Ruling need @ CedarHill - Out of Bounds

[gbower]

A number of people on that forum are very high level rules officials that work a lot of tournaments and they're on a number of other rules related forums.

[LobWedge]

It is the responsibility of the committee to mark these things appropriately, according to Rule 33-2.

33-2. The Course

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

The Committee must define accurately:

(i) the course and out of bounds,
(ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,
(iii) ground under repair, and
(iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.

[jeffc]

It is the responsibility of the committee to mark these things appropriately, according to Rule 33-2.

33-2. The Course

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

The Committee must define accurately:

(i) the course and out of bounds,
(ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,
(iii) ground under repair, and
(iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.

I think we have been down this road before but I see very little GUR marked on most courses I play, unless there is major construction going on somewhere.

As for OB at Cedarhill, I notice that it was not marked in a lot of areas that bordered onto the houses.

Which leads to my next question which was discussed earlier in the thread. While I might be able to determine if my ball is in someone's backyard if it is well in, what if its close? without markers I have no idea where the golf course ends and the backyard begins. In most of those places its all grass since there are virtually no fences separating the backyards from the course.

[justsomeguy]

It is the responsibility of the committee to mark these things appropriately, according to Rule 33-2.

Yes it is. And as jeffc pointed out, a lot of Committees should be DQ'd for not doing their job properly.

If you read the definitions of OB, water hazards and obstructions you will not find a mandatory requirement for marking. If something meets the definition of an obstruction, then its an obstruction. If something meets the definition of a water hazard, then its a water hazard. And the same thing goes for OB. It is only the definition of GUR has a mandatory requirement for marking, and even in that case there are exceptions for material piled for removal or a hole made by a groundskeeper.

I can certainly understand that failing to define the boundaries of OB, water hazards and obstructions makes playing the game more difficult for us. But that doesn't mean that if they're not marked then they don't exist - which is where some people seem to be heading.

[Kiwi battler]

its lunacy to expect someone to be DQ'ed for putting in their own lounge lol

But technically it seems possible ..

Some of the guys/gals on that other site are rules gurus who are involved in writing decisions for the decisions book , and no doubt changes to the ROG ...

Maybe my earlier question of wether the ROG recognise property lines wasnt as silly as it sounded

[Kiwi battler]

Go up about 4 posts , and read the red writing

Also take a read of rule 33-1 ....

That shows pretty clearly it IS mandatory to define such things

The ROG do however, take into account that committees are human , and can make mistakes

They also make allowances for things being deemed other that what they are by definition

I.e. decision 26-3 from memory .. a decision I'm hanging out to employ to get out of a potentially costly spot on my home course ...

In brief , the committee has deemed a concrete water channel as integral part of the course ... 28/1 sees you 180mtrs back to the tee .
28/2 sees you in a forest
28/3 is the only realistic option but as the ground on either side of the channel are sloped , a ball will often roll back and you coping another penalty to get out

I'm keeping it to myself waiting for a matchplay event and drop out under 26-3 which should really screw with my opponents head hehehe

[Kiwi battler]

Trying to continue something , not START it

No additions to this thread in 2 weeks is not what Id call a dicussion ...more like letting something die because we cant admit we might be wrong .

I love being wrong , its how I learn ......and I may be wrong here , but I will never find out unless I take things beyond the before mentioned ignorant bliss .....

[Kilroy]

No discussion in two weeks was not an attempt to "let something die because we cant admit we might be wrong". It's more like we had nothing left to add to it. Frankly I don't really like your comment much. It's pretty unfriendly.

Anyway since you want feedback... I'm not sure what you are confused about. If your ball is outside the course boundary it's out of bounds as in the definitions. This one is a no brainer. Obviously if the property is not owned by the club, it is off the course. The dogleg example with the member practicing in this own hallway is ludicrous IMHO. I'd be suprised if that actually happened as described. It may be some hypothetical scenario someone dreamed up to get a conversation like this going, but if the conclusion was DQ I'd be arguing against that.

Out of Bounds
"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

[Kiwi battler]

I'm not saying you are wrong , you may well be right ...
We will never know either way unless we continue to push for a more definitive answer ...if we dont , we are going to never learn are we ? which is the whole point of this sort of forum

Id be standing right beside you arguing if a DQ was announced .....But because of fairness and common sense ....not because he played from beyond a fence that has no meaning under the rules of golf "under my new maybe wrong opinion lol"

Has anyone else pushed for a more difinitive answer elsewhere ? or your just happy to plod on thinking you know .

I dont roll like that , and I wanna know , even if I'm 99% sure of something I wanna fill in that 1%

[Kilroy]

I don't get it. You won't accept that "off the property" is the same as "beyond the boundary". How much more difinative do you need it to be? Push who for an answer? It's right there in the definitions.

Sorry but I am content with it. I don't see any grey area here.

[Kiwi battler]

I wouldnt DQ , Id call rule 1-4

The rules dont take into account that the committee have failed to define the boundaries of the course.

Also , someone needs to play a ball from over that fence to force the committee to do their job ...

I will say it again , at least 2 very highly qualified rules experts agree that property rights / fences mean nothing under the rules .. unless defined as boundaries

And when NOBODY has disagreed on Leith Societys in depth page when its been stated again .

Well Im afraid I tend to think maybe once again ASSUMPTION could be the mother of all #$%@ups

So I will not put money either way

[justsomeguy]

Trying to continue something , not START it

No additions to this thread in 2 weeks is not what Id call a dicussion ...more like letting something die because we cant admit we might be wrong .

Get a life man!

OB is defined in the rules. If a place satisfies that definition, then its OB. There is really nothing else to say on the matter.

Perhaps an example of a similar situation would help enlighten you:

1. The Rules of Golf define something called a water hazard.
2. The Rules of Golf give Committees the responsibility of marking a water hazard.
3. Sometimes Committees neglect to perform their responsibility to mark a water hazard.
4. Does the lack of markings mean that a water hazard does not exist on the golf course? No it does not, as Decision 26-3 clearly states that something is a water hazard if it meets the definition of a water hazard.
5. Does the lack of markings make it difficult to determine exactly where the margin of a water hazard is? Yes it does, but then Decision 26-2 indicates that we can try to determine the "natural margin" of a water hazard as best we can and proceed from there.

Now if you follow all that, then all you need to do is substitute the words "out of bounds" for the words "a water hazard" in the above example and you should (hopefully) get it.

[Kiwi battler]

Try "ground under repair" doesnt work too well huh

Cant compare apples with bananas

[justsomeguy]

Try "ground under repair" doesnt work too well huh

It works perfectly. You can substitute the words "out of bounds", "ground under repair" or "obstruction" and the example would still be valid.

The key concept (which you seem to have difficulty grasping) is that when the Rules of Golf define X, then "something is X if it meets the definition of X".

[AAA]

. There is no indication that anyone on the site has any credentials - it is simply people's opinions on the Rules of Golf and how they should be interpreted. Its really no different than the discussion here.

You are right of course. But I happen to know that there are at least four nationally qualified ROs who officiate on one or other of the professional tours.

As to the 'course boundary'.
Pebble Beach is a good example of OOB not corresponding with land owned by the club. On at least one hole the LWH extends to the other side of the Pacific. Pebble beach do not own the ocean.
There are also many examples in the British Isles where old links courses only have OOB marked where there is a distinct change in the property boundary. Many courses are either on or overlap 'common land' so there are no defined OOB margins.

[justsomeguy]

You are right of course. But I happen to know that there are at least four nationally qualified ROs who officiate on one or other of the professional tours.

As to the 'course boundary'.
Pebble Beach is a good example of OOB not corresponding with land owned by the club. On at least one hole the LWH extends to the other side of the Pacific. Pebble beach do not own the ocean.

The Pacific Ocean meets the definition of a lateral water hazard, therefore it is a lateral water hazard. That concept doesn't seem too difficult to understand.

The notion that a golf ball in Hawaii is NOT out of bounds with relation to Pebble Beach simply because the Committee at Pebble Beach did not install white stakes in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii - now that concept seems a little far-fetched!

[AAA]

The notion that a golf ball in Hawaii is NOT out of bounds with relation to Pebble Beach simply because the Committee at Pebble Beach did not install white stakes in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii - now that concept seems a little far-fetched!

Maybe but it is often quoted at rules workshops as an example of property boundaries and OOB not corresponding. It is of course used as an example because it is such an extreme case.

[Kiwi battler]

Your obviously leaning towards my train of thought ...

Likewise , at the moment at least , the concenus with the Leith Society ...

Which would make that fence not defined as a boundary an immovable obstruction ....with free relief .....

It was suggested on the LS to use rule 3.3 , in case the committee take it upon themselves to DQ you ...sometimes even when they are wrong they are right lol

I think I suggested 3.3 some time back , to force the committees hand on the issue