Is it really OOB?

[imsys0042]

My decision would depend on how the course worded it and what the repercussions were.   I played at a course that had something like this.   If no one was in danger, we would take the shot.   If people could be hit, we wouldn't.   It's a fault of the course design, but in our case they only had so much land available.

The pro there was a pretty mellow guy and if you were a serious player or decent person he trusted you to do the right thing.   The problem is that it was a semi-private course and you can't count on the general public being smart enough to always do the right thing.  Hence the restriction.

Slightly off-topic, but since it's mentioned above.   My home course has a lot of artificial OB for pace of play and I've played two balls when in a situation where it's clearly golf course property but OB.  I post the score with the OB penalty, however my feeling is that what I really shot is the non-OB ball.   It's clearly wrong to make such places as OB and I feel they are doing a disservice to players in making it such.   However the course was rated based on it, so I feel I have to post the OB penalty score.

[jsgolfer]

What's the course? 

I used to play a muni in Hermon Maine that had two holes (Both Par 5's) that had OB on it inside of the course, but clearly marked with white stakes.   Now I never agreed with the decision to have OB stakes on the inside of a course (OB on one hole but not the other) but that was the way they played the course.  Hermon Meadow was Husson College's (now University) home course and they had an Invitational Match there and the UMaine team played in it.  And low and behold for the event, the white stakes were removed for our tournament.  Although they put them back after we were done.  And if you played an am tournament there, those were the rules.

And Penobscot Valley CC, where I used to be a member, they also had white stakes on the interior of the course, and the same thing happened, NCAA made them take the stakes up during a match.  However, they left them down after that, as they wanted to hold a State Am and they were told they would have to take up the stakes.

[GolfLug]

I will add to the chorus of those who are saying it is not a rules issue as much as a safety issue. The course should be clear about it.

Have the exact same scenario at a local club on the hole. The posted sign on the tee box is to the effect of: 'Taking a direct line to the green from the tee is STRICTLY PROHIBITED'.

It is reachable for those who can fly about 265. Not sure what kind of jerks actually attempt (there is no net) but next tee box is only 30 yards right and pin high to this green and is a huge safety issue.

To OP, I think your course should be more direct in stating that.

  

[CarlSpackler]

I will join that group that says the course cannot fundamentally change the rules of golf. If I skip a ball across the water on a par 3 and clear the hazard, it's not in the hazard, no matter what the course says about it. If they really want to remove the option, they should build a wall (Sorry, watching the news too much), I mean a fence, closer to the tee box making it impossible.

p.s. - This is why I hate 90* doglegs.

[newtogolf]

The course has a design flaw that it wants to regulate with local rules that are not enforceable.  My ball lands on the green, who is to say how it got there?  It sounds like they need a bigger net or to change the course design.  

[mcanadiens]

I hit OB often enough. If my ball comes to rest in play, I'm playing it.

[Valleygolfer]

39 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

What's the course? 

I used to play a muni in Hermon Maine that had two holes (Both Par 5's) that had OB on it inside of the course, but clearly marked with white stakes.   Now I never agreed with the decision to have OB stakes on the inside of a course (OB on one hole but not the other) but that was the way they played the course.  Hermon Meadow was Husson College's (now University) home course and they had an Invitational Match there and the UMaine team played in it.  And low and behold for the event, the white stakes were removed for our tournament.  Although they put them back after we were done.  And if you played an am tournament there, those were the rules.

And Penobscot Valley CC, where I used to be a member, they also had white stakes on the interior of the course, and the same thing happened, NCAA made them take the stakes up during a match.  However, they left them down after that, as they wanted to hold a State Am and they were told they would have to take up the stakes.

Sable Oaks also has an internal ob area. I don't really understand how that works either but it cost me a stroke last time I was there.

 

 

35 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

I hit OB often enough. If my ball comes to rest in play, I'm playing it.

I wish that could be done on my track.

[jsgolfer]

26 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

Sable Oaks also has an internal ob area. I don't really understand how that works either but it cost me a stroke last time I was there.

 

I've played Sable Oaks several times, very tough course, don't remember the hole with the interior OB.  But it's been 10-12 years since I've played there.  Never played the course that well.

[blouro1128]

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. 

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. 

[Valleygolfer]

5 minutes 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. 

I would say in the spirit of how the golf course was designed it would be fair to play the hole without cutting the corner behind the trees but the protective fence should be high enough to keep people from trying. Unfortunately limited spaces creates these scenarios. I have always played the aforementioned course's 12th hole as out of bounds as they stated although I could play it much easier by hitting into the adjacent fairway. Doing this would take away aspects built into the hole that make it interesting which is a little cheap to do.

13 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

I've played Sable Oaks several times, very tough course, don't remember the hole with the interior OB.  But it's been 10-12 years since I've played there.  Never played the course that well.

Yes it is. Tight confines and fast greens (at least were).

[rehmwa]

So -

Problems with the course -

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.

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

Problems with the golfers -

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?

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....?

 

there's so many things wrong here in terms of the course management and the player intent that it's hard to get around it - but none are just under the rules.....more about courtesy and clean course design. 

I guess if it's a legal shot (Rules of Golf Forum) then it should be legal and the course should take non-rules based actions to get players to comply.  They only 'official' issue I have under the Rules is the faked out rating and slope for one's Index.

One of our local VERY nice courses (Ridges) actually has a hole (9) that it's easier to play the adjacent fairway (18).  I still play the hole in it's committed fairway - because it's a really cool hole to play as intended.  They are growing a row of trees to eliminate the other option.

[blouro1128]

This might be worthy of a new topic, but what would the ruling be then, if the shot is attempted and hit into the net? The ball would dribble down the net to the bottom where its unplayable. Would you be entitled to free relief no closer to the hole due to an immovable object impeding the swing / stance, or would the ball be now considered OOB? Technically the sign says over the net is OOB, not in the net?

My take, per the literal sense of the sign, is that free relief would be entitled. Thoughts?

[Jeremie Boop]

8 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

So -

Problems with the course -

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.

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

Problems with the golfers -

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.

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....?

 

there's so many things wrong here in terms of the course management and the player intent that it's hard to get around it - but none are just under the rules.....more about courtesy and clean course design. 

I guess if it's a legal shot (Rules of Golf Forum) then it should be legal and the course should take non-rules based actions to get players to comply.  They only 'official' issue I have under the Rules is the faked out rating and slope for one's Index.

One of our local VERY nice courses (Ridges) actually has a hole (9) that it's easier to play the adjacent fairway (18).  I still play the hole in it's committed fairway - because it's a really cool hole to play as intended.  They are growing a row of trees to eliminate the other option.

Slightly OT but in response to point 4, aren't all ratings based on playing the hole as laid out? If you have the length to cut a dogleg you aren't cheating, you are using your length as an advantage just like being able to carry a water hazard meant to force most people to lay up.... 

[rehmwa]

9 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Slightly OT but in response to point 4, aren't all ratings based on playing the hole as laid out? If you have the length to cut a dogleg you aren't cheating, you are using your length as an advantage just like being able to carry a water hazard meant to force most people to lay up.... 

Oh - it's not 'slightly' over the top (or off topic)... 

I think the options for long hitters to make a risk/reward shot is taken into account for a well designed hole.  But in this case, the option isn't even there under the intent of the hole design.

I'd like to know the yardages actually.  If I could slice a shot around the corner and still pay as intended, then the option is already in place and considered in the ratings.  The players should learn to hit that shot rather than try to argue themselves into the easier one not intended.

 

Again, I'm talking 'should' in terms of respecting the course and courtesy to other players.  As for the rules, I think any shot you can pull off should be legal.  The course set this up wrong, but it's their course.  I don't put this on level with the RULES, but more along the lines of obeying the dress code.

[turtleback]

13 hours ago, Fourputt said:

 

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.

and the proper recourse, even in casual play, is escorting them from the course, not making up some bogus, unauthorized Local Rule that the USGA would NEVER approve.  Not everything that is wrong can be a penalty under the ROG.  I think the principles of Decision 33-8/6 are pretty clear and would apply in this situation.  The course can certainly take action against the player, but the only possible remedy I see in the ROG is possibly a DQ for a serious breach of etiquette, if the course posts the fence as a safety barrier and the player intentionally goes that way anyway.  And even then, the DQ would only be for intentionally hitting over it.  

 

[Golfingdad]

27 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

but the protective fence should be high enough to keep people from trying.

This is, I believe, by far, the easiest (only?) solution to this dilemma.  Big trees would be a more aesthetic solution, but the point is that you can very easily "prohibit" people from trying to fly that green without making up rules.

Also worth noting is that considering how close to the tee that green is, then I think a low net like they have is probably already good enough for safety purposes because it would catch any screamer that was bladed low off the tee.

Another partial solution is to just communicate with the people on that green - just as you would with people on a green if they were waving you up.  Wait for them to putt out or give them a heads up and have them hide behind a tree for a few seconds.

[JxQx]

To me it seems like an extremely poor design and shouldn't be played as "in air" out of bounds. It also doesn't seem that dangerous given you can see pretty much all the way down the opposing fairway coming towards the tee box and seems there is line of sight to the green (from picture posted). They definitely need to plant some trees where that net is or try to tuck the tee boxes closer to the trees that are there, possibly both.

[Fourputt]

I see from the image that the OP posted above that the safety issue is not only with the green, but with the fairway on the other hole.  A very few strategically placed trees close to the right side of the tee box would take care of the problem without requiring a fence or a bogus rule.  My home course did that on a par 5 hole with a long lake fronting the tee.  Big hitters could carry over the lake, but a hook would put the ball out of bounds in the playground of a school - a disaster just waiting to happen.  2 10 foot pine trees were planted just off the left front of the tee and completely eliminated any thought of trying to play a straight carry.  It left only an attempt to play a big hook out over the "normal" line of play and then back to the fairway at the end of the lake, a nearly impossible shot for anyone not on the Tour.  Now a cluster of trees at the far end of the lake have grown tall enough that such a play is even more difficult, approaching impossible.

3 hours ago, CarlSpackler said:

I will join that group that says the course cannot fundamentally change the rules of golf. If I skip a ball across the water on a par 3 and clear the hazard, it's not in the hazard, no matter what the course says about it. If they really want to remove the option, they should build a wall (Sorry, watching the news too much), I mean a fence, closer to the tee box making it impossible.

p.s. - This is why I hate 90* doglegs.

The fault is not 90° doglegs, it's poor design.  The 18th hole on my home course has such a hole.  First, to drive the green takes a 350 yard tee shot across the dogleg.  It also requires a 310 yard carry to clear the water hazard on that line.  To cut the corner to the fairway requires a 230 yard carry over a pair of fairway bunkers that perch on top of an 8 foot high mound.  This is the most common route for good hitters.  We wait on the tee until we can see the group in front come out from behind the mound, then aim straight at the bunkers.  A push right can run through the fairway into another lake, or be dead behind a grove of spruce tees.  A pull left will find the player blocked by another grove of trees.  I usually play toward the bunkers, but I've achieved anything from a perfect drive, to being in the bunkers, to being left with no option but a pitch from the various forms of trouble, or to being lost in the one of the hazards.  By the way, following the planned route around the dogleg leaves a 190-210 yard approach with hazard left, right and 40 yards short of the green.  Most players lay up if they go that route.

My point being that the total design of the hole is more important than just not creating any sharp doglegs.  A hole like this can be a great risk reward hole when the right features are incorporated into it.