Out of Bounds ?

[Sawgrass]

 

. . . But what I believe is the case is that (to quote myself) "What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. "

 

 

 

Please stop with this strawman argument with which everyone agrees. It's not at all to the point.

[Dpavs]

. . . But what I believe is the case is that (to quote myself) "What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. "

 

 

 

Please stop with this strawman argument with which everyone agrees. It's not at all to the point.

 

I'm sorry Saw but my point of view, whether you agree with it or not is not founded in fallacy. It's inappropriate to simply try to ignore something you have no objection or answer to by accusing someone of engaging in a Strawman argument. That kind of diversionary argumentative tactic will simply not work here. In this case the statement I made furthers and goes to the point I am trying to make. It does not matter that no one has disagreed with what I indicated or not that as that alone does not constitute a strawman. Quite specifically I was asked what players were expected to do if they cannot discern property lines and the answer I proffered is completely relevant and on point.

 

So nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

 

At this point I am content to see what the USGA responds with, I think that is the only way the question will get a definitive answer.

[Sawgrass]

. . . But what I believe is the case is that (to quote myself) "What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. "

 

 

 

Please stop with this strawman argument with which everyone agrees. It's not at all to the point.

 

I'm sorry Saw but my point of view, whether you agree with it or not is not founded in fallacy. It's inappropriate to simply try to ignore something you have no objection or answer to by accusing someone of engaging in a Strawman argument. That kind of diversionary argumentative tactic will simply not work here. In this case the statement I made furthers and goes to the point I am trying to make. It does not matter that no one has disagreed with what I indicated or not that as that alone does not constitute a strawman. Quite specifically I was asked what players were expected to do if they cannot discern property lines and the answer I proffered is completely relevant and on point.

 

So nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

 

At this point I am content to see what the USGA responds with, I think that is the only way the question will get a definitive answer.

 

You can not keep putting up statements that everyone agrees to and say that furthers your point. For the last time, yes, the USGA expects Committees to define boundaries appropriately.

 

How about instead of quoting yourself you share the question you asked of the USGA so we can see if it was straightforward or leading? I'd bet you didn't ask the question I recommended, but I'd be pleased to be told I'm wrong about that.

[DaveLeeNC]

In non-tournament casual rounds .... common sense should prevail. With no actual OB posts and nothing on the score card .... I'm taking a no penalty drop from the private property. Private property rights trumps ROG.

 

Certainly no argument with not playing from private property. But to me common sense says that "you are OB" and you should play accordingly.

 

dave

[LeoLeo99]

Local course by me has houses adjacent to the 4th hole. There is a pit bull in one of the backyards. He doesn't bark. He pretends to be friendly. I don't believe it.

[Shilgy]

Dpavs and company. Yes yes yes the committee should have it marked. No one has said it should not. HOWEVER, if you are playing in a tournament and you get into a situation as pictured above what would you do? Just decide that your ball is ob and go back to the tee or play it as it lies? And if you point it out to the committee, what should they do? Run out and mark it mid round? Would it be right that the boundary in essence changed in mid round?

[sui generis]

Dpavs and company. Yes yes yes the committee should have it marked. No one has said it should not. HOWEVER, if you are playing in a tournament and you get into a situation as pictured above what would you do? Just decide that your ball is ob and go back to the tee or play it as it lies? And if you point it out to the committee, what should they do? Run out and mark it mid round? Would it be right that the boundary in essence changed in mid round?

 

In match play, R2-5 tells us: In doubt as to how to proceed because of uncertainty about a Rule? You have to make a decision and continue playing. If your opponent disagrees with your procedure, he must make a claim before starting the next hole. The Committee will resolve it later.

 

In stroke play, R3-3 tells us: If you’re not sure of a Rule or procedure you may play a second ball. The Committee will resolve it later.

[DaveLeeNC]

Dpavs and company. Yes yes yes the committee should have it marked. No one has said it should not. HOWEVER, if you are playing in a tournament and you get into a situation as pictured above what would you do? Just decide that your ball is ob and go back to the tee or play it as it lies? And if you point it out to the committee, what should they do? Run out and mark it mid round? Would it be right that the boundary in essence changed in mid round?

 

I believe that this would be a classic "play two balls into the hole" and let The Committee sort it out.

 

dave

[ruca]

So if a course has oob defined clearly on the right side ( e.g. By white stakes), but not on the left side of the course, then technically everything to the left of the course is in bounds, until we reach something which clearly defines oob.

Well after approx 24,900 miles, we eventually reach the oob stakes, as defined by the committee. Now everything on the other side of these stakes is oob!!

 

We end up with a similar paradox when there is a hazard that extends indefinitely.........

[Sawgrass]

So if a course has oob defined clearly on the right side ( e.g. By white stakes), but not on the left side of the course, then technically everything to the left of the course is in bounds, until we reach something which clearly defines oob.

Well after approx 24,900 miles, we eventually reach the oob stakes, as defined by the committee. Now everything on the other side of these stakes is oob!!

 

We end up with a similar paradox when there is a hazard that extends indefinitely.........

You may play from the infinite hazard . . . though finding your ball within 5 minutes may be taxing.

[ruca]

So if a course has oob defined clearly on the right side ( e.g. By white stakes), but not on the left side of the course, then technically everything to the left of the course is in bounds, until we reach something which clearly defines oob.

Well after approx 24,900 miles, we eventually reach the oob stakes, as defined by the committee. Now everything on the other side of these stakes is oob!!

 

We end up with a similar paradox when there is a hazard that extends indefinitely.........

You may play from the infinite hazard . . . though finding your ball within 5 minutes may be taxing.

 

With an infinite hazard, and no course boundary marking, you may be in the middle of a fairway and yet be in the hazard.

 

Or if the course has boundary marking on the other side, you hit hit your drive down the middle of the 1st fairway. I calmly inform you that you are oob....

[Dpavs]

In regards to the infinite hazard did I miss something or is not the only such hazard a water hazard. If it is, then a ball laying within a water hazard gets the same treatment no matter where it is in the water hazard so it's precise location is not important if you cannot see it.

[Dpavs]

. . . But what I believe is the case is that (to quote myself) "What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. "

 

 

 

Please stop with this strawman argument with which everyone agrees. It's not at all to the point.

 

I'm sorry Saw but my point of view, whether you agree with it or not is not founded in fallacy. It's inappropriate to simply try to ignore something you have no objection or answer to by accusing someone of engaging in a Strawman argument. That kind of diversionary argumentative tactic will simply not work here. In this case the statement I made furthers and goes to the point I am trying to make. It does not matter that no one has disagreed with what I indicated or not that as that alone does not constitute a strawman. Quite specifically I was asked what players were expected to do if they cannot discern property lines and the answer I proffered is completely relevant and on point.

 

So nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

 

At this point I am content to see what the USGA responds with, I think that is the only way the question will get a definitive answer.

 

You can not keep putting up statements that everyone agrees to and say that furthers your point. For the last time, yes, the USGA expects Committees to define boundaries appropriately.

 

How about instead of quoting yourself you share the question you asked of the USGA so we can see if it was straightforward or leading? I'd bet you didn't ask the question I recommended, but I'd be pleased to be told I'm wrong about that.

 

What you are conveniently failing to acknowledge is that there are several question being presented and not just the initial one the OP asked. Additional elements such as if neighboring properties are indeed OB, what is a player expected to do if he is unsure where one property begins and the other ends? Each of these of course may have their own or additional possible answers. It is not possible to view everything being discussed here in the monocular perspective I think you are suggesting.

 

As to what question was asked I used the OP's own words verbatim as I felt it was the most generic and on point question which could be asked.

 

"When a golf ball clearly lands on private property even though there are no white stakes can the next shot be played where golf ball lies or is it considered to be out of bounds?"

 

I indicated that it was important to understand this so as to know how to proceed in such instance as a ball hit OB is of course treated differently than a ball that is deemed unplayable or a ball which is in play.

[Sawgrass]

In regards to the infinite hazard did I miss something or is not the only such hazard a water hazard. If it is, then a ball laying within a water hazard gets the same treatment no matter where it is in the water hazard so it's precise location is not important if you cannot see it.

Have you never played a ball out of a water hazard?

[Shilgy]

Dpavs and company. Yes yes yes the committee should have it marked. No one has said it should not. HOWEVER, if you are playing in a tournament and you get into a situation as pictured above what would you do? Just decide that your ball is ob and go back to the tee or play it as it lies? And if you point it out to the committee, what should they do? Run out and mark it mid round? Would it be right that the boundary in essence changed in mid round?

 

I believe that this would be a classic "play two balls into the hole" and let The Committee sort it out.

 

dave

Dave and Sui above. My question was somewhat rhetorical to Dpav. He claims it's ob but in a tournament you play by the rules. And if they work in your favor, great. Perhaps he could choose to say his ball is ob, in this case really just taking an unplayable, but he would have no right to make a fellow competitor do the same. There is nothing for the Committee to sorry out immediately is there? They cannot claim it should be ob so your ball is. Other players that knew the rule may have come through already and legally played from the same position.

[QEight]

With unmarked WH the RoG gives player the responsibility to play them right. With unmarked property line "OB" there is no such rule. And I can see why as the line may be much harder to define if at all discernible.

 

So if committee has not done it's job there is not much RBs can do.

[Dpavs]

In regards to the infinite hazard did I miss something or is not the only such hazard a water hazard. If it is, then a ball laying within a water hazard gets the same treatment no matter where it is in the water hazard so it's precise location is not important if you cannot see it.

Have you never played a ball out of a water hazard?

 

Nope. Never had one sitting in water shallow enough to even tempt me to do so.

[DaveLeeNC]

In regards to the infinite hazard did I miss something or is not the only such hazard a water hazard. If it is, then a ball laying within a water hazard gets the same treatment no matter where it is in the water hazard so it's precise location is not important if you cannot see it.

Have you never played a ball out of a water hazard?

 

Nope. Never had one sitting in water shallow enough to even tempt me to do so.

 

Interesting. I can't count the # of times that I have hit a ball that was in a water hazard (but in virtually every case it just wasn't in water). Even holed out a 100 PW from that position once - almost couldn't find the ball after that shot. It was a severely elevated green (could only see the top of the flat) with a bunch of deep pinestraw behind the green.The ball was "obviously" going to be long and I never thought to look in the cup. I'm guessing that it was a "slam dunk" shot.

 

dave

[rogolf]

In regards to the infinite hazard did I miss something or is not the only such hazard a water hazard. If it is, then a ball laying within a water hazard gets the same treatment no matter where it is in the water hazard so it's precise location is not important if you cannot see it.

Have you never played a ball out of a water hazard?

 

Nope. Never had one sitting in water shallow enough to even tempt me to do so.

 

There is more to water hazards (and lateral water hazards) than just the water - it's usual that some dry ground and grass is included within the defined margins of water hazards.

[Dpavs]

In regards to the infinite hazard did I miss something or is not the only such hazard a water hazard. If it is, then a ball laying within a water hazard gets the same treatment no matter where it is in the water hazard so it's precise location is not important if you cannot see it.

Have you never played a ball out of a water hazard?

 

Nope. Never had one sitting in water shallow enough to even tempt me to do so.

 

There is more to water hazards (and lateral water hazards) than just the water - it's usual that some dry ground and grass is included within the defined margins of water hazards.

 

Right, right... I'm sure I've had one sit in the margin in the past and hit out of it... but many of the courses near me are notoriously bad about marking the hazard margins and most of the water goes from grass to 3 feet deep or more or are unreachable to do soft swampy deep weed ridden shores next to them... so if you are in, you are in too deep to play out or you likely cannot get to where the ball is.

[Sawgrass]

Dpavs, I'm curious as to whether your realization that many people play from within water hazards changes your perspective on D 33-2a/11 and its description/implications regarding allowing play from areas that are not on course property.

[ruca]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

[Dpavs]

Dpavs, I'm curious as to whether your realization that many people play from within water hazards changes your perspective on D 33-2a/11 and its description/implications regarding allowing play from areas that are not on course property.

 

No, not really.. it's kind of apples and oranges. What we are discussing is whether a ball is OB or not when it is on land owned by an entity other than the course\club but the margin of the course near the adjacent properties has not been clearly marked and not whether you can play a ball that is on a defined part of the course but on property not owned by the course. The latter case being narrowly limited to water hazards and generally balls played very near the shoreline. Now that said, we could probably go into a whole different discussion regarding shorelines, water rights and such.... but I don't see the need to really.

[Hardluckster]

No, not really.. it's kind of apples and oranges. What we are discussing is whether a ball is OB or not when it is on land owned by an entity other than the course\club but the margin of the course near the adjacent properties has not been clearly marked and not whether you can play a ball that is on a defined part of the course but on property not owned by the course. The latter case being narrowly limited to water hazards and generally balls played very near the shoreline. Now that said, we could probably go into a whole different discussion regarding shorelines, water rights and such.... but I don't see the need to really.

 

A course is adjacent to a forest owned by the U.S. government. Within the forest that runs along number 5 fairway is a drainage ditch, so the course marked the forest as a lateral water hazard (red stakes). The course doesn't actually own the area marked inside of the red hazard.

 

Can you go into the forest and play a ball from that area? It is not owned by the course!

[QEight]

Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

Why would it have to be in RoG? If the committee is not doing their job, or committee considers it ok to play from backyard, then why change the RoG?

[Dpavs]

No, not really.. it's kind of apples and oranges. What we are discussing is whether a ball is OB or not when it is on land owned by an entity other than the course\club but the margin of the course near the adjacent properties has not been clearly marked and not whether you can play a ball that is on a defined part of the course but on property not owned by the course. The latter case being narrowly limited to water hazards and generally balls played very near the shoreline. Now that said, we could probably go into a whole different discussion regarding shorelines, water rights and such.... but I don't see the need to really.

 

A course is adjacent to a forest owned by the U.S. government. Within the forest that runs along number 5 fairway is a drainage ditch, so the course marked the forest as a lateral water hazard (red stakes). The course doesn't actually own the area marked inside of the red hazard.

 

Can you go into the forest and play a ball from that area? It is not owned by the course!

 

That's a pretty interesting and hopefully unique situation and I suppose we can create conjectures regarding any number of situations where the course has done something not well thought through.

 

I suppose though in your hypothetical (or was some course actually stupid enough to do this without defining the far side of the ditch as OB?), the entire forest to the far side of the water hazard would be part of the hazard. However, in the situation you present, the course has clearly defined an area that the course does not own as being within the boundaries of the course. That difference of course is significantly a departure from the original discussion and question where the course has not specifically defined an area not owned by them as being part of the course.

[Sawgrass]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

I didn't get your point earlier, and now I do. I find it both amusing and engaging, but it's only a valid point for those who believe that an area which extends infinitely in one direction somehow swings down and around and ends up making a kind of circle. I believe the Earth is round, and if you head off in an infinite line away from any point on the Earth you will never get back to the Earth or any fairway on it.

 

I could, of course be wrong about that, but in the meantime, and unless the RBs tell me otherwise, I'll ground my club in the fairway without any anxiety as to your interesting point.

 

(And I'll rely on Committee markings and statements to define OOB.)

[Slagathor]

Dpavs -

 

So we agree that the Committee has a responsibility to clearly mark & define the course.

 

Under your interpretation that golfers are not allowed to play from property not owned by the golf course, do you pull public records on adjoining parcel ownership and easements before playing?

 

The issue I have is that under your interpretation of the rules, the burden is shifted back onto the golfer to apply an additional criteria in order to determine the course of play. The burden clearly lies entirely with the Committee here - both in the case where they fail to mark a boundary or the boundary marked includes an adjacent property.

[Dpavs]

Dpavs -

 

So we agree that the Committee has a responsibility to clearly mark & define the course.

 

Under your interpretation that golfers are not allowed to play from property not owned by the golf course, do you pull public records on adjoining parcel ownership and easements before playing?

 

The issue I have is that under your interpretation of the rules, the burden is shifted back onto the golfer to apply an additional criteria in order to determine the course of play. The burden clearly lies entirely with the Committee here - both in the case where they fail to mark a boundary or the boundary marked includes an adjacent property.

 

I think your taking it to an absurdity and I'm sure you recognize that your opening statements are somewhat facetious. That aside, I'm really not suggesting any additional burden be placed on players. The burden we are talking about on the player already exists. Where the course\club\committee fails to properly define, mark or designate certain course features it's already up the golfer to exercise the best discretion possible and confer with an opponent or tournament official when necessary. There really is nothing that I have suggested that makes that any different.

[ruca]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

I didn't get your point earlier, and now I do. I find it both amusing and engaging, but it's only a valid point for those who believe that an area which extends infinitely in one direction somehow swings down and around and ends up making a kind of circle. I believe the Earth is round, and if you head off in an infinite line away from any point on the Earth you will never get back to the Earth or any fairway on it.

 

I could, of course be wrong about that, but in the meantime, and unless the RBs tell me otherwise, I'll ground my club in the fairway without any anxiety as to your interesting point.

 

(And I'll rely on Committee markings and statements to define OOB.)

 

If I ask you to go in a particular direction and keep going, I don't expect you to end up in the air heading towards outer space!

I'll bow to the superior knowledge of a physicist, but I can't see any other interpretation of extending in this context to not mean along ground ( or sea) level