Golf for Dummies - Out of Bounds Rule

[Lou_Duran]

Golf is a serious game played strictly under the rules by a very small minority of golfers.  I share Pat Mucci's and Bob Huntley's sentiments, particularly when playing tournaments or betting.  At the same time, I see no real harm done by casual golfers taking a few liberties with the rules.

Golf's rules are at times very punitive and archaic.  The game is supposed to be fun and played without delay.  It is one thing for the tour players and competitive amateurs to know and abide strictly by the rules.  It is quite another for the Thursday night hackers' league trying to get around before dark.

How many of us have played in member-guests and club tournaments when any number of the USGA rules were waived?  And with the advent of environmetal sensitivity, many courses allow the native vegetation to overtake areas which previously would have been occasionally mown.  If these were not played as lateral hazards as they often are, it would take forever to play and most players' scores would go way up.  This would not be conducive for golf as a business, nor, in my opinion, for the game.

So, Bob, if I give you a favorable drop or ask you how to play a hole, don't think badly of me or assess some penalty strokes.  Ditto if I inadvertantly pick up a putt well in the leather out of habit.

The rules of golf have been effectively bifurcated a long time ago.  It is time to do the same with regard to the equipment and, more importantly, the ball.  Wasn't it Weir who flew the ball to #10 green at Riviera?  Disgusting.  

[JohnV]

It is one thing for the tour players ... to know ... the rules.

If only they did Lou.

An interesting story I recently heard is that when the PGA decided to define all the sandy areas at Whistling Straights as bunkers, one of the starters said that the only player who asked about it or mentioned it was Tiger Woods.  He was the only one who read the local rules and wanted to make sure he understood them.

I don't believe the rules are archaic, they have evolved over the years.  They are what they are because golf is played over a vast area with all kinds of strange things that can occur.  The rules are there to both help and protect us from others.  There are times that lines are "drawn in the sand" that might seem arbitrary, but the bodies that create the rules give them a lot of thought.

Since this started out as a thread about OB, I think it is interesting that for may years a ball was considered out of bounds if more than 50% of it was out.  Today all of it must be out.  I'm sure there were some good arguments about 51% vs 49%.

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

OK, gotcha man.  Love it, live it, believe it.

Only this:  on those days where I don't absolutely follow the rules to the strict letter of such... well... what do I tell my wife I was doing?  What do you tell your wife?

 

[Lou_Duran]

All these years I thought that I was playing golf.  But you, Mr. Schmidt, what game have you been playing?  Are the words large and cross-country in the name?

Mr. Huckaby, please take note.  As what I've been doing for a long time is something else besides golf, an adjustment to my handicap is in order.  Whatever it is, it must be an easier, more liberal version of the game which renders my 5 a vanity handicap.  I am now coming out of the closet, admit that I am a 12, and promise to play strictly by all the rules.

So, for purposes of the KPIV, please re-flight me.  Also, when I knock a drive into the weeds and I am not sure if it can be found, I will not hit a provisional.  Instead, I'll use the five minutes after I get to the general area where my ball may be, look for it in earnest, and declare it lost if the search is not successful.  I'll then walk briskly back to the tee and hit my third shot.  Upon leaving the tee quickly, I will inform the two foursomes stacked-up waiting impatiently to hit that I am playing golf, a game of gentlemen and rules, and that if they don't like it, they should just f---- off.  I am assuming that all other 17 players in our group will come to my rescue.

JohnV,

The way you feel about the rules of golf, their derivation through considerable thought over long periods of time, is how I feel about society's laws, mores, practices, etc.  The distilling process of generations should not be taken lightly.

It is a reason why I just nod my head when all these 21 year olds think that they know how things should be, and have no qualms about destroying our most valued institutions.  It is amazing just how much we knew when we were young, and how little we realize we actually know when we get old.

Long live the rules of golf and the deliberate, thoughtful, and time consuming process that it takes before they are tampered with.  Kudos to those who do it on our behalf, and to people like yourself who educate the rest of us on this most important but rather tedious aspect of the game.

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Duran:

I believe we are copacetic about this issue.  In fact I have no doubt what we are.

But I do want an answer from shivas to my questions, that's all.  He comes up with doozies when challenged, particularly when one asks for creativity (which I am).

 

[Jerry Kluger]

I think you guys have to step back, take a breath and focus on what the question at hand is: Should there be a change in the stroke and distance penalty which is assessed for a ball out of bounds or a lost ball, and if so, how should it be changed or modified.  No other rule changes are on the table and any other rules violations are not the issue.  John V has given a very inciteful and historical perspective on the rule but that doesn't mean that we can't consider if changing it would be good or bad for the game.  The question is what is the benefit of such a change versus what is the downside of such a change.  Don't say if we change this rule then other rules will be changed because they aren't being considered for the purpose of this discussion.        

[JohnV]

Reasonable evidence of a ball being in a hazard would be something like a creek that crosses a fairway and the ball was hit right down the middle.  You don't have to see it go in.  If you get there and there is no ball it probably went in.

Decision 26-1/1 Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 26/1

The term "reasonable evidence" in Rule 26-1 is purposely and necessarily board so as to permit sensible judgement to be reached on the basis of all relevant circumstances of particular cases.  As applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard.  The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard.  Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost under Rule 27-1.  Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it.  For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep rough in the area.  Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of hazards.  It would depend on all the circumstances.

There are lawyers who will tell you that preponderance means 51%, but the USGA teachers at Rules Workshops will tell you that they mean 95% or so.  In other words, it has to be highly unlikely that it could be anywhere else.

[JohnV]

Jerry, it does matter because the rules offer a continum of consequences.  If the OB rule is eased, other rules would also need to be modified (water hazard and unplayable for example).

Some are arguing that the reason to change the rule is because the pace of play is too slow.  I would argue that the PGA has balls lost or hit OB very infrequently and still have an awful pace of play.   I would also argue that more time is spent searching for the ball than in going back to hit another ball.  In my opinion, pace of play, in and of itself, is not a good reason to make this significant a change.  If pace of play is the issue, I would prefer to see the time spent looking for a ball lowered to 2 minutes than see the removal of the need to return to the where the previous shot was played.  I would bet that in ordinary play, a lot more time than 5 minutes is spent looking for balls.  That is also true in tournaments such as the ones we run, if an official is not there to tell them when time is up.

On average a player who puts his glove on before each full shot spends 6 minutes a round putting on his glove.  He would have to lose a ball or two every round just to equal this.  Four guys in a group waste 24 minutes with this alone.  You can tell this is a pet peeve, but then I don't wear a glove.

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

VERY good.  I knew I'd get some wisdom from you.

And I should have remembered - you classified it this way before:  big G and little g.  Makes sense.

BTW, if you believe my wife would ever fall for "I'm gonna be at a meeting," well... she's not at all naive, but more importantly, actually does know me.

 

TH

[Jerry Kluger]

John: I appreciate your opinion and please understand that I am in no way directing this discussion to you personally.  However, pointing to how slow tour players are does not address this issue and you can put on or take off your glove while other players are playing or lining up their shots so it should not hold up play.  If you hit your ball off line and it is lost or OB then you are probably the furthest from the hole.  This means that while you are searching for your ball the other players would, under most circumstances, either be helping you search or waiting for you to play.  When you then go back to the tee and play your shot they are still waiting and they must get out of the way of your shot and could have to wait for you to play your next shot should you still be away. (Just as an aside what would happen if you went back to the teeing ground and your ball hit another member of your group or how about their equipment or how about your bag which you left when you walked back and how about if it appeared that your ball was going to hit your bag and a fellow competitor moved your bag--the questions and the rules could get really complex and I will be the first to admit that I am not sure of the rule.)But getting back to the simple and basic question: If every player who went to Bandon to play the courses decided that they would follow the stroke and distance rule for lost balls, would that increase the average playing time per round, and if so, by how much, and would that be significant enough to consider, and only consider, a change/modification of the rules.  I would be very interested in the opinion of the folks at Bandon of how much they believe a strict following of this rule would effect the length of the average round at their courses.

[peter_p]

Jerry,
Can you edit your post #33. JvdB was "insightful", not 'inciteful'

[Jerry Kluger]

Peter: I stand corrected.

[TEPaul]

"Today's rule for a Lost Ball is similar to what was originally intended but it too has done the same flip-flop as the OB rule. From 1961 on it firmly became a stroke and distance penalty."

JimK;

They flip-flopped around some in the early 1960s with the penalty and procedure of OB and Lost Ball but henceforth the two will always be the same penalty and procedure for the very simple reason that it's often impossible to tell which it is! so logically they have to be connected the way they are.  

[TEPaul]

The rule and penalty that always sort of disturbed me is the penalty for moving your ball during search other than in a hazard. I went round and round with a formal proposal on that with the USGA about a decade ago. In my mind, the rule doesn't exactly follow logically due to the exception they made for moving your ball during search in a hazard.

Believe me I understand why they had to except the penalty for moving your ball during search in a hazard but why in the world they couldn't continue that logic for a ball moved during search other than in a hazard is sort of beyond me---at least if it's just logic we're talking about. Don't get me wrong---I know damn well why they didn't carry the logic through and except the penalty for moving a ball during search other than in a hazard----it's because they were afraid it might open the door to cheating. But of course they wouldn't admit that to me, they wouldn't admit it at all---and they never will!

During the correspondence on my proposal they finally came back and said the reason they couldn't except the penatly for moving a ball during search other than in a hazard, like they did in hazard, was because the player may not know where to replace the ball. So I told them about the same way the player knows where to replace the ball when he moves it during search in a hazard.

I guess that was too logical for them because that was basically the last I heard on it!    

[peter_p]

At Trysting Tree (Corvallis OR) in the NCAA West Regionals the 15th hole has right side trees, thick rough and a river. A player hit right and insisted his ball was in the hazard. He spent most of his time searching the 4-5" rough. We ruled there was not sufficient evidence it was in the hazard. After a biy of grousing he went back and rehit. Walking up the left side of the fairway he found his original, richoceted ball forty yards left and out of sight from the search area.

[A_Clay_Man]

So Peter, is his original ball still in play? or had he not found it in time? And if there was no evidence it went into the hazard he could've hit a provisional ball before exiting the teeing ground?


To answer the original posit:

It's possible to play it the way you want to (not under the rules but as an alternative understood by you or the group). But instead of a one stroke penalty, it should be two. In other words, your hitting 4 wherever you throw it down.

With the maximum stroke allowed for your respective handicap, there should be no affect, so it may not be stricly kosher, it ain't no mortal sin.

[Dan Herrmann]

USGA Specimen Local Rule on provisional ball that may be in a hazard:

 b. Provisional Ball
Permitting play of a provisional ball under Rule 26-1 for a ball that may be in a water hazard of such character that if the original ball is not found, there is reasonable evidence that it is lost in the water hazard and it would be impracticable to determine whether the ball is in the hazard or to do so would unduly delay play. The ball is played provisionally under any of the available options under Rule 26-1 or any applicable Local Rule. In such a case, if provisional ball is played and the original ball is in a water hazard, the player may play the original ball as it lies or continue with the provisional ball  in play, but he may not proceed under Rule 26-1 with regard to the original ball.

[JohnV]

So Peter, is his original ball still in play? or had he not found it in time? And if there was no evidence it went into the hazard he could've hit a provisional ball before exiting the teeing ground?

Adam, the original ball is lost as soon as you make a stroke at a substituted ball.  He probably felt it was in the hazard and so didn't hit a provisional.

[JohnV]

Tom, that one always got me also.  I never felt it was fair, especially since when the grass is so long that the only way you'll find it is to step on it.  But, I guess it forces the player to be a little more careful about how he searches and doesn't just go thrashing into the bushes tearing up everything and potentially improving his lie in the process.

[JohnV]

Sean, the rule is identical (as are all rules in the rule book these days).  The Decision that I quoted is also identical.

I guess it is similar to ruling on the guilt of a person.  It is a question of fact(s) whether they committed the crime but it only has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the US.

Reasonable evidence does leave some wriggle room, but as I said, you still have to be damn sure (95-98%) that it is in the hazard.

Blind hazards are a problem.  If they have high grass or bushes around them you really can't assume it is in the water hazard.

It is for reasons like this that I dislike them.  When I'm marking a golf course, I will expand the water hazard to include the long grass to eliminate the problem if it won't materially change the course too much.

[JohnV]

Jerry, I agree that looking for a ball takes time, as does going back to the tee to hit another one.  But it also happens a lot less frequently than a lot of other things that add up to much more time in a round of golf.  

The glove thing is a silly example, but one that shows how a small thing can add up to a lot of time.  From what I've seen most golfers don't put their glove on until it is their turn to hit, not while another player is hitting.

As for Bandon, anyone can see where the trouble is and should be smart enough to play a provisional.  If they do, the time wouldn't be appreciably longer than the time spent searching.

As for the second ball hitting someone or something, it depends on who.  If it is a stroke play event and it is a fellow competitor, there is no penalty and the ball  is played as it lies since a fellow competitor is an outside agency.  If it is your partner or caddie, it is a two stroke penalty in stroke play or loss of hole in match play (or in a partner event, you are out of the hole, but your partner can continue).  If it is your opponent in match play you can either play the ball as it lies or replay the shot, your choice.  All those apply to equipment also.  See Rule 19 for all of that.

If your ball is about to hit your bag or someone elses and it is moved there is no penalty.  Rule 25 allows equipment to be moved while a ball is in motion.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, that one always got me also.  I never felt it was fair, especially since when the grass is so long that the only way you'll find it is to step on it.  But, I guess it forces the player to be a little more careful about how he searches and doesn't just go thrashing into the bushes tearing up everything and potentially improving his lie in the process."

JohnV:

I never really looked at it as not fair, just not at all logical.

More than anything it's a good example of how rules evolve. There's no less reason to think someone won't thrash around in a hazard probing for his ball than "through the green". I actually know the man who says the exception of penalty for moving a ball during search within a hazard was done for an incident involving him. It was Skee Riegal.

Previously, being a penalty to even touch the ground in a hazard at all it was possible obviously for a player to become virtually trapped if he knew, for instance, his ball had gone into the sand in a bunker but he couldn't see it and couldn't touch the ground in the hazard. That essentially was the situation with Riegal, I think, in the Masters, precipitating a change in the rule.

And so they made the exception that you could probe for your ball in a hazard and if you moved it there was no penalty and you simply acted on the procedure under that exception.

I told the USGA Rules committee that the same was true "through the green" and frankly it wasn't logical that a player effectively was given a lighter penalty and procedure in a place that was logically more inherently penal (hazard) than "through the green" is intended to be.

They certainly understood that but they just kept reiterating that the only reason to create the exception in a hazard in the first place was because a golfer couldn't touch the ground in a hazard as he certainly can do "through the green".

But they didn't go for that so I tried to convince them using a rationale that generally does get their attention----eg speed of play.

I pointed out that the sensible golfer using his head "through the green" can and generally is extremely diiberate searching for his ball basically creating a waste of time and slow play--and that furthermore being that dilberate in searching "through the green" often precipitates a lost ball as the five minute time period runs out forcing him to return to the tee for stroke and distance really taking time!

The two incidents of Norman basically not searching for his ball behind ANGC's #12 is such an example and a better one was Watson and Bruce Edwards heard on tape mentioning that they would just take their sweet time getting to the area Watson's ball was in at the British Open so as not to start the five minute clock as spectators and others went thrashing around looking for the ball before they got there.

The speed of play argument almost got their attention to consider following through on the logic but not quite. In the end I just said to Butz that it was really opening up the whole situation of cheating that really stopped them and I think he said that was part of it but that wasn't or couldn't be the reason they gave as basically they don't actually mention the prospect of cheating within the Rules book.

[JohnV]

Tom, by fair I really did mean logical in regards to the fact that there is no penalty in the hazard so why should there be one outside.

The one thing I didn't understand at first about that was the if you move the ball while searching in the hazard, it must be directly attributable to the search to avoid a penalty.  In other words, if you are digging in the sand and move the ball, not penalty.  If you kick it while you are digging, there is a penalty.  When I first got into the rules I thought you were always absolved from penalty if you moved the ball in a hazard while searching.

The way the rule works today, you are better off declaring your ball unplayable before searching for it outside a hazard so that you won't be penalized for moving it.  Retief Goosen did that before sending his caddie up the tree at La Costa last month.  He knew there was no way he could have played it, but he had to find it to use the second or third options of the unplayable ball rule and he didn't want a penalty for moving it if it fell out of the tree.

Certainly, if there are plenty of others looking for your ball as you walk up the fairway it makes sense to walk slowly ala Watson.  

To me, the concern is that if a player can go willy-nilly through the brush looking for his ball, he will end up improving his lie as he rips grass aside or tramples down areas in his rush to find his ball.  I guess I'd rather have a player get one for moving his ball than 2 for improving his lie.

[Dave_Miller]

Mark Brown,

When the rules are broken at leisure, the game ceases to be golf.

Amend one rule for convenience and soon the domino principle will affect them all.

There's a good reason why the rule have formed and evolved over these many centuries.

Pat,

Thank you for your succint reply. Why is it that the rules are so hard to follow? They are there, live with them.

Bob and Pat:
Well said.  While the rules can be complicated at times the rules of golf are very fair and should be followed to the letter.
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Good point about the "directly attributable" to a search you mentioned. All I'm saying is at the very least the two----"hazards" and "Through the green" should be connected as to their penalies and procedures. It simply follows logic better instead of just completely stopping at the very thing that created the exception in the first place--eg hazards. It's really just a matter of failing to carry a logic through in a broad "like situations shall be treated alike" sense which as you know is a large part of the rules of golf's "equity" philosophy.