In course OOB

[phillyk]

I'm not sure I've seen a thread on this before.  So, I'll start one and I have only 1 question.  Who started this ridiculous idea?

I understand that they are either protecting a certain structure, tee box, or trying to stop you from cutting a corner.  But really?  I swear, if ever there is a in course OOB, I will find it every time.  The last one I saw was at a tournament where the OB line was just right of the FW.  The other side was the 10th hole, and beyond that was the practice area.  I didn't even hit a really bad shot, it was just right enough to be barely out of bounds.

The worst ones are where it's to try and stop you from cutting corners.  It just doesn't make any sense to me to do that.  Maybe they're protecting from golf balls being hit down a different fairway so people aren't getting hit?  I don't know.

[Rulesman]

13 minutes ago, phillyk said:

 Maybe they're protecting from golf balls being hit down a different fairway so people aren't getting hit? 

That would seem to be a reasonable reason don't you think.

[Hardspoon]

I haven't seen any in person on the courses I play. There have been threads here about in-course OOB, and at least some were to prevent corner-cutting that would literally encourage you to aim over another green or tee box.

I think it's a crutch caused by bad course design, and better remedied with trees or even a big net.

[ElWagonne]

Cedar Crest here in Dallas has one of these, most likely to protect players on the opposite hole which runs parallel with it.

[phillyk]

30 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

That would seem to be a reasonable reason don't you think.

Well yes but only to a small extent.  Just stakes by themselves won't stop people from hitting in that direction.  You'd need a big net or trees to fully stop balls from going that direction.

25 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

I haven't seen any in person on the courses I play. There have been threads here about in-course OOB, and at least some were to prevent corner-cutting that would literally encourage you to aim over another green or tee box.

I think it's a crutch caused by bad course design, and better remedied with trees or even a big net.

I have not heard of it going to the extent that you actually would go over a tee box or green.  Some of the in course OB I've seen have been on straight holes.  The only way to get there would be to slice it by accident.  Trees are there to stop it from going too far.  So what's the point then in having those trees be also OB?  You're not trying to go that way, the trees protect a lot from getting through, so I really don't understand. 

This was more for me to vent and complain than actually want to know why.  It is what it is.

[No Mulligans]

I was playing the hole in the image and hit a ball on that line but through the fairway into the tree line.  When I got to my ball I was surprised to see white stakes.  Presumable to keep people from trying to cut off the dog leg on the next par 5.

This is Coronado, the 12th, in San Diego

[Golfingdad]

Most, if not all, I've seen are for the safety issues previously mentioned.

I understand it, but I don't like it - I'd prefer they physically prevent you from intentionally aiming across other fairways with some trees or something, and not punish people so harshly for accidentally hitting it in the wrong fairway.

[Fourputt]

It's even worse when they put the OB stakes down the line between two holes, but then only apply OB on one of the holes.  

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

It's even worse when they put the OB stakes down the line between two holes, but then only apply OB on one of the holes.  

I believe that is not allowed under the USGA rules. I don't think you specify OB counting for only one hole. 

[Hardspoon]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I believe that is not allowed under the USGA rules. I don't think you specify OB counting for only one hole. 

It is allowed...I couldn't find the guidance from USGA (it's probably discouraged, at least), but Decision 24/5 deals with that situation:

 

Q.White stakes installed between the 7th and 8th holes define out of bounds during play of the 7th hole, but they have no significance during play of the 8th hole. Are such stakes obstructions during play of the 8th hole?

A.No, the Definition of "Out of Bounds" states that such stakes are not obstructions. However, in this case it is recommended that, by Local Rule, the stakes be deemed immovable obstructions during play of the 8th hole.

 

[Missouri Swede]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

It's even worse when they put the OB stakes down the line between two holes, but then only apply OB on one of the holes.  

 

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I believe that is not allowed under the USGA rules. I don't think you specify OB counting for only one hole. 

 

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

It is allowed...I couldn't find the guidance from USGA (it's probably discouraged, at least), but Decision 24/5 deals with that situation:

A course I play a lot used to have two internal OOB lines (see local rule 6):

OOB to the left of hole 1 (which I highlighted yellow) applied only to play of hole 1, not to play of hole 18.
OOB to the right of hole 18 (which I highlighted pink) applied only to play of hole 18, not to play of hole 9 (although it would have to be a really nasty hook or slice from the 9th tee).

These internal OOB markers were removed this summer.

[Rulesman]

5 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I believe that is not allowed under the USGA rules. I don't think you specify OB counting for only one hole. 

This is what the R&A have to say in their "Guidance on Running a Competition"

If there are out of bounds stakes between two holes that apply to only one of the holes, it should be
made clear in the Local Rules to which of the holes the boundary applies. Furthermore, it is
recommended that, by Local Rule the stakes are deemed immovable obstructions during play of the hole for which the stakes do not constitute a boundary (see Decision 24/5).

 

 

[turtleback]

It seems to me that the need for internal OOB is the reflection of a severe course architecture failure.  Do highly regarded courses designed by highly regarded designers have many examples of in-course OOB?  

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, turtleback said:

It seems to me that the need for internal OOB is the reflection of a severe course architecture failure.  Do highly regarded courses designed by highly regarded designers have many examples of in-course OOB?  

Some courses may not really have a choice. Unless they want something like seven par threes on their course or something. And you can't always solve it by planting trees.

I think that in many cases there are better things you can do, but not all, of course.

One of the courses near me used to have internal OB. It was a 400-yard par four dogleg left 90°. You'd hit 4I, 4I to the corner and around, or you could hit a 5W over the trees… and over the OB. They converted it to a par 3 to the corner and a par 4 to the next green (which was a par 3 hole). In that case, they could correct the "design" mistake, but that can't always work.

BTW, I've also seen internal OB to protect a sod farm. It's still on the course, but it's an area from which they don't want to allow play. Perhaps originally the architect just planned for that area to be rough and bushes and trees, but it made for a good sod farm, so they changed it.

[Rulesman]

51 minutes ago, turtleback said:

It seems to me that the need for internal OOB is the reflection of a severe course architecture failure.  Do highly regarded courses designed by highly regarded designers have many examples of in-course OOB?  

Royal Liverpool has an internal OOB

[sjduffers]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

It seems to me that the need for internal OOB is the reflection of a severe course architecture failure.  Do highly regarded courses designed by highly regarded designers have many examples of in-course OOB?  

If you consider that small acreage is a severe course architecture failure, maybe. But not all courses are built on 650 acres. Especially low end or muni courses...

The real problem with internal OB on such courses is that they are not enough to discourage people from cutting a dog leg, because folks there don't play by the OB rules anyway! So if a ball ends in the cut dogleg, they play it anyway and don't even add a penalty stroke (or 2 as is sometimes done to compensate for not replaying the shot from the tee)...

[p1n9183]

Have one at my home course (12th hole). Par 5 dog leg left, with water both sides on the driver. At the begining long hitter aimed left of the left water and played the hole from the adjacent fairway (16th hole) making the hole shorter and easier. After seen that the club put white stakes on the left margin of the left water hazard. Now we have to challenge both water`s :(. On 16th the white stakes have no value. 

I think it`s OK, to play the course as it was designed and rated and to prevent from hitting people playing 16th hole. 

[bkuehn1952]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:10 PM, phillyk said:

... So, I'll start one and I have only 1 question.  Who started this ridiculous idea?

I understand that they are either protecting a certain structure, tee box, or trying to stop you from cutting a corner.  But really? ...

The three cases that I have experienced involve attempting to prevent players from playing into another fairway (intentionally or not).  In all cases the O.B. was well marked. Playing the hole as intended and avoiding the O.B. was not an issue unless a very poor shot was hit.

I agree that planting a screen of trees or otherwise tweaking the design is preferable to the in course O.B.  Ultimately, the need for safety as well as the issue of pace of play make in course O.B. a reasonable compromise if planting or design changes are not possible.