O.B. "Aiming Post"

[Gary Hill]

Are you sure that the road is not the boundary? It certainly looks like it. There is no suggestion that it is within the boundaries of the course.

The public road is an area of out of bounds, but the public road is NOT a boundary marking the limit of some other area of out of bounds (stakes, lines, fences, etc.).

[1dash1]

AAA:

Refer to the original sketch: "For illustrative purposes, the roadway is shown in red. However, roadway is really marked with white stakes and is designated out of bounds."
(Granted, it was in fine print. )

[1dash1]

This thread has nothing to do with a ball crossing a boundary.

The Local Rule suggested in Decision 27/20 deals with a different situation, i.e., one in which a ball crosses an out of bounds area and comes to rest on a different part of the course.

Decision 27/20 states that a Local Rule deeming the ball out of bounds in such a case is a perfectly valid and acceptable Local Rule.

Gary:

I'd put the emphasis on "comes to rest on a different part of the course."

Metaphorically, what Decision 27/20 does is treat the road as one big O.B. stripe. Whether the ball lands on the stripe (not touching any portion inside of the stripe) or whether the ball lands over the stripe, the ball is out of bounds - like any other internal O.B.
[EDIT: Disregard this last paragraph. The metaphor is withdrawn.]

[Gary Hill]

Gary:

I'd put the emphasis on "comes to rest on a different part of the course."

Metaphorically, what Decision 27/20 does is treat the road as one big O.B. stripe. Whether the ball lands on the stripe (not touching any portion inside of the stripe) or whether the ball lands over the stripe, the ball is out of bounds - like any other internal O.B.

I did not want to put emphasis on where the ball came to rest.

I did want to make clear that this is a different situation unrelated to Decision 33-8/38.

This decision DOES NOT treat the public road as "as big O.B. stripe".

If it did, then the public road would be a boundary and Decision 33-8/38 would apply.

[LobWedge]

Solution: Move the tee out to the corner of the dogleg and turn the hole in to a short par-3.

[1dash1]

Gary,

I said "metaphorically". Factually, in Dec. 27/20, the white stakes running along the inside of the roadway become an internal O.B. for the play of that particular hole.

Dec. 33-3/38 relates to Dec. 27/20 by making it clear that the critical element in deciding whether the ball is O.B. is not where it crosses a boundary, but where it comes to rest per the definition of "out of bounds".

Hence, my last comment about emphasizing "comes to rest on a different part of the course."

[AAA]

AAA:

Refer to the original sketch: "For illustrative purposes, the roadway is shown in red. However, roadway is really marked with white stakes and is designated out of bounds."
(Granted, it was in fine print. )

Thanks for the clarification

Text edited out in the light of subsequent posts

1dash1
You said you picked this up from TGC. Although I had seen that thread, I must admit I didn't check it out again. Coincidentally, there had been a similar question posed in another discussion board (but I can't now find it) which had specifically described the area to the right as consisting of private housing, which was outside the course boundaries. I obviously had this thought in my mind.

[Gary Hill]

Factually, in Dec. 27/20, the white stakes running along the inside of the roadway become an internal O.B. for the play of that particular hole.

So your metaphor was completely erroneous.

The road is not a boundary stripe, but, in fact, an area of out of bounds defined by boundary stakes.

[1dash1]

LobWedge:

Shortening the hole and converting it to a par-4 (or par-3) would make sense.

But I expect strong opposition from the players to any proposal that will take away their "gimme" birdie hole.

* * * * *

Today, I talked to one of the golf courses involved. As I was afraid of, the person that I talked to said, "Yes, this is a USGA-approved rule."

Identification of the problem is the first step in solving it. At this point, the club believes there is no problem - they believe their local rule is legitimate.

Ideally, the golf club would adopt a strategy that might include points brought up by this discussion group:
- Notifying club members of the new information (that their local rule is not in accordance with the Rules of Golf and were never sanctioned by the USGA),
- Erecting netting at the teeing grounds sufficient to deter players from routinely cutting the corner,
_ Planning for landscaping improvements which - in the long run - will mitigate the problem,
- And posting signs putting golfers on notice of their responsibility for errant shots landing on the roadway.

[Thimble]

how the heck do you measure such a thing in a close call???

[1dash1]

Gary:

I'll withdraw the metaphor.

[LobWedge]

LobWedge:

Shortening the hole and converting it to a par-4 (or par-3) would make sense.

But I expect strong opposition from the players to any proposal that will take away their "gimme" birdie hole.

Who said golf was supposed to be easy?

[AAA]

1dash1

I am now confused.
Do the OB markings correspond with west and north sides of the road (Given a NS orientation of your diagram)?
Is the whole of the area to the east and south, beyond the road, OB or just the road?
If so, does the OB consist of land which is not within the course boundary?
Is any of the OB within the course boundary.

[Samick]

I can see how your confused.....somebody has introduced another "situation" with a fairway on both sides of a road.....keep the original post in mind and refer back to the very handy sketch.....nicely done I might add!

There is no mention of another fairway.....only the fairway to be played with O.B. stakes and a road that is O.B. on one side of the hole. The original post only deals with a ball flying over the corner of the dogleg.....re-read the original and it will become clear.

[AAA]

In that case, I can't see why D 33-8/38 doesn't apply.

[Samick]

It does apply and should be brought to the attention on the Golf Course Committee


As per the USGA Rulings..........


33-8/38 Local Rule Deeming Out of Bounds Ball Which Crosses Boundary But Comes to Rest on Course
Q. Is it permissible to make a Local Rule that a ball is out of bounds if it crosses a boundary, even if it recrosses the boundary and comes to rest on the same part of the course? The purpose of the Local Rule would be to prevent players from cutting across a “dog-leg.”

A. No. A ball is out of bounds only when all of it lies out of bounds — see Definition of “Out of Bounds.”

The Local Rule suggested in Decision 27/20 deals with a different situation, i.e., one in which a ball crosses an out of bounds area and comes to rest on a different part of the course.


In the case we are talking about, the boundry is the O.B. stakes.

[AAA]

Thanks AP, that's what I have been saying since posts 7 & 15.

[1dash1]

AAA:

Sorry for the juxtaposition of discussions between the original situation (EVERYTHING on the right side is O.B.) and the situation in Decision 27/20 (where a portion of the course lies on the opposite side of the road).

It can get confusing.

Thanks, AP, for the explanation.

[Samick]

No problem guys...glad I could be of service! I guess I'm good for something afterall!!