What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

Whatever the committee decides. Sometimes they say an adjoining fairway is OB for the hole you are playing so people don’t try to cut a dogleg by playing the adjoining fairway. People here would say a fairway on the course is not on the golf course property. Sure ...

[Mr. Bean]

That was the exception part...

[Londoner]

Good point. It would explain a lot.

[sui generis]

Learning the Rules is hard work, as you've discovered.

Learning how the Rules work is even more difficult, as you're finding, too.

[DaveLeeNC]

@LICC OB defines an area where the designer intended to PROHIBIT PLAY (play not allowed, attempts to play not allowed, etc). PA's are areas where the designer was perfectly happy to allow golfers to attempt to play. In some cases play may be impossible, some it may be easy, some it may be easy in the dry months and impossible in the wet months. But attempts from those areas are acceptable. OB tends to be the same as course property lines, but that is neither required or true in all cases.

These are very different. If you do not understand that, this lack of comprehension on your part should not be our responsibility to correct.

dave

[Mr. Bean]

'Whatever the committee decides.'

No, that is not it. Out of Bounds is Out of Bounds and does not belong to the five areas acknowledged by the Rules.

Is it that hard for you to answer a simple question on the Rules correctly?

[Vindog]

Only you have said that. But thanks for coming out

[LICC]

Not necessarily. Do you think Pete Dye designed 18 at Sawgrass for golfers to be able to go play their shots pulled into the pond if they want to?

Instead of being a combination of incorrect and obnoxious, try learning about the subject first. From the R&A:

“Internal Out of BoundsPurpose. For course design or safety reasons, a Committee can choose to specify that a particular part of the course is out of bounds during the play of a particular hole. 

This is done to stop players who are playing that hole from playing to and from another part of the course. For example, on a dogleg hole, an internal out of bounds may be used to prevent a player from cutting the dogleg by playing a ball to the fairway of another hole.”

[DaveLeeNC]

As I stated before, your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

dave

[LICC]

I guess you can say that only I said it, if you are ignorant of and disregard the R&A ...

[Schulzmc]

This is interesting. Because LICC continues to make ridiculous arguments on the “unplayable” issue you guys are missing that he actually has a point when it comes to the OB penalty vs. a lateral hazard penalty. The argument that they are different because one is off the course and one on the course does not fly when you throw in-course OB into the mix.

[Vindog]

Quote the R&A where it says a fairway on the course is not on course property.

 

[Sawgrass]

No one is saying the rules couldn’t be different. But I’ll say I enjoy the strategic course management issue provided by the OB rule being different than the PA rules. And that remains true whether it’s an internal OB or not.

The disreputable aspect of his position is that he insists that logic demands what is essentially his preference.

[Schulzmc]

True and I fully agree. But some here seem to be saying that logic demands OB and PA’s be treated differently when that is essentially their preference as well.

[Vindog]

It does though. Ob is an area from which play is prohibited, therefore a shot into that area does not (and in my opinion should not) count. If a course wants to prevent play from an area, like an adjoining fairway, it is logical that they would mark it as OB for that hole. Since the penalty is so severe, it should act a deterrent.

 

All of that said, I hate in course OB, but I understand why it is allowed.

[KevCarter]

You're right, his thoughts on S&D are really just opinion. That doesn't bother me except for his style of discussion. The real problem is his assertion that his BS stance on Unplayable Lie is FACT, and those who follow the letter of the rule are dishonest.

[Sawgrass]

IMO logic dictates that we not strike a ball 200 or more yards away from us only to chase after it and do that again. Everything else boils down to safety and fun. That said, there are “logical” reasons to prevent play from certain areas, and logical reasons to use severe penalties to influence play. On the other hand there are also logical reasons to enjoy consistency in the rules.

It all boils down to judgement, not overwhelming logic.

[Newby]

It may be on the golf club's property but it is not on the Course as defined. The rules are not concerned with who owns the land. Many golf courses are not on the property owned by the management of the Course.

But seemingly you can't answer the question

[Mr. Bean]

I can only assume you have not read all the 1300 posts in this thread. If you had you would certainly have read the ones where the difference between PA and OB have been thoroughly clarified and differentiated.

Well, once again: OB is not on the course while PA is. It is not allowed to play a ball lying OB but it is allowed to play a ball lying in a PA. Thus the penalizing effect of these two are substantially different and thus the severity of the penalty is accordingly different. It is not uncommon in planning a course to set up an OB in an area where the designer does not wish the players to hit their balls while PA's (as are bunkers, dense roughs, tall grass, etc.) are designed to guide the players' choices when planning to play a hole.

Those are the things (amongst many others...) not understood by LICC despite many attempts. Hope you do not need equally many attempts.

[LICC]

I thought you were referring to the Committee part. Others above were saying internal OB are still areas off the course, like the parking lot. That was ridiculous.

[LICC]

Multiple people here have been barking all along that OB must have harsher penalties because it is “off the property!” (and without any reasonable explanation why that matters so much). You couldn’t keep the ball on the property! Internal OB is not only on the property it is on the golf course. So that entire “off the property!” justification fails.

[Mr. Bean]

So... if you LICC hit your ball into an internal OB is that ball on or off the course?

(hint: out of bounds means not ON the course)

[HitEmTrue]

I theoretically don’t have a problem with OB and ball in penalty area being similar (can’t be identical....because you may play a ball from penalty area). But, it would make a real mess of a lost ball on the golf course. Should a lost ball carry a greater penalty than OB? Methinks not.

[Mr. Bean]

Oh my, this is just so much fun!! Beats the reality-tv 10-0 !!

[LICC]

Except you are not following the letter of Rule 1.2. Taking a ball you believe to be playable and deciding to treat it as unplayable does not qualify as honest, as much as you want to contort your ethics to justify it. And your view of the Rule would render Rule 18.1 irrelevant, which is illogical.

[KevCarter]

How is that call to the USGA on this issue coming along?

[LICC]

Show me an example where a golf architect designed two similar holes to be played/strategically managed differently because one had a lateral OB and the other a lateral PA.

[sui generis]

Have you received a reply from the USGA yet on this?

[LICC]

Do you think an adjoining fairway marked by a Committee as internal OB is not on the golf course?

[sui generis]

That's correct. A ball lying out of bounds does not lie on one of the five defined areas of the course.