[Mark_Rowlinson]

In an article written probably back in the 1920s JSF Morrison discussed bunkers.  Having praised the Principal's Nose bunkers on the 16th TOC and 4th at Woking, he adds a rider:

'Alas, the rule of making out-of-bounds a penalty of stroke and distance has already taken away a certain amount of interest from these holes and encourages golfers to play pawky.'

Would a reversion to the old OOB penalty improve those holes?  What would its effect be on golf architecture in general?

[ed_getka]

Mark,
   What was the old OOB rule? Like a lateral hazard?

[PThomas]

Mark,
   What was the old OOB rule? Like a lateral hazard?

Ed, I think you'd play another from your original spot without adding a penalty stroke

Ouimet hit one OB at one point during his Open win at TCC, I believe

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Ed,

If a ball be driven out of bounds, a ball shall be dropped at the spot from which the stroke was played, under penalty of loss of the distance.

Ruling of the U.S.G.A.

Penalty:
In match play, loss of the distance.
In medal play, loss of the distance.

In other words, if you hit your drive OOB, your next shot would be the second stroke, not the third as it is today.

[Kalen Braley]

Ed,

If a ball be driven out of bounds, a ball shall be dropped at the spot from which the stroke was played, under penalty of loss of the distance.

Ruling of the U.S.G.A.

Penalty:
In match play, loss of the distance.
In medal play, loss of the distance.

In other words, if you hit your drive OOB, your next shot would be the second stroke, not the third as it is today.

I'm all for that one,  distance penalty is enough.  Either way its inconsitent with the penalty for going into a lateral hazard.  Why not just take a drop near the point where it crossed the OB line?

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

The penalty for out of bounds is more severe because there is a chance you could hurt somebody if you hit one o.b., so they want to scare you into playing more conservatively and not taking that chance.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - why not drop like a lateral water hazard?

a) because OB lines are often harder to define - vagueness would result;

but more importantly:

b) because one needs to keep the penalty the same for lost ball and OB, given it's often very hard to tell if a ball went OB or was otherwise lost... and there's no way you can in complete fairness do lost ball penalty like hazard penalty, given there's no way to tell for sure exactly the point at which the ball was lost.

BTW, I understand completely this is the way 95% of casual golfers play the game - just drop one and take a stroke or two, depending on their interpretations - you just simply can't make the official rules this way - way too much vagueness would result.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

The penalty for out of bounds is more severe because there is a chance you could hurt somebody if you hit one o.b., so they want to scare you into playing more conservatively and not taking that chance.

Hi Tom,

You certainly make a great point there.  Given the choice of OB or a hazard off the same tee it certainly has that effect.

I guess this would also explain having on course OB for certain holes where a distance advantage can be gained by driving to a differnet fairway.  Perhaps a good design would never encourage this in the first place.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - methinks Tom was just kidding - although that is a good effect, I doubt the rulesmakers had this in mind.  

And yes, good design means no in-course OB.  But sometimes a very tight site requires such - only then would it be OK.. and even then it kinda sucks.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen - why not drop like a lateral water hazard?

a) because OB lines are often harder to define - vagueness would result;

but more importantly:

b) because one needs to keep the penalty the same for lost ball and OB, given it's often very hard to tell if a ball went OB or was otherwise lost... and there's no way you can in complete fairness do lost ball penalty like hazard penalty, given there's no way to tell for sure exactly the point at which the ball was lost.

BTW, I understand completely this is the way 95% of casual golfers play the game - just drop one and take a stroke or two, depending on their interpretations - you just simply can't make the official rules this way - way too much vagueness would result.

TH

Hi Tom,

While it is true this is the often the case, most courses I've played either have a fence or boundary stake every 50 yards or so.  Point taken though.

The lost ball comparison is interesting though especailly when it comes to many desert tracks that effectivly have lateral hazards to the side of every fairway and green.  Whether they are marked as such can make all the difference in the world.  If its marked as a lateral and you lose your ball in it, then you don't suffer the distance penalty, but if it isn't, then lost ball comes into play.

I guess alot of this arbitrary, but often wish there could be more consitency.

And yes for the record, I always plays a provisional ball when in doubt about whether my ball went OB or not.  I wish more players would do this so they wouldn't have to compromise the OB rule, because especailly on a public course, its often impractical for pace of play to walk back to the tee and re-hit.  

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen - methinks Tom was just kidding - although that is a good effect, I doubt the rulesmakers had this in mind.  

And yes, good design means no in-course OB.  But sometimes a very tight site requires such - only then would it be OK.. and even then it kinda sucks.

TH

Hey I was convinced Tom,  I try avoid OB with the same amount of fervor as the dreaded 3 putt...

[JohnV]

The history of the out-of-bounds rule has gone back an forth a bit.  Below is the history from the ruleshistory.com website:

Out of Bounds
The term out of bounds was first defined in 1899 as being outside the recognised boundaries of the course. Penalty distance only.

1908 Redefined as all ground on which play is prohibited. Penalty distance only still, but may be changed to stroke and distance by local rule for both forms of play. Also, a ball out of bounds may be treated as lost by local rule, (i.e. lost hole in match play). This change was not adopted by the USGA until 1915, although the local rule adjustment was not incorporated.

1920 Stroke and distance, but now the penalty stroke may be remitted by local rule.

1947 USGA and 1950 R&A. Distance only, and no provision for change by a local rule.

1952 Stroke and distance.

1960 USGA experimentally changed to distance only.

1961 USGA back to stroke and distance. in addition, the USGA allowed an alternative procedure of stroke only - dropping a ball within two club lengths of where the ball went out of bounds on courses where the penalty of stroke and distance would be "unduly severe".

1964 USGA allowed a local rule to be adopted which allowed a stroke-only option if it was felt that stroke and distance would be "'unduly severe."
The player could drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the original ball crossed the out of bounds line. Reasonable evidence was required both that the ball had gone out of bounds and as to the point of crossing. In the absence of either, stroke and distance was the only option.
Rescinded in 1968.

From the introduction of out of bounds, a ball was out of bounds when the greater part of it lay out of bounds. From 1950, all the ball has to be out.

When out of bounds is defined by a line, the line was in bounds until 1954.

The experiments with a less severe penalty have always been felt to be insufficient because the price that should be paid for hitting one off the property should be the most severe of all possibly penalties in the minds of the rules bodies.

From 1842 to 1846 a lost ball at St. Andrews was 3 strokes and distance.

[Pete Lavallee]

Would a reversion to the old OOB penalty improve those holes?  What would its effect be on golf architecture in general?

Getting back to Mark's original question, I think that OB strategy is completely lost on stroke play competitors. Arguably the 3 best examples of OB strategy are 16, 17 and 18 at TOC. However, whenever the Open Championship is played there we never see anyone go right of the Principle's Nose, not even John Daly, who never met a risk he wouldn't chance. No one drove close to the wall at the 17th either, chosing to lay well left or well back. Even when the hole was cut just to the right of the Valley of Sin at the home hole, not one single golfer attempted to drive down the right side close to the fence. And why not, well the penalty does not equal what could be gained by taking a chance. There has definetly been a loss of balance, which is perfectly explained by the various rules changes. Now for match play I can see someone taking such a risk if the situation warranted it.

[JohnV]

Pete,

Perhaps going left on those holes is so lacking in risk that the reward gained in going right doesn't justify the risk taken.  In other words, risk/reward is only worthwhile when the difference in gain is substantially greater than the risk differential.

With zero risk to the left as in #18 and the reward not nearly as much, why chance it?  Either there needs to be more risk to the left or more reward to the right.  This is where the call from some here to put a bunker to the left of the 18th green comes from.  Put a risk over there and the increase in balance of risks might make more players think about going right.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

The way things are at most courses I play, even provisional balls are pretty much frowned upon.  Of course that's the rule and the right way to play... but man I play with some guys that well, let's just say a "mercy rule" would be the best way to handle things.  That is, they might be there all day hitting provisionals if they actually have to find one sometimes.  I really do think there's a time and a place for strict enforcement of / adherence to the written rules, and a time where such should be treated casually.

Pete - concur with OB having zero effect on the big boys - hell even at Hoylake with OB everywhere they didn't exactly fear it, did they?  But for the rest of us it plays into things, oh yes it does...

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

The way things are at most courses I play, even provisional balls are pretty much frowned upon.  Of course that's the rule and the right way to play... but man I play with some guys that well, let's just say a "mercy rule" would be the best way to handle things.  That is, they might be there all day hitting provisionals if they actually have to find one sometimes.  I really do think there's a time and a place for strict enforcement of / adherence to the written rules, and a time where such should be treated casually.

Pete - concur with OB having zero effect on the big boys - hell even at Hoylake with OB everywhere they didn't exactly fear it, did they?  But for the rest of us it plays into things, oh yes it does...

TH

I suppose different strokes for different folks on this, but I've never heard anyone encouraging someone else not to take a provisional on a iffy drive.  But I suppose its relative when playing with a +20 something handicapper.

As far as not adhering to the rules?  Thats golfing heresy!!!  

I think Pete brought up a great point here that OB doesn't really belong on holes that are already risk/reward in nature because it throws everything out of skew.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:  trust me, you'd understand if you played with some of the players I did.  For reasons of sanity, moving on is the best idea.  Now of course in general it is heresy to encourage rule-breaking, but the rules weren't written with 40+ handicap hacks on very crowded courses in mind.  I firmly believe the rules were written for competition first and foremost.

Pete does bring up a good point; only problem is, how could you make rules to put this in practice?  Declare something not a boundary of the course when the hole has risk/reward elements?  Of course that can't be done... thus the preference surely ought to be designing holes in which OB is not an integral part of things, or if it is, make the punishment fit the crime.  That is, obviously boundaries of the course must exist most places; when they do, design accordingly, knowing the penalty for failure.  Seems pretty easy to do...

TH

[Matthew Hunt]

Can you make a Distanse only "local Rule"

[Tom Huckaby]

Can you make a Distanse only "local Rule"

Well we need rules expert JV or TEP or John Cullum to say for sure... but I'd be shocked if you could.  Seems a pretty fundamental rule.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:  trust me, you'd understand if you played with some of the players I did.  For reasons of sanity, moving on is the best idea.  Now of course in general it is heresy to encourage rule-breaking, but the rules weren't written with 40+ handicap hacks on very crowded courses in mind.  I firmly believe the rules were written for competition first and foremost.

Pete does bring up a good point; only problem is, how could you make rules to put this in practice?  Declare something not a boundary of the course when the hole has risk/reward elements?  Of course that can't be done... thus the preference surely ought to be designing holes in which OB is not an integral part of things, or if it is, make the punishment fit the crime.  That is, obviously boundaries of the course must exist most places; when they do, design accordingly, knowing the penalty for failure.  Seems pretty easy to do...

TH

Well I guess if you're local saturday match is with 40+ handicappers then thats a whole different animal.  Only question there is are you one of them?  

I suppose my thoughts have gotten lost somewhere in this thread, but all i'm really advocating here is that either take the stroke or the distance, not both  

If you go in a lateral hazard or OB, either way you've hit your ball where you shouldn't have, so the punishment should be similar.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:  while my swing looks like that of a 40+ handicapper and I think like one all too often, I can safely say I am not one.  

Now as for how this should go, I've already laid out why you can't make it just the stroke - that means dropping at the point the ball went OB.  Now as for making it distance only and no stroke, that is intriguing.  That would at least work in terms of no vagueness.  But as JV said already:


The experiments with a less severe penalty have always been felt to be insufficient because the price that should be paid for hitting one off the property should be the most severe of all possibly penalties in the minds of the rules bodies.


And that makes sense to me.  Make it distance only and you could have too many situations where OB is a PREFERRED outcome... and that just doesn't seem right.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:  while my swing looks like that of a 40+ handicapper and I think like one all too often, I can safely say I am not one.  

Now as for how this should go, I've already laid out why you can't make it just the stroke - that means dropping at the point the ball went OB.  Now as for making it distance only and no stroke, that is intriguing.  That would at least work in terms of no vagueness.  But as JV said already:


The experiments with a less severe penalty have always been felt to be insufficient because the price that should be paid for hitting one off the property should be the most severe of all possibly penalties in the minds of the rules bodies.


And that makes sense to me.  Make it distance only and you could have too many situations where OB is a PREFERRED outcome... and that just doesn't seem right.

TH

Tom,

I'm trying to think of a situation where only having a distance penalty, i.e. having to replay your shot from the last spot with no penalty stroke is the "preferred" outcome.

I would think the preferred outcome is to be in the fairway or on the green or somewhere in play?  Unless you mean it would be preffered to go OB instead of going into a lateral hazard?

Yes I would agree with you in principal about hitting the ball off the property.  But using that same logic, shouldn't going into the ocean off the tee at 18 at Pebble be OB instead of a lateral hazard?  I don't think anyone would suggest that the ocean belongs to the golf course?    

I know I know, I'll just crawl away into my dark little corner. Golf is full of all kinds of little exceptions, I just need to deal and move on...  

[Chris Cupit]

Can you make a Distanse only "local Rule"

Matt,

You could not make a local rule to that effect.

Rule 33.  The Committee,  makes it clear that, "The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf".  Thus, they could not amend Rule 27 and still be playing golf according to the USGA and R & A.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:  golf is filled with an infinite number of possible outcomes, or so it seems.  The rules try to cover this... but of course can't.  Thus we have principles that get invoked.  And JV's summation of why OB should be the highest penalty makes sense to me - as the worst offense it ought to mean the stiffest penalty.

So for me, that's enough to leave the rule as is.

BUT... as I say, the idea to make OB or lost ball distance only is intriguing and would work in general.  

Re the specific questions:


I'm trying to think of a situation where only having a distance penalty, i.e. having to replay your shot from the last spot with no penalty stroke is the "preferred" outcome.

I would think the preferred outcome is to be in the fairway or on the green or somewhere in play?  Unless you mean it would be preffered to go OB instead of going into a lateral hazard?


What I meant was make it distance only and the penalty might be less than a hazard situation... I too am struggling to come up with an example.. so strike this one.  

Yes I would agree with you in principal about hitting the ball off the property.  But using that same logic, shouldn't going into the ocean off the tee at 18 at Pebble be OB instead of a lateral hazard?  I don't think anyone would suggest that the ocean belongs to the golf course?    


They could very easily make that OB - the effect is pretty much the same on damn near all tee shots - think about it.  But that is pretty wet looking stuff, so even though it does mark a boundary of the course, it makes sense to me to call it hazard, especially since that works better in terms of playing the hole for all shots after the tee shot.  I actually think there is a decision or definition about what to do about water defining a boundary of the course though... didn't go look it up though, sorry.  

This is really interesting to me...

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Hey I've got one for you while we are on this topic.  This happened to me just last summer.

We were playing a course where they had some problems with gophers digging holes in the ground.  So I hit my tee shot off to the left and it went under some trees and into one of these holes.

The rub is, the holes appeared to have been filled in previously with dirt, but after watering and a few storms, the dirt settled so that the hole was now only "half full" so to speak.  My buddy said I have to take an unplayable lie because it is no longer a hole made by a burrowing animal because the grounds crew filled it in.  My claim was that it was still "techincally" a hole made by a burrowing animal and its not my fault the grounds crew did a shoddy job filling it in.  Hence I should get relief without penalty.  His counter claim was that even given that, it was not a hole made by a burrowing animal but rather a hole made by the rain and settling dirt.

So we never came to a consensus on this one.  Any thoughts from you Tom or anyone else?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()