Is it really OOB?

[CarlSpackler]

@Fourputt It's just a personal thing with me. It seems that they slow down play while people wait for the green to clear (assuming that they actually do wait) and then spend a bunch of time looking for their ball in woods that guard the corner. Mostly, it's because I STINK at playing them and they really piss me off. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

1 - bad course design - add trees, screw the net - build a hard wall on the side of each tee box, change$ to the de$ign.  Make the SHOT penal, not the INTENT of the golfer penal.

Just put trees. Or one tree. I agree.

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

2 - the course trying to 'affect behavior' indirectly by penalizing a legal hit as a OOB is inferential at best.  They need to make it DIRECT, not inferred.  (It's like stupid government social policy - coming at a real problem sideways instead of confronting it head on.)  It's just a stupid way to manage it.  Apparently they don't trust their members to be decent people, but think that a 2 stroke penalty will do the job........  no logic there at all

If you don't want to put a tree, just make it a "removal from the course" offense. Heck, put a fake video camera there with the sign. Or a real camera.

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

3 - belligerent and selfish players that won't follow the course rules seems childish.  Play as requested or take your money elsewhere, or get the course to change it's policy or design.  Instead?  they sit in the clubhouse 'talking' about how to rationalize their way around the local request.  I wonder which of these members would be outraged if someone didn't follow the club dress code?

I don't think that, if I were on that tee and nobody was endangered on the green, that I'd be belligerent or selfish to hit a 3W or something over the green toward my green. I can play the course as I want, within the Rules of Golf.

Now, if the shot is too goofy/difficult, OR there are people there, I'll just play the hole the "stupid" way and probably comment about how it's stupid, and how they should just plant a tree. Or I'd just try to play a big slice around the corner pretty far.

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

4 - What if the course rating and slope is based on the assumption that the hole played as a true dogleg?  Seems a bit like a vanity handicap.  Different kind of cheating there?  So we take an intended par 4, and play it as par 3, but then take credit for the faked out birdie like it's real....?

I'm sure it is, but so what?

We had a hole nearby that was about 460 yards. The layup is barely 150, otherwise you have to fly the ball 265 to carry a lake. So for most it's a three-shot hole, and a par five. It's no different than a player who is able to carry the lake turning it into a somewhat short par four… the course rating is what it is. That player has an advantage, as would another player who can carry the fence and onto the green.

If the course is marked with internal OB, then the rating/slope would reflect that. If it's a sign asking people not to hit that way… it's just reflected in the way most people would play the hole: out along the fairway as intended.

IMO.

[bm85]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Now, if the shot is too goofy/difficult, OR there are people there, I'll just play the hole the "stupid" way and probably comment about how it's stupid, and how they should just plant a tree.

That cracked me up.

It makes me sad thinking that there has been anyone, at any point in time say to another golfer "you have to take a penalty for driving that green, man."

[Papa Steve 55]

9 hours ago, blouro1128 said:

I attached an image from google maps. I've outlined the path of the shot in blue, the tee box in red, and where the netting is in yellow. The net is protecting, not our own green, but the green from a neighboring hole. Its a bit hard to tell from the image but depending on the placement of the tee box, front or back, the shot becomes possible when placed towards the back. 

Thanks for the continued feedback. I thought more would side with the golf course rule on this one but it appears to be opposite of what I expected, with valid reasoning. The question originated from the point of view that if, four of us are playing, three of us follow the dog leg and one of us go over the net, should we enforce the rule? The impression was that the local rule was to be enforced regardless of the reasoning behind it (safety or not). It sounds like the consensus is that the local rule should be enforced, if it conforms to the Rules of Golf. The other three in the foursome, don't have any grounds in which to enforce the local rule because the local rule does not meet the Rules of Golf standards. Meaning the course has no right (thus the other golfers) to enforce what path the ball can or cannot take. And that if the sign is there merely for safety sake, then the course should build an adequate structure to disallow the shot. 

That being said, if they were to setup white stakes indicating out of bounds on the hole, and the ball travels over the net and lands outside those lines, then, in fact the ball would be considered OOB, since they can declare an OOB location based on the landing spot of the ball. 

It appears that from now on we'll have to allow the shot to be taken without penalty, at our own risk of being kicked from the course. 

Ask Rusty if he ever tried the shot, I'm sure he did.

[Jeremie Boop]

9 hours ago, blouro1128 said:

I attached an image from google maps. I've outlined the path of the shot in blue, the tee box in red, and where the netting is in yellow. The net is protecting, not our own green, but the green from a neighboring hole. Its a bit hard to tell from the image but depending on the placement of the tee box, front or back, the shot becomes possible when placed towards the back. 

Thanks for the continued feedback. I thought more would side with the golf course rule on this one but it appears to be opposite of what I expected, with valid reasoning. The question originated from the point of view that if, four of us are playing, three of us follow the dog leg and one of us go over the net, should we enforce the rule? The impression was that the local rule was to be enforced regardless of the reasoning behind it (safety or not). It sounds like the consensus is that the local rule should be enforced, if it conforms to the Rules of Golf. The other three in the foursome, don't have any grounds in which to enforce the local rule because the local rule does not meet the Rules of Golf standards. Meaning the course has no right (thus the other golfers) to enforce what path the ball can or cannot take. And that if the sign is there merely for safety sake, then the course should build an adequate structure to disallow the shot. 

That being said, if they were to setup white stakes indicating out of bounds on the hole, and the ball travels over the net and lands outside those lines, then, in fact the ball would be considered OOB, since they can declare an OOB location based on the landing spot of the ball. 

It appears that from now on we'll have to allow the shot to be taken without penalty, at our own risk of being kicked from the course. 

What's stopping them from moving the tee to the other side of the cart path? Seems to me that would probably solve most of the problems they are facing with the current setup.

[CarlSpackler]

The netting must not be very high if you can go over it being that close. 

[Pretzel]

Here's the thing. As it pertains to the rules (this being the RoG forum), the sign has no bearing. Here are the options a course has if they want to make it a rule that you can't go for the green, as @iacas similarly mentioned.

1) They may plant trees or raise the netting such that a shot along that path isn't feasible, negating the chances of a shot like that occurring in the first place.

2) They may eject people from the course if they play along that line, with posted notice of this.

3) They may erect stakes along the right-hand side of the course that provides an in-course boundary of what is or isn't out of bounds.

 

Note about option 3: this still will not prevent what they want to prevent, just because for OOB what matters is where the ball comes to rest. It doesn't matter if you ball flies out of bounds before returning to the course, so long as its final position is within the boundaries of the course set by the OOB stakes after it has come to rest. There's no such thing as a "path of flight out of bounds" that declares your ball to be out of bounds if it takes a certain path. That's what this whole question was about, is whether there is such a thing as a "path of flight out of bounds", and the answer to that would be a firm no.

[newtogolf]

Seems the easiest thing would be to move the tee box up closer to the net so you can't clear the net with a driver.  I don't think they are concerned about the green as that appears well protected, it seems they are worried about people getting hit from the fairway making their approach shots to the green.  

[No Mulligans]

Adding trees may bring in a shade problem on the green that will affect the grass maintenance.  Even with trees they would still need a fence to catch skulled lined drive shots from the other hole flying towards the tee boxes.  

I'd raise the fence and bring it closer to the tee box.  That would also provide a bit more area to play from behind the other holes green.

[Jeremie Boop]

8 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Adding trees may bring in a shade problem on the green that will affect the grass maintenance.  Even with trees they would still need a fence to catch skulled lined drive shots from the other hole flying towards the tee boxes.  

I'd raise the fence and bring it closer to the tee box.  That would also provide a bit more area to play from behind the other holes green.

I still say relocating the tee box to the other side of the cart path is the best solution to this "problem" as it would completely remove the green from the line of flight. It would be a fairly simple task that could easily be done over the off season.Especially if there is what looks to be a tee box already in the area that they would need to add on, they could just expand on the existing tee box and share it allowing for more tee placement options for both holes. There is a similar set up at one course I play often. A par 3 and a par 4 share the tee box so the tips on the par 4 can move way back or they can move the tees on the par 3 back quite a bit as well.

Perhaps there is some specific reason they can't do it, and if so the other suggestions do make sense.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, Jeremie Boop said:

 relocating the tee box to the other side of the cart path

 

That is a REALLY good solution for that course

(I'd also submit that instead of a fence or wall, one should consider a snack and cocktail building.....but a relocated tee box is probably more cost effective)