Should out of bounds rule be changed?

[RCGA]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I can understand that happening on the first hole on a course none of the group have ever played. But I cannot understand how a person who sees or knows by experience the rough by the fairway being so thick that you may lose your ball 5 yds away has not enough brain to hit a provisional once their ball enters the rough. That person sure deserves to walk back to the tee, IMHO.

 

If someone hit a provisional every time the ball landed in thick-ish rough, you'd have groups hitting a least a dozen provisionals a round adding another 20min to the pace of play. 

 

Lost ball local rule should be a one stoke penalty, drop anywhere in line with the flag from where you think the ball is/was. Still hurts you, but isn't a round ruiner like OB is. 

[Mr. Bean]

20 minutes ago, Girevik said:

With 4 people looking you can find the ball 95% of the time.  I would disagree that that 5% chance warrants a provisional every time, but I also miss a lot more fairways than I hit so that would require to to hit a lot of provisionals.  I'll have to continue to take my chances when in league and don't have the local rule to fall back on.

 

Hitting a provisional is your privilege in any case as long as there is a possibility your ball may be lost. You need to make your decision every time and if in doubt I would advice to hit a provisional. It is all about saving time.

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

1) If someone hit a provisional every time the ball landed in thick-ish rough, you'd have groups hitting a least a dozen provisionals a round adding another 20min to the pace of play. 

 

2) Lost ball local rule should be a one stoke penalty, drop anywhere in line with the flag from where you think the ball is/was. Still hurts you, but isn't a round ruiner like OB is. 

 

1) It takes about 20 seconds to hit a provisional so 12 provisional would mean 4 minutes, not 20. Besides, you might save some time when you would not have to use the last seconds of the 3-minute period if your provisional is on the fairway.

 

2) As Dave explained, this is one of the fundamental things in golf. Keep your ball in play. Simple, isn't it? 😉

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[RCGA]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

1) It takes about 20 seconds to hit a provisional so 12 provisional would mean 4 minutes, not 20. Besides, you might save some time when you would not have to use the last seconds of the 3-minute period if your provisional is on the fairway.

 

2) As Dave explained, this is one of the fundamental things in golf. Keep your ball in play. Simple, isn't it? 😉

 

 

1) It takes at least 60 second per provisional to go back to your bag, get another ball and go through a pre-shot routine. 60 seconds x 12 shots = 12 minutes. Plus you have to retrieve your provisional if your first one is found (might take 15-30 seconds). I'll stand by the fact that, on average, 12 provisionals add 15-20min to a round all said and done. 

 

2) The rough is in play. The adjacent fairway is in play. Hitting it into either of those areas isn't counter to the fundamentals of golf. Losing a ball in bounds shouldn't be as penalizing as sending a ball off the course property. 

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

1) It takes at least 60 second per provisional to go back to your bag, get another ball and go through a pre-shot routine.

 

So, if you are in a competition and on the clock you would get your 1st warning after your 1st provisional. I suggest you keep another ball in your pocket and shorten your pre-shot routines a lot...

 

Besides, in a group of 4 you would have a 75% chance not being the last to hit so you can get your ball from your bag while another player is hitting. Also in a group of 4 someone is bound to go close to your provisional and can pick it up.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[Halebopp]

14 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

If someone hit a provisional every time the ball landed in thick-ish rough, you'd have groups hitting a least a dozen provisionals a round adding another 20min to the pace of play. 

 

Why are you not playing Stableford, Maximum Score, Par/Bogey or something similar not requiring you to hole out? But 12 provisional balls per group, while slightly on the high side, doesn't sound completely out of the ordinary and is not a reason for a 20-minute delay and slow play.

 

 

[Augster]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:08 AM, RCGA said:

 

1) It takes at least 60 second per provisional to go back to your bag, get another ball and go through a pre-shot routine. 60 seconds x 12 shots = 12 minutes. Plus you have to retrieve your provisional if your first one is found (might take 15-30 seconds). I'll stand by the fact that, on average, 12 provisionals add 15-20min to a round all said and done. 

 

2) The rough is in play. The adjacent fairway is in play. Hitting it into either of those areas isn't counter to the fundamentals of golf. Losing a ball in bounds shouldn't be as penalizing as sending a ball off the course property. 

That is an insane amount of time to hit a provisional. 
 

If a player, like me, can’t keep it on the fairway, they should play with their provisional ball in their pocket, like I do. It takes me about 12 seconds to hit a provisional ball. 
 

One has to understand math to know when they have hit enough provisional balls. One should assess the % chance they will find each ball. Let’s say the first ball I feel I will find 80% of the time, and my provisional ball goes to the same area and I’ll likely find it about 80% of the time. I COULD keep hitting provisionals, or I could do the math. 20% of the time I’ll lose the first ball. (.2). 20% of the time I’ll lose the provisional ball (.2). Multiply them together and you get .04. That means 4% of the time you’ll lose both balls. 96% of the time you’ll find at least one of them. No need to hit a 3rd ball with a 96% success rate in finding at least one of them. 
 

Get semi-decent at estimating your percentages and you’ll rarely have to hit a second provisional. 
 

Or get better at finding fairways. 🙂

[tiderider]

On 6/28/2022 at 7:03 AM, RCGA said:

 

Too many variables in the amateur game. Did someone pick it up (ex hitting on an adjacent fairway)? Are you searching in the wrong spot? There's no forecaddie or gallery to aid you. Pace of play considerations. We also have grounds crew that have run over balls and embedded them by mistake. 

 

 

if it's just a weekend game with friends or by yourself, do you really need to go back and retee/rehit? ... if you're in a tournament, provisional if you're not sure? ... 

Edited July 6, 2022 by tiderider

[Pastit]

3 minutes ago, tiderider said:

if it's just a weekend game with friends or by yourself, do you really need to go back and retee/rehit? ... if you're in a tournament, provisional if you're not sure? ... 

 

I can’t recall anyone but myself or a referee, in 55 years of playing, calling time out. 
 

I was reared on the old rule of being able to elect between a provisional and the original ball and 5 mins to find. You could adopt this I suppose but was cheating. But it only takes a few secs to play a provisional as stated above. 

[ChipNRun]

In some cases, the course's OB rule has been changed... or at least the prevalence of OB markers has decreased. This is an attempt not to overdo the number of OBs on residential golf courses, where holes can run all over creation.

 

 

In USA's Golden Age of Golf - circa 1910 to 1937 - a great number of classic courses were built. One thing about that era: the courses were build primarily as golf courses. You got a rough rectangle or oval of land with more or less smooth boundaries.

 

Fast forward to 1990s, and USA has the Residential Golf Boom. Outsiders flood the golf market with idea that most USA families want a home alongside a golf fairway. The perceived demand was overblown, and starting in 2008 Financial Crisis came the great shakeout: USA had too many golf courses. Besides overbuilding, the course holes ran here and there with a big increase in OBs.

 

Let's compare the layout of a Golden Age and a Residential Boom golf course and the effect on OB markers:

 

The residential course often offered much greater chance to hit the ball OB. Circa 2016, I talked to members of the Stonewolf greens crew who were restaking several holes on the course. The reason: USGA was amenable to converting OB to lateral hazards if a course had too many OBs. Even after restaking, Stonewolf had 14 holes with trouble both left and right: This could be residual OB, new red stake, or water.

 

I tried to tease up old posts and news articles on the topic, but couldn't find any. Sorry!

[davep043]

10 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

The reason: USGA was amenable to converting OB to lateral hazards if a course had too many OBs.

I'm not sure the USGA or R&A really WANT these adjacent properties defines as Penalty Areas (the modern term for the past 4.75 years)

 

Committee Procedures 2A(1)a says:

"Where private properties and public roads border the course, it is strongly recommended that the Committee mark these areas as out of bounds....

There is no requirement for a course to have boundaries, but it is advisable to prevent play from property that does not belong to the course."

 

Committee Procedures 2C suggests:

"The Committee should not define properties bordering the course as a penalty area where the properties would normally be marked as out of bounds."

 

In 2016, the USGA and R&A defined Hazard as either a Bunker or a Water Hazard.  There was no allowance within the Rules of Golf for defining anything else as a hazard, that happened when the Rules were revised in 2019.  I do agree that the more modern trend of routing golf courses through housing developments has greatly increased the prevalence of OB, but as written the Rules do NOT recommend converting these into Penalty Areas.

 

[ChipNRun]

42 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I'm not sure the USGA or R&A really WANT these adjacent properties defines as Penalty Areas (the modern term for the past 4.75 years)

 

That's why I regret I couldn't retrieve the sports articles on the topic, although they were a bit sketchy in governance details.

 

But, the green crew with several club volunteers changed the color on dozens of stakes.

[Hawkeye77]

11 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

In some cases, the course's OB rule has been changed... or at least the prevalence of OB markers has decreased. This is an attempt not to overdo the number of OBs on residential golf courses, where holes can run all over creation.

 

 

In USA's Golden Age of Golf - circa 1910 to 1937 - a great number of classic courses were built. One thing about that era: the courses were build primarily as golf courses. You got a rough rectangle or oval of land with more or less smooth boundaries.

 

Fast forward to 1990s, and USA has the Residential Golf Boom. Outsiders flood the golf market with idea that most USA families want a home alongside a golf fairway. The perceived demand was overblown, and starting in 2008 Financial Crisis came the great shakeout: USA had too many golf courses. Besides overbuilding, the course holes ran here and there with a big increase in OBs.

 

Let's compare the layout of a Golden Age and a Residential Boom golf course and the effect on OB markers:

 

The residential course often offered much greater chance to hit the ball OB. Circa 2016, I talked to members of the Stonewolf greens crew who were restaking several holes on the course. The reason: USGA was amenable to converting OB to lateral hazards if a course had too many OBs. Even after restaking, Stonewolf had 14 holes with trouble both left and right: This could be residual OB, new red stake, or water.

 

I tried to tease up old posts and news articles on the topic, but couldn't find any. Sorry!

Not sure what this has to do with whether the out of bounds rule should be changed or dredging this one up?

 

In hundreds, maybe thousands, of developments over the course of decades, people's back yards have been declared out of bounds - what's new?

Edited September 23, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

That's why I regret I couldn't retrieve the sports articles on the topic, although they were a bit sketchy in governance details.

 

But, the green crew with several club volunteers changed the color on dozens of stakes.

Those who mark courses often do so with an eye towards pace of play, and making players happy, rather than the Rules of Golf.  Management generally cares more about pace, players hate losing an extra stroke, players often don't understand the need to play provisionals, etc.  The introduction of MLR E-5 helps minimize the pace of play concerns, by allowing OB relief near the point it went OB with a TWO stroke penalty, but players sill hate taking the extra stroke.  I have very limited sympathy.

[rogolf]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Those who mark courses often do so with an eye towards pace of play, and making players happy, rather than the Rules of Golf.  Management generally cares more about pace, players hate losing an extra stroke, players often don't understand the need to play provisionals, etc.  The introduction of MLR E-5 helps minimize the pace of play concerns, by allowing OB relief near the point it went OB with a TWO stroke penalty, but players sill hate taking the extra stroke.  I have very limited sympathy.

Agree. 

Maybe the course should check with the homeowners and see if they mind people playing from their back (or front) yards, driving carts onto their property etc.

[ChipNRun]

56 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Agree. 

Maybe the course should check with the homeowners and see if they mind people playing from their back (or front) yards, driving carts onto their property etc.

 

You are missing my point. On residential courses, with holes snaking in and out of housing areas, a golfer has greatly increased chance of incurring OB strokes for a shot that goes offline.  And, the white stakes to red stakes change lessens the stroke count of the penalty, and speeds up play. (Note: shots landing in yards - off the course - are still OB. The OB to hazard shift mainly occured on perimeter of course, land owned by course but unplayable).

The red dashes - current hazard line - show what was once an OB line on the course.

[rogolf]

41 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

You are missing my point. On residential courses, with holes snaking in and out of housing areas, a golfer has greatly increased chance of incurring OB strokes for a shot that goes offline.  And, the white stakes to red stakes change lessens the stroke count of the penalty, and speeds up play. (Note: shots landing in yards - off the course - are still OB. The OB to hazard shift mainly occured on perimeter of course, land owned by course but unplayable).

The red dashes - current hazard line - show what was once an OB line on the course.

I'll just say that score represents the player's ability (or lack thereof).  Lowering a player's end score isn't an objective of the Rules or the course - that's on the player.  I hate suggesting this, but many players don't play by the Rules anyway!!

[davep043]

1 hour ago, ChipNRun said:

 

You are missing my point. On residential courses, with holes snaking in and out of housing areas, a golfer has greatly increased chance of incurring OB strokes for a shot that goes offline.  And, the white stakes to red stakes change lessens the stroke count of the penalty, and speeds up play. (Note: shots landing in yards - off the course - are still OB. The OB to hazard shift mainly occured on perimeter of course, land owned by course but unplayable).

The red dashes - current hazard line - show what was once an OB line on the course.

Allowing the use of MLR E-5 has the same impact on pace of play.  The difference is that E-5 has a minimal impact on scores, while changing OB to PA lowers scores by decreasing the penalty.  The course rating should really be revised to reflect the decreased difficulty that comes with the change to red stakes.  

[ChipNRun]

49 minutes ago, davep043 said:

The course rating should really be revised to reflect the decreased difficulty that comes with the change to red stakes.  

 

Point taken. In three seasons since re-staking, the tee-box combinations got scrambled - holes got shortened or lengthened - and we would have a new scorecard with adjusted ratings each spring. The re-ratings also got affected by bunker work on the course - several bunkers removed and most rebuilt. Plus, volunteer trees got cleared out that had created unintended chokepoints in fairway.

[Pastit]

4 hours ago, rogolf said:

Agree. 

Maybe the course should check with the homeowners and see if they mind people playing from their back (or front) yards, driving carts onto their property etc.

In the US I’d then need to play in armour ! You can’t be serious man - who said that ?

[Mcgeeno]

A course in my city with 2-3 elevated (essentially mountain) tee shots marked a bunch of older/original OB lines as red last year on those holes. 

 

Definitely sped up play. I remember playing 6 hour tournament rounds there if guys didnt hit a provisional and had to drive a cart all the way back up to re-tee lol.

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I've been mulling something over of late...

 

Is it possible that MLR E-5 is *too* lenient? 

 

I use myself as an example. I'm a 21 cap. So... I suck. There are times on certain courses where I know the course, and I know where OB sits, and I blast one off the tee that is KVC to be OB. Often for me, out of frustration (and that our group, ahem *committee*, plays MLR E-5) I say screw it and I'll take the 2 penalty strokes and drop in the fairway. 

 

But here's the thing. I'm a 21 cap. So... I suck. The idea of MLR E-5 in my opinion is for skilled golfers who are likely to hit their S&D penalty into the fairway. Much like a second serve in tennis, they play the S&D more carefully/conservatively than their original ball. When I watch PGAT, the S&D ball typically is striped straight down the fairway. But for me, drive #2 if I take the S&D option has just as much chance of being blasted OB as the first drive. Possibly higher because now I'm nervous. Even if it doesn't go OB, it could miss the fairway, or be a duffed shot, or a bunch of other bad things. 

 

So in a lot of cases, MLR E-5 gives me as a player, the choice to take a more advantageous option, i.e. the ball in the fairway no nearer the hole from where it crossed the OB boundary, than what is my most likely result if I take S&D. Whereas S&D is a MUCH more risky option for me than MLR E-5. 

 

So, should we consider modifying MLR E-5 such that if it is in effect, and from the place where a ball is struck, it is KVC that it is OB, that the player must at the very least play a provisional, and at the most immediately play S&D, compared to taking advantage of MLR E-5?

 

[st1800e]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

So, should we consider modifying MLR E-5 such that if it is in effect, and from the place where a ball is struck, it is KVC that it is OB, that the player must at the very least play a provisional, and at the most immediately play S&D, compared to taking advantage of MLR E-5?

No, defeats the purpose of E-5. 

[Hawkeye77]

14 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I've been mulling something over of late...

 

Is it possible that MLR E-5 is *too* lenient? 

 

I use myself as an example. I'm a 21 cap. So... I suck. There are times on certain courses where I know the course, and I know where OB sits, and I blast one off the tee that is KVC to be OB. Often for me, out of frustration (and that our group, ahem *committee*, plays MLR E-5) I say screw it and I'll take the 2 penalty strokes and drop in the fairway. 

 

But here's the thing. I'm a 21 cap. So... I suck. The idea of MLR E-5 in my opinion is for skilled golfers who are likely to hit their S&D penalty into the fairway. Much like a second serve in tennis, they play the S&D more carefully/conservatively than their original ball. When I watch PGAT, the S&D ball typically is striped straight down the fairway. But for me, drive #2 if I take the S&D option has just as much chance of being blasted OB as the first drive. Possibly higher because now I'm nervous. Even if it doesn't go OB, it could miss the fairway, or be a duffed shot, or a bunch of other bad things. 

 

So in a lot of cases, MLR E-5 gives me as a player, the choice to take a more advantageous option, i.e. the ball in the fairway no nearer the hole from where it crossed the OB boundary, than what is my most likely result if I take S&D. Whereas S&D is a MUCH more risky option for me than MLR E-5. 

 

So, should we consider modifying MLR E-5 such that if it is in effect, and from the place where a ball is struck, it is KVC that it is OB, that the player must at the very least play a provisional, and at the most immediately play S&D, compared to taking advantage of MLR E-5?

 

Yes - I think it's complete BS a player can hit the ball out of bounds and get a guaranteed lie in the fairway, but all part of the "fun" and populist changing a few rules for the sake of, well, not much other than PR that wasn't perceived by people not playing by the rules anyway.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

not much other than PR that wasn't perceived by people not playing by the rules anyway.

Those people still aren't going to add TWO penalty strokes, it really doesn't impact them.  It DOES give a slight time-saving option for a rule-following player who unexpectedly loses a ball, or finds it out of bounds, while applying something close to the S&D penalty.  I think the advice included with the MLR is appropriate, it shouldn't used in serious competitions.

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

Those people still aren't going to add TWO penalty strokes, it really doesn't impact them.  It DOES give a slight time-saving option for a rule-following player who unexpectedly loses a ball, or finds it out of bounds, while applying something close to the S&D penalty.  I think the advice included with the MLR is appropriate, it shouldn't used in serious competitions.

I don’t disagree 100% but the time savings part is so situational I’m really not sure much is saved working out the drop vs. simply proceeding to the next one from the tee/fairway drop (assuming the next one is in, lol, been there). It can be a fairly certain stroke saver on average based on just my experience. 

[2bGood]

On 6/28/2022 at 7:23 AM, Halebopp said:

 

Why are you not playing Stableford, Maximum Score, Par/Bogey or something similar not requiring you to hole out? But 12 provisional balls per group, while slightly on the high side, doesn't sound completely out of the ordinary and is not a reason for a 20-minute delay and slow play.

 

 

12 sounds really high to me. I guess it depends on the course and player. Our club has a strong provisional culture. In stroke play events, if someone ball is off the fairway and they lost a confident location (hit a tree, went into heavy rough), they will call and hit a provisional. In the last stroke play event I played in, we had 4 of these over 3 days, playing in threesomes. Mind you I was in a flight with 5-8 handicaps.

 

In addition to these we did a few provisionals for balls that went OB, but smart players know it never hurts to declare your next ball a provisional - just in case....

[Newby]

8 hours ago, 2bGood said:

smart players know it never hurts to declare your next ball a provisional - just in case....

👍

Edited September 25, 2023 by Newby

[sarahswings]

Players shouldn't be rewarded for hitting the ball off the map!

[kiwigolf72]

1 hour ago, sarahswings said:

Players shouldn't be rewarded for hitting the ball off the map!

Totally agree and in my opinion, it should be a mandatory reload from where you last hit it. 

I understand about pace of play etc but if you're unsure if your ball is still on the course hit a provisional.