[Randy Thompson]

I am having a discussion with a golf profesional at one of my courses. We both want the same thing, which is  for the course to play easier and faster. But we seem to disagree on how that should be achieved. This is a course created in sand dunes with Fairway widths vary from 45 yards to more than 100 yards. Once your outside these áreas the natural dessert terrain is sand with some native dessert vegetation for the most part but not too dense and always presents a challenging recovery shot and a few áreas where the vegetation is  more populated with dense shrubs. For now, the housing only enters in a few selected áreas and the course can be set up with little out of bounds. He has through the input of the Chilean Federation added out of bounds in eight holes where it is not necessary in my opinión and has done so to make the course play easier and faster. I have included below is an example of such an área.



Am I missing something, out of bounds creates a penalty in relation to stoke and distance! Yes, some high handicappers have trouble executing from the natural rough but how does making them start over créate an easier course and faster play?
 Below is another situation, one of the few áreas where you have to have out of bounds on the left because of the street. But, you can see the out of bounds stake on the right, one of the few áreas where the shrubs are dense enough to créate a lost ball situation. Once again, I feel creating out of bounds right just makes the tee shot more intimadating and when and if you find your ball and you are OB you must return to the tee if you have not hit a provisional. This is where the OB concept got started and I let it go but now there 8 additional holes with internal OB.
Are there any slope raters in the group that can tell me OB make the slope and difficulty rating increase? Does anybody see any logic to these OB situations creating faster play?

Sorry the stake got cropped converting to photobucket but its right on the right side of the photo!
Yes, we have removed the intimidating tall grass seen in this old photo.

[Thomas Dai]

Randy,


Earlier in the year I played a few games in Spain. A couple of the courses I played had some pretty unpleasant areas to the sides of the fairways, areas where you wouldn't really want someone to go looking for a ball or playing a shot from.


These areas were not designated OB however.


Instead they were edged by red hazard posts and red painted lines so the areas played not as OB stroke and distance but as take a penalty drop where the ball crossed the line and play on.


Seemed a popular approach with players I talked to and pace of play was kept up as nobody had to go back and reload from the spot the previous shot was played from.


Hope this is helpful.


Atb

[Matt_Cohn]

Faster, sure, if people just reload instead of searching for balls (but won't they go look for the ball OB anyway?).


But easier? I can't imagine how that would work unless lots of people used to endlessly flail around in the sand. Seems very odd.

[MClutterbuck]

I agree with Thomas, have it play lateral hazard so the players have a choice to drop one and not have to search for a ball if they do not want to. It might also lower traffic on areas that do not have irrigation and might suffer from traffic. Having said that, there is no dangereous wildlife there probably so no harm in allowing people to come in and play.

[Jason Topp]

I agree with Thomas, have it play lateral hazard so the players have a choice to drop one and not have to search for a ball if they do not want to. It might also lower traffic on areas that do not have irrigation and might suffer from traffic. Having said that, there is no dangereous wildlife there probably so no harm in allowing people to come in and play.

While that might be a practical solution it would be inconsistent with the rules.  See the definition of Water Hazard.

[Jon Wiggett]

I agree with Thomas, have it play lateral hazard so the players have a choice to drop one and not have to search for a ball if they do not want to. It might also lower traffic on areas that do not have irrigation and might suffer from traffic. Having said that, there is no dangereous wildlife there probably so no harm in allowing people to come in and play.

While that might be a practical solution it would be inconsistent with the rules.  See the definition of Water Hazard.

Jason,

certainly in a lot of Europe you can declare any area to be a 'Biotop' which is treated the same as a water hazard.

Jon

[Randy Thompson]

I like the idea of bio top for the área that has dense shrubs and potential to eat balls, if it would some how enter under normal rules of golf. I also feel it is clear, the rest of the internal out of bounds should be removed in order to speed play and make the course play less difficult.

[Jim Lipstate]

I think a lot of courses (especially residential lined courses) would benefit by changing out of bounds stakes to envoirmentally sensitive demarcations. The play would then be similar to that of a lateral hazard with the exception that the player is not allowed to play a ball from the envoirmentally sensitive area. This would prevent a golfer from playing out of someone's flowerbeds or backyard but negate the necessity of requiring the golfer to replay his previous shot. This would speed play and protect private property.

[Matthew Petersen]

I agree with Thomas, have it play lateral hazard so the players have a choice to drop one and not have to search for a ball if they do not want to. It might also lower traffic on areas that do not have irrigation and might suffer from traffic. Having said that, there is no dangereous wildlife there probably so no harm in allowing people to come in and play.

While that might be a practical solution it would be inconsistent with the rules.  See the definition of Water Hazard.

Jason,

certainly in a lot of Europe you can declare any area to be a 'Biotop' which is treated the same as a water hazard.

Jon

Many desert courses also employ a local "desert rule" that declares all desert areas to be a lateral hazard. Thus, if you can find your ball and play it, you may. If you can't find it, you don't have to go all the way back to a tee.

[Dave McCollum]

Randy,

I'm no rules wonk or course rater.  On our course I did more or less what you preferred:  that is, changed white stakes to red to speed up play.  I did it on three holes (with a remote water hazard) and pulled the whites on another with a road and plenty of trouble.  Shortly after we were re-rated and our course and slope ratings went down (as in being an easier course, based largely on distance).  It played exactly the same.  The only difference is that our members handicaps went up and, without any investigation, I assume gave them a slight advantage.  From the middle tees the rating went down to 67.1 from 6028 yards.  We have 7 tricky par 4's between 3-400 yards, so a 67 is a very rare score (not a course record, but close to the best ever posted).  Is that a problem?  Not for me, but maybe to someone (vanity handicaps?).  To, say, a 10 handicap that means you have to break 80 a lot to maintain it.  From the back tees it went down to 70.2, an equally rare score.  Since you asked, does it matter?  I'll leave that to you.     

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

I agree with Thomas, have it play lateral hazard so the players have a choice to drop one and not have to search for a ball if they do not want to. It might also lower traffic on areas that do not have irrigation and might suffer from traffic. Having said that, there is no dangereous wildlife there probably so no harm in allowing people to come in and play.

While that might be a practical solution it would be inconsistent with the rules.  See the definition of Water Hazard.

Jason,

certainly in a lot of Europe you can declare any area to be a 'Biotop' which is treated the same as a water hazard.

Jon

I know it is boring to talk about the rules, but it is necessary to make some clarifications. I assume when you refer to "biotop" you mean an environmentally-sensitive area (ESA). It is not enough to declare an area just as an ESA (see decision 33-8/41). It is necessary to determine if such an ESA is an abnormal ground condition, a water hazard (or lateral water hazard) or out of bounds. Relief is different for each of them. The referred decision expressly states: "However, the Committee may not define the area [ESA] as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard unless it is, by Definition, a water hazard".

Thus, it is not accurate to say that a "biotop" (assuming you refer by that to an ESA) plays as a water hazard, unless it is declared as such, which in this case would not be permissible under the rules.

[Randy Thompson]

Thanks for all the great input, we are getting to where I was hoping to get which are the following conclusions up to this point. Without a doubt the internal out of bounds is making the course play more difficult and should be eliminated. Secondly, currently there are eight áreas designated as out of bounds and if you could justify these eight, then you would need to also designate 25 more similar other áreas that really present the same conditions. I really like the idea of eliminating all current OB´s and creating a local desert rule for the entire course and play all these areas as a lateral hazard. Ricardo, I understand what your saying but don´t we have the right to créate such a, Local rule or do you think I would have problems with the Chilean Federation during the open? Maybe I should run it by them first and get there reaction. But such a local rule if enacted should lower scores and speed up play. When the wind isn´t blowing it pretty easy to keep it in play but when the wind blows its a different story.

[Jon Wiggett]

Thus, it is not accurate to say that a "biotop" (assuming you refer by that to an ESA) plays as a water hazard, unless it is declared as such, which in this case would not be permissible under the rules.

Ricardo,

on mainland Europe a 'biotop' is often rare plant life or animal habitat that is the reason. You may not enter the area and so get relief with shot and drop penalty. If an ESA is neither OOB or a water hazard then what do you declare it as? If it is a water hazard or OOB then why do you need an ESA declaration

Jon

Jon

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

Randy,

If the Chilean Golf Federation is going to host a tournament in your course, they will mark it the way they believe is proper. However, for day to day play it would be a good idea to check with them. I don't agree with the professional that OoB would speed up play. You could argue that if a ball is clearly out of bounds, the player would put another ball in play. However, this doesn't guarantee that the player would not look for the ball out of bounds. In addition, not all balls will be clearly out of bounds. Some will be close to the limits and players may play a provisional and then discover that the ball was inbounds, thus wasting time by playing the second ball. Worse, they may not play a provisional and then find that their ball is out of bounds and have to go back to play a second ball.

In my view it is even less likely that the course would play easier with such an out of bounds. I may be mistaken, but I don't see how narrowing the area inbounds can make a course easier.

Jon,

My explanation wasn't clear enough. What I meant is that you can't just declare an area as an ESA and by doing that a player gets automatic relief. You need to declare the ESA either as a water hazard (or lateral water hazard), ground under repair or out of bounds. Since this particular area is not a water hazard, the Decisions do not allow you to declare it as such. Thus, the only solution, if you want the players to get free relief from such area, is to mark it as ground under repair. You could additionally prohibit play from such area. I don't know if that would speed up play, because the players would look for their balls anyway (unless they are so wealthy that they don't care about loosing balls).

Cheers

[Jon Wiggett]

Ricardo,

then as I stated in my previous post if an ESA needs to be either a water hazard (or lateral water hazard), ground under repair or out of bounds anyway what's the point of it. Why not just declare it as either a water hazard (or lateral water hazard), ground under repair or out of bounds.

The point of a 'biotop' is to designate an area of the course that is environmentally sensitive, to give the golfer relief from this area and often to make it forbidden to enter the designated area.

Jon

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

Jon,

The point is the same you describe for a biotop. But the rules assume that an ESA is something declared as such by an authority, not by a golfing entity such as a club. In other words, an authority declares an area as an environmentally sensitive area and such an area is within a golf course. Thus, the club needs to react to such declaration and avoid play from such area.

In the Rules there is no definition of an ESA and, thus, no relief is granted because an area is an ESA. The matter is treated in Decision 33-8/41: "If an appropriate authority prohibits entry into and/or play from an area for environmental reasons, it is the Committee's responsibility to decide whether an environmentally sensitive area should be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds". Although it is not expressly stated, but it is clear that the Decision assumes that the area has been declared as an ESA by the relevant authority and, due to such declaration, the club needs to deal with the matter from a golfing perspective.

The Decision goes on saying that you may not declare the area as water hazard, unless it complies with the definition of water hazard, which in the case of Randy's course it does not.

In addition, at the end of the Decision it is stated that such an area should be fenced or the like, in order to prevent players from entering the area.

Applying this to the case of Randy's course in Chile, declaring an area which is not ESA as such is unnecessary to deal with the issue presented by those areas and perhaps even against Decision 33-8/41. They should be treated as ground under repair, out of bounds or leave them as they are now.

I hope this clarifies the issue from the point of view of the rules.

Best,

[Jon Wiggett]

Ricardo,

sorry for the slow uptake but a bit clearer now. I am not sure how sensible erecting a fence is as although it might stop the golfer it will also impede any larger fauna's free movement which kind of negates the reason for an environmentally sensitive area. Better to have signs and consequent enforcement of the rules.

Jon

[Randy Thompson]

Ricardo,
But as I understand it the club has within its rights to make a local rule for whatever reason it may find necessary and that local ruling takes presidence. The pro´s point of view is that when a high handicapper gets thirty yards out in the sand, it takes them five strokes to get back to the fairway. OB in not the solution as i have stated, however creating a local rule, suena bien! Many high handicappers know this going in and if they had the option of taking a stroke penalty and dropping where it entered but on grass, most would take the option of dropping, thus speeding up play and making the course less difficult for the high handicappers. If the wind picks up during a tournament currently your looking at six hours for eighteen holes and thats not fun anywhere, under any circumstances IMO.

[Jon Wiggett]

Randy,

as far as I know, a local rule may not contradict a rule of golf so a may not just make up what ever rule it wants and ignore the rules as laid down by the governing bodies of the game.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()