can be OOB. Even at Saint Andrews, you can hit over the corner of the hotel property and if you land in the fairway you are in the fairway. 

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

Well, that is the true test. If you end up on the green, you are on the green. I have never seen where the path can be OOB. Even at Saint Andrews, you can hit over the corner of the hotel property and if you land in the fairway you are in the fairway. 

I agree, they can make a rule that discourages people from attempting that shot but if the ball lands on or near the green it can't be OOB.  

[David in FL]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

If that is the policy of the course for safety reasons, then it's out of bounds.  In a competition played by the rules of golf, I don't think that it could be enforced, but for any other play, I think that safety comes first.  What it tells me is that it's not a very good design, but it is what it is.

A local rule cannot violate the rules of golf.

The course can dictate a policy that prohibits certain conduct on their property, but I don't see how they can invent a penalty where none exists under the rules.

[Fourputt]

38 minutes ago, David in FL said:

A local rule cannot violate the rules of golf.

The course can dictate a policy that prohibits certain conduct on their property, but I don't see how they can invent a penalty where none exists under the rules.

We are talking about casual play here.  The course has the right to set policy in the interest of the safety of its customers.  Look at all of the posts on this forum about courses with unauthorized "lateral water hazards" which are nothing more than just brush and woods.  They aren't even doing it for safety, only to keep the course moving.

They have apparently erected a screen to discourage such play, but because of the temptation for trying to drive the green (apparently by such as the OP), have also added that local policy.  If it had been me setting policy, I'd have done more than just an out of bounds penalty.  I'd have a sign on the fence prohibiting driving over it, and that anyone attempting to circumvent the prohibition would be ejected from the course.

There was a private club in the Denver area that had a short par 4, and they actually put stakes and a white line across the fairway at the dogleg, about 100 yards from the green, and any shot from the tee that crossed the line was out of bounds (at the time the most I could hit there safely was a 6 iron).  On the second shot the area was in play.  Because it was a blind shot from the tee to the green, the policy was put in place for player safety.  They have since redesigned 3 holes to eliminate the problem.

As I said above, for a tournament under the rules, such a policy would be indefensible, but for casual play you live with the course policy or play elsewhere.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

We are talking about casual play here.  The course has the right to set policy in the interest of the safety of its customers.  Look at all of the posts on this forum about courses with disallowed "lateral water hazards" which are nothing more than just brush and woods.  They aren't even doing it for safety, only to keep the course moving.

They have apparently erected a screen to discourage such play, but because of the temptation for trying to drive the green (apparently by such as the OP), have also added that local policy.  If it had been me setting policy, I'd have done more than just an out of bounds penalty.  I'd have a sign on the fence prohibiting driving over it, and that anyone attempting to circumvent the prohibition would be ejected from the course.

There was a private club in the Denver area that had a short par 4, and they actually put stakes and a white line across the fairway at the dogleg, about 100 yards from the green, and any shot from the tee that crossed the line was out of bounds (at the time the most I could hit was a 6 iron).  On the second shot the area was in play.  Because it was a blind shot from the tee to the green, the policy was put in place for player safety.  They have since redesigned 3 holes to eliminate the problem.

As I said above, for a tournament under the rules, such a policy would be indefensible, but for casual play you live with the course policy or play elsewhere.

That's all well and good… but if nobody's on the green and I'm confident I can pull off the shot, if the course policy does not include ejection… I'm playing by the Rules of Golf, not a local "policy."

[saevel25]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's all well and good… but if nobody's on the green and I'm confident I can pull off the shot, if the course policy does not include ejection… I'm playing by the Rules of Golf, not a local "policy."

Ditto!

 

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

We are talking about casual play here.  The course has the right to set policy in the interest of the safety of its customers.  Look at all of the posts on this forum about courses with unauthorized "lateral water hazards" which are nothing more than just brush and woods.  They aren't even doing it for safety, only to keep the course moving.

They have apparently erected a screen to discourage such play, but because of the temptation for trying to drive the green (apparently by such as the OP), have also added that local policy.  If it had been me setting policy, I'd have done more than just an out of bounds penalty.  I'd have a sign on the fence prohibiting driving over it, and that anyone attempting to circumvent the prohibition would be ejected from the course.

There was a private club in the Denver area that had a short par 4, and they actually put stakes and a white line across the fairway at the dogleg, about 100 yards from the green, and any shot from the tee that crossed the line was out of bounds (at the time the most I could hit there safely was a 6 iron).  On the second shot the area was in play.  Because it was a blind shot from the tee to the green, the policy was put in place for player safety.  They have since redesigned 3 holes to eliminate the problem.

As I said above, for a tournament under the rules, such a policy would be indefensible, but for casual play you live with the course policy or play elsewhere.

I understand, but the OP specifically asked what the answer is by the Rules of Golf.  The answer is that the course cannot set a local rule dictating that the path a ball takes determines whether the ball is in or out of bounds.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I understand, but the OP specifically asked what the answer is by the Rules of Golf.  The answer is that the course cannot set a local rule dictating that the path a ball takes determines whether the ball is in or out of bounds.

Additionally, it's the RoG sub-forum.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's all well and good… but if nobody's on the green and I'm confident I can pull off the shot, if the course policy does not include ejection… I'm playing by the Rules of Golf, not a local "policy."

Especially considering how much I'd rather even just be close to the green, even if it's a chip from the rough, than I would like to be 100-150 yards off the green in the fairway.

Courses can't just declare something "out of bounds" without clearly marking it with white stakes and having those locations being out of bounds for the entire hole, not just for the tee shot. It's all well and good that they put up a sign, but it holds no value.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

That's all well and good… but if nobody's on the green and I'm confident I can pull off the shot, if the course policy does not include ejection… I'm playing by the Rules of Golf, not a local "policy."

So you don't think that that course has the right to set its own policies and to expect its customers to abide by those policies?  I don't like such policies which contravene the Rules of Golf any more than you do, but when it's done for safety, I'll obey them or I simply won't play the course.  It's just a matter of choice.  You can 1) go along with the policy; you can 2) be an ass and ignore it; or you can 3) choose to take your money elsewhere.  Personally I'll go with 1 or 3. 

And by the way, I stated in my first post that it couldn't be defended if the rules were being followed.

[Pretzel]

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

So you don't think that that course has the right to set its own policies and to expect its customers to abide by those policies?  I don't like such policies which contravene the Rules of Golf any more than you do, but when it's done for safety, I'll obey them or I simply won't play the course.  It's just a matter of choice.  You can 1) go along with the policy; you can 2) be an ass and ignore it; or you can 3) choose to take your money elsewhere.  Personally I'll go with 1 or 3. 

And by the way, I stated in my first post that it couldn't be defended if the rules were being followed.

It does, so long as it abides by the rules of golf. That out of bounds ruling will become effective as soon as the course places white stake to indicate where the out of bounds like is and it plays as out of bounds for the entire hole, not just the tee shot. Until then it means nothing.

Also, if you hit it over the net, you're obviously not putting others in danger. The net protects the people who are on the additional green, and if you're going over the net you won't hit the people on the green unless you hit something much shorter than would reach the intended green.

[TourSpoon]

I would like to see a picture or diagram if possible. After reading the OP, you are stating that the net is protecting the very green on the hole you are playing, not some other green that is close by. So in effect, you can drive the green with a well hit ball. 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

So you don't think that that course has the right to set its own policies and to expect its customers to abide by those policies?

I never said any such thing.

I simply said that, absent a policy that would result in me being booted from the course, if I'm not going to endanger others, I'm going to play by the Rules of Golf.

A course I played growing up used to have internal OB. They had tall trees, but you could go over or through them sometimes. If you failed, you were OB… and if you thinned one, you could absolutely drill someone on a green. I'd play that hole by going over the trees when nobody was on the putting green (sometimes failing), and when someone was on the green, by hitting a 6-iron to the corner and playing a 4-iron from there…

That course followed the Rules of Golf (then later redesigned to make the first hole a par three and then turned the second shot into the tee shot on a longer par four).

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I don't like such policies which contravene the Rules of Golf any more than you do, but when it's done for safety, I'll obey them or I simply won't play the course.

I will follow them if there's a safety concern, too. If there's not, I'll follow the Rules of Golf. That's why I said "if nobody's on the green and I can pull off the shot…".

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

It's just a matter of choice.  You can 1) go along with the policy; you can 2) be an ass and ignore it; or you can 3) choose to take your money elsewhere.  Personally I'll go with 1 or 3. 

Sorry, but ignoring it doesn't make me an ass.  So I reject the three options, and will add a fourth: the course could fix the issue, multiple ways.

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

And by the way, I stated in my first post that it couldn't be defended if the rules were being followed.

It's the Rules of Golf sub-forum.