Rules Question Defining OB

[sigmapete1]

On a course I have played frequently, the first hole is a par 5 that makes a 90 degree dogleg right at about 240yds from the tee. As you can guess, many people attempt to cut the dogleg to make it easy to get home in 2. Inside the dogleg (to the right of the fairway) where everyone is hitting over is another hole's green. In an attempt to prevent injuries, the course has OB stakes between these two holes, making it much riskier if you fail to carry the dogleg. (I should add that this is an inexpensive state park course and as a result attracts many hackers and weekenders who can be dangerous in a situation such as this).

 

Now I am all in favor of taking measures to prevent people from getting beaned when they are putting, BUT I believe that this is an incorrect use of OB stakes. I understand that a course may define certain areas OB even if they are within the boundaries of the property. But I think it is impermissible and impossible to have different OB depending on what hole you are on. According to the stakes as laid out, there is only one line and if you are on the 1st hole and hit to the right onto what is the 17th green, then the course considers that OB. And vice versa if you are on the 17th. They actually do this in one other area of the course as well in an attempt to overcome a poorly though out layout.

 

Just wanted to get some opinions on this?

 

As an aside, when I play with my friends for money, we disregard these stakes. We have reasoned that if the 17th hole is in play and the 1st hole is in play, how can either be OB at any time? If someone tells me that these stakes are proper, i'll be happy to abide by it.

 

-Pete

[KevCarter]

I believe your question is discussed in the following decisions, while not directly answered, the implication is there:

 

33-2a/12 Internal Boundary Between Holes

 

Q. It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a “dog-leg” hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the “dog-leg.” Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?

 

A. Yes. For the recommended status of such boundary stakes, see Decision 24/5.

 

 

24/5 Boundary Stakes Having No Significance in Play of Hole Being Played

 

Q. White stakes installed between the 7th and 8th holes define out of bounds during play of the 7th hole, but they have no significance during play of the 8th hole. Are such stakes obstructions during play of the 8th hole?

 

A. No, the Definition of “Out of Bounds” states that such stakes are not obstructions. However, in this case it is recommended that, by Local Rule, the stakes be deemed immovable obstructions during play of the 8th hole.

 

 

33-2a/14 Internal Out of Bounds Applying to Stroke from Teeing Ground Only

 

A Committee may make a Local Rule under Rule 33-2a declaring part of an adjoining hole to be out of bounds when playing a particular hole, but it is not permissible for a Committee to make a Local Rule placing an area of the course out of bounds to a stroke played from the teeing ground only.

[sigmapete1]

I believe your question is discussed in the following decisions, while not directly answered, the implication is there:

 

33-2a/12 Internal Boundary Between Holes

 

Q. It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a “dog-leg” hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the “dog-leg.” Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?

 

A. Yes. For the recommended status of such boundary stakes, see Decision 24/5.

 

 

24/5 Boundary Stakes Having No Significance in Play of Hole Being Played

 

Q. White stakes installed between the 7th and 8th holes define out of bounds during play of the 7th hole, but they have no significance during play of the 8th hole. Are such stakes obstructions during play of the 8th hole?

 

A. No, the Definition of “Out of Bounds” states that such stakes are not obstructions. However, in this case it is recommended that, by Local Rule, the stakes be deemed immovable obstructions during play of the 8th hole.

 

 

33-2a/14 Internal Out of Bounds Applying to Stroke from Teeing Ground Only

 

A Committee may make a Local Rule under Rule 33-2a declaring part of an adjoining hole to be out of bounds when playing a particular hole, but it is not permissible for a Committee to make a Local Rule placing an area of the course out of bounds to a stroke played from the teeing ground only.

 

I stand corrected. Thats why I love this site. Thanks! (P.S. I'm not gonna stop trying to carry the dogleg though!)

[KevCarter]

I believe your question is discussed in the following decisions, while not directly answered, the implication is there:

 

33-2a/12 Internal Boundary Between Holes

 

Q. It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a “dog-leg” hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the “dog-leg.” Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?

 

A. Yes. For the recommended status of such boundary stakes, see Decision 24/5.

 

 

24/5 Boundary Stakes Having No Significance in Play of Hole Being Played

 

Q. White stakes installed between the 7th and 8th holes define out of bounds during play of the 7th hole, but they have no significance during play of the 8th hole. Are such stakes obstructions during play of the 8th hole?

 

A. No, the Definition of “Out of Bounds” states that such stakes are not obstructions. However, in this case it is recommended that, by Local Rule, the stakes be deemed immovable obstructions during play of the 8th hole.

 

 

33-2a/14 Internal Out of Bounds Applying to Stroke from Teeing Ground Only

 

A Committee may make a Local Rule under Rule 33-2a declaring part of an adjoining hole to be out of bounds when playing a particular hole, but it is not permissible for a Committee to make a Local Rule placing an area of the course out of bounds to a stroke played from the teeing ground only.

 

I stand corrected. Thats why I love this site. Thanks! (P.S. I'm not gonna stop trying to carry the dogleg though!)

 

 

:huh: :cheesy: :cheesy:

 

Go for it!

 

Kevin

[bermuda]

Recently I shanked a tee shot on a par 3 that carried a street separating this hole from the next. The ball landed on the back of the tee for the next hole. The street, of course, was out of bounds. I didn't take a penalty because even though the ball traveled out of bounds, it came to rest back in bounds. No local rule governs that hole. Was I right?

 

Likewise, on another hole, a homeowner has a fence around his backyard. If my ball hits that fence, which is OB, then bounces back in bounds, can I play the ball from there?

 

Another one: If a ball comes to rest in a spot that normally is out of bounds, but the white stake is missing, and a straight line from the next nearest stakes on each side of the ball puts the ball in bounds (think of an obtuse triangle with the missing stake being the C angle), is it in or out?

 

Thanks for your help.

[jjj912]

Recently I shanked a tee shot on a par 3 that carried a street separating this hole from the next. The ball landed on the back of the tee for the next hole. The street, of course, was out of bounds. I didn't take a penalty because even though the ball traveled out of bounds, it came to rest back in bounds. No local rule governs that hole. Was I right?

 

You are correct. It is recommended that a local rule be established saying that in such a situation a ball crossing the road would be out of bounds regardless. See Decision 27/20.

 

Likewise, on another hole, a homeowner has a fence around his backyard. If my ball hits that fence, which is OB, then bounces back in bounds, can I play the ball from there?

 

Yes. Generally speaking, the only thing that counts is where the ball came to rest.

 

Another one: If a ball comes to rest in a spot that normally is out of bounds, but the white stake is missing, and a straight line from the next nearest stakes on each side of the ball puts the ball in bounds (think of an obtuse triangle with the missing stake being the C angle), is it in or out?

 

The ball is out of bounds. See Decision 33-2a/19.