OB or not.

[Augster]

Hey. On course.

 

Ball lies on path on 11. Card says when defining OB, "Pedestrian path on 11".

 

Is the ball in or out?

 

Thanks.

[DFinch]

I would read that as the inside boundary of the path, so probably out. Poor way to word an otherwise unmarked OB boundary.

[Newby]

Those words suggest to me that the path lies OOB.

[Augster]

Thanks.

 

So the edge closest to the course, inside edge, would be the "line".

 

I also agree it's not well written.

[Mr. Bean]

Terrible wording that can be interpreted at will.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

[DFinch]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

 

Correction: if the ball lies within the outside and inside boundaries of a line, it's out.

[Fade]

OP, is the path part of the golf course property?

 

Even if so, I have to think that if the ball is on the path, it is OB, to protect the pedestrians using it (by discouraging golfers from going near it).

 

Also, curious what they say at the clubhouse after the round.

[rogolf]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

 

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

[tatertot]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

 

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

TheGeekGolfer is following the rule of soccer - if the ball touches the line, it's still in. But in every other sport I know of, including golf, rogolf is right - you touch the boundary line, you're out.

[Halebopp]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

 

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

TheGeekGolfer is following the rule of soccer - if the ball touches the line, it's still in. But in every other sport I know of, including golf, rogolf is right - you touch the boundary line, you're out.

 

No, while rogolf is correct, you're not. From the Definition of Out of Bounds: "A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds."

 

The ball can touch the boundary line and as long as the ball even touches the plane between the course and OB, it is in bounds.

 

Edit: Changed the requirement of ball breaking the plane to ball touching it as per Newby's post below.

[Newby]

A post from Mr Bean from 12 months ago.

 

I had a response from R&A yesterday and it was that a ball touching but not breaking the vertical margin of the course is in bounds. This issue was considered within a group of R&A referees and a consensus was reached. Whether there is a WH or TTG on the other side is no issue.

[llewol007]

OB

 

there you go i learned something new

[Fade]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

 

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

TheGeekGolfer is following the rule of soccer - if the ball touches the line, it's still in. But in every other sport I know of, including golf, rogolf is right - you touch the boundary line, you're out.

 

In tennis the ball that touches the line is in as well.

[Yrrdead]

Is the pedestrian path the same as the cart path on that hole? The only place I've seen such a thing had a running(walking for people like me) path about 10yds farther right.

[Newby]

[Shilgy]

Newby, my eyes are getting bad I guess. Isn't that ball entirely oob?

 

When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is out of bounds. The out of bounds line extends vertically upwards and downwards.

[Newby]

It is touching the margin ie the LH edge of the 'white' line. See post #12

[Fade]

It is touching the margin ie the LH edge of the 'white' line. See post #12

 

But isn't it breaking the vertical margin? Isn't the ball on the wrong side of the LH edge?

[Shilgy]

Wouldn't it have to be at least a wee bit over the line? If none of it is IN BOUNDS how can it be considered in bounds?

 

Edit, missed the post you referred to. Interesting they would say that when it is not what the rules say. Seems easier to distinguish a bit over the line rather than just touching the line.

[rogolf]

A ball touching the course, interpreted as touching the molecular thin upwards/downwards plane on the course edge of the line, is in bounds. Just as a ball touching the infinitely thin vertical plane defining a water hazard is in the hazard.

[Mr. Bean]

Suggests to me that the path IS the out of bounds line. So, the same rules apply as if it is a 2 inch wide line. If the ball is touching any part of the line, it's still in. Bad wording on the card, however, it makes sense thinking this way. If the ball is on the cart path, you can play it or you get a cart path drop. The only option to drop is in-bounds, off the cart path.

 

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

TheGeekGolfer is following the rule of soccer - if the ball touches the line, it's still in. But in every other sport I know of, including golf, rogolf is right - you touch the boundary line, you're out.

 

In tennis the ball that touches the line is in as well.

 

And in badminton. And in volleyball. And in ice hockey. And in beach volley. And in baseball. And in rugby.

 

Gee, Tatertot does not know too many sports... :busted_cop:

[TheGeekGolfer]

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

First, my apologies. I've been 'social dark' due to recording the Masters. Having just caught up on that I see that I was very wrong in my reply to this topic.

 

Yes, if I were to interpret the path as "being the line", then I am wrong and a ball on it would be out of bounds. I know the rule, applied it wrong in this case in my argument that the cart path would be in bounds.

 

That golf course seriously needs to look at the wording on their scorecard and paint a line on the OOB side of the cart path. As I think that is their intention. To me, logic dictates that the cart path must be in bounds. How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property? Seriously, I think if I golfed there I would just bring my own can of marking spray paint and mark it myself one lonely afternoon. :taunt:

[Sawgrass]

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

First, my apologies. I've been 'social dark' due to recording the Masters. Having just caught up on that I see that I was very wrong in my reply to this topic.

 

Yes, if I were to interpret the path as "being the line", then I am wrong and a ball on it would be out of bounds. I know the rule, applied it wrong in this case in my argument that the cart path would be in bounds.

 

That golf course seriously needs to look at the wording on their scorecard and paint a line on the OOB side of the cart path. As I think that is their intention. To me, logic dictates that the cart path must be in bounds. How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property? Seriously, I think if I golfed there I would just bring my own can of marking spray paint and mark it myself one lonely afternoon. :taunt:

 

TGG, it might be helpful to understand that what is, and what is not, the Course's property technically has nothing to do with areas that are in bounds or oob. You can have oob on course property, and you can have someone else's property be played as in bounds according to the ROG. It's all about the markings and descriptions. While ownership of property is frequently parallel to the OB status, it's just coincidentally true.

[TheGeekGolfer]

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

First, my apologies. I've been 'social dark' due to recording the Masters. Having just caught up on that I see that I was very wrong in my reply to this topic.

 

Yes, if I were to interpret the path as "being the line", then I am wrong and a ball on it would be out of bounds. I know the rule, applied it wrong in this case in my argument that the cart path would be in bounds.

 

That golf course seriously needs to look at the wording on their scorecard and paint a line on the OOB side of the cart path. As I think that is their intention. To me, logic dictates that the cart path must be in bounds. How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property? Seriously, I think if I golfed there I would just bring my own can of marking spray paint and mark it myself one lonely afternoon. :taunt:

 

TGG, it might be helpful to understand that what is, and what is not, the Course's property technically has nothing to do with areas that are in bounds or oob. You can have oob on course property, and you can have someone else's property be played as in bounds according to the ROG. It's all about the markings and descriptions. While ownership of property is frequently parallel to the OB status, it's just coincidentally true.

Sawgrass - Thanks so much for weighing in. Yes, I understand the cart path being on or off the course's property has nothing to do with it technically being in-bounds or OOBs. To me, it seems you are talking about areas of the course that are clearly marked. When an official marks and makes a clear indication of in-bounds vs OOBs. they can mark any areas they want in or out. Of course, this includes cart paths. This post is discussing a cart path that is NOT clearly marked or indicated. Otherwise, I don't think the OP would have brought it up. I'm saying logic would USUALLY dictate that a golf course's cart path, would normally be in-bounds. In this case, the marking is unclear or non-existent (imo) as to the way the wording is on the score card. If there are no clear markings, then logic would dictate that the cart path would be in-bounds, due to it still being on the property. Cart paths and areas on the golf course property are not normally considered OOB, unless they are clearly marked. Of course, logic doesn't always apply.

[Sawgrass]

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

First, my apologies. I've been 'social dark' due to recording the Masters. Having just caught up on that I see that I was very wrong in my reply to this topic.

 

Yes, if I were to interpret the path as "being the line", then I am wrong and a ball on it would be out of bounds. I know the rule, applied it wrong in this case in my argument that the cart path would be in bounds.

 

That golf course seriously needs to look at the wording on their scorecard and paint a line on the OOB side of the cart path. As I think that is their intention. To me, logic dictates that the cart path must be in bounds. How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property? Seriously, I think if I golfed there I would just bring my own can of marking spray paint and mark it myself one lonely afternoon. :taunt:

 

TGG, it might be helpful to understand that what is, and what is not, the Course's property technically has nothing to do with areas that are in bounds or oob. You can have oob on course property, and you can have someone else's property be played as in bounds according to the ROG. It's all about the markings and descriptions. While ownership of property is frequently parallel to the OB status, it's just coincidentally true.

Sawgrass - Thanks so much for weighing in. Yes, I understand the cart path being on or off the course's property has nothing to do with it technically being in-bounds or OOBs. To me, it seems you are talking about areas of the course that are clearly marked. When an official marks and makes a clear indication of in-bounds vs OOBs. they can mark any areas they want in or out. Of course, this includes cart paths. This post is discussing a cart path that is NOT clearly marked or indicated. Otherwise, I don't think the OP would have brought it up. I'm saying logic would USUALLY dictate that a golf course's cart path, would normally be in-bounds. In this case, the marking is unclear or non-existent (imo) as to the way the wording is on the score card. If there are no clear markings, then logic would dictate that the cart path would be in-bounds, due to it still being on the property. Cart paths and areas on the golf course property are not normally considered OOB, unless they are clearly marked. Of course, logic doesn't always apply.

 

I am, of course, in favor of clear marking. And acknowledge that it isn't always the case. I seem to have gotten confused about your perceptions when you said, "How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property?" and I was trying to help.

[TheGeekGolfer]

You've got this incorrect. If the line on the ground defines out of bounds, the line itself is out of bounds (definition of out of bounds). The out of bounds starts at the course side of the line and extends vertically upwards and downwards from the inside edge. Only if any part of the ball is touching the course is it in bounds.

 

First, my apologies. I've been 'social dark' due to recording the Masters. Having just caught up on that I see that I was very wrong in my reply to this topic.

 

Yes, if I were to interpret the path as "being the line", then I am wrong and a ball on it would be out of bounds. I know the rule, applied it wrong in this case in my argument that the cart path would be in bounds.

 

That golf course seriously needs to look at the wording on their scorecard and paint a line on the OOB side of the cart path. As I think that is their intention. To me, logic dictates that the cart path must be in bounds. How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property? Seriously, I think if I golfed there I would just bring my own can of marking spray paint and mark it myself one lonely afternoon. :taunt:

 

TGG, it might be helpful to understand that what is, and what is not, the Course's property technically has nothing to do with areas that are in bounds or oob. You can have oob on course property, and you can have someone else's property be played as in bounds according to the ROG. It's all about the markings and descriptions. While ownership of property is frequently parallel to the OB status, it's just coincidentally true.

Sawgrass - Thanks so much for weighing in. Yes, I understand the cart path being on or off the course's property has nothing to do with it technically being in-bounds or OOBs. To me, it seems you are talking about areas of the course that are clearly marked. When an official marks and makes a clear indication of in-bounds vs OOBs. they can mark any areas they want in or out. Of course, this includes cart paths. This post is discussing a cart path that is NOT clearly marked or indicated. Otherwise, I don't think the OP would have brought it up. I'm saying logic would USUALLY dictate that a golf course's cart path, would normally be in-bounds. In this case, the marking is unclear or non-existent (imo) as to the way the wording is on the score card. If there are no clear markings, then logic would dictate that the cart path would be in-bounds, due to it still being on the property. Cart paths and areas on the golf course property are not normally considered OOB, unless they are clearly marked. Of course, logic doesn't always apply.

 

I am, of course, in favor of clear marking. And acknowledge that it isn't always the case. I seem to have gotten confused about your perceptions when you said, "How could you have a cart path that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property?" and I was trying to help.

Yes, I did say that. However, I was replying and talking in the context of this discussion. That context, is that the cart path here is NOT clearly indicated. I guess I should have said, "How could you have a cart path (such as the one this discussion is about that is not marked) that one is supposed to drive on for that golf hole be considered OOB? Is it NOT the property of the golf course? Are you driving (your cart) out of bounds on someone else's property?"

 

Thanks for your assistance and clarification.

[Augster]

Thanks for all the help. I do agree, with the wording that is provided on the card, that the course side edge of the path is the boundary as per Newby's drawing.

 

The "pedestrian path" is the path one pulls their cart onto to park to putt out on the 10th hole. Then you drive the path to the 11th hole. All the while there are joggers and dog walkers going by. It's all municipal, owned by the city and park board. It parallels a roadway, and it'd make more sense, to me at least, to make the roadway OOB. But it's always been the pedestrian path, even though carts drive on it between 10 and 11 and 17 and 18 going the other way.

 

A couple of pics. You can see that cart parked on the pedestrian path in this one.

 

 

 

And this one is an above view.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

Yikes! looks like a terrible shot deserving of a three stroke penalty at least!

[Augster]

When a ball goes over the green, it nearly always rolls all the way down across the path, into that sliver of grass beyond it, or across that and into the street.

 

I've been playing there for 20+ years and it was the first ball I've ever seen stop on the path. It had rolled down by the bridge there and somehow stopped. Hence my question.

 

The player wasn't making better than a double whether playing from the path, or going back to rehit, so we just let him try from there. He didn't come close to getting it anywhere near the green. But I asked the question, as I honestly didn't know, just in case this happens in a stroke play event.