[Jim Lipstate]

I was reading the thread on course routing pet peeves and decided to launch a related discussion. One of my biggest peeves is playing a residential golf course with hole after hole lined by OB white stakes often encroaching tightly on the course. Playing as a lateral hazard would be better but red stakes allow a player to swipe at his ball out of a homeowner’s lawn or flower bed.


I think golf needs a new designation allowing a local rule for situations like this akin to environmental sensitive area stakes which play prevent the golfer from entering and taking a stroke. Call it a subdivision sensitive area or something similar. Play it as a lateral hazard but disallow play beyond the stakes in someone’s back yard. It would speed play and still protect homeowners.


Are there currently any provisions in the rules for such designation and if not do the powers that be need to consider allowing courses some flexibility?


I know there are provisions to take a two stroke penalty and drop adjacent to where your ball went out of bounds. I think that is appropriate for true OB areas bordering the course but seems overly penal for the type of courses I am referring to.I don’t much care for playing residential courses in general but seeing hole after hole of white stakes on the interior corridors always knocks down a course in my estimation no matter how good a hole or routing otherwise. Any thoughts on the matter?

[Bill Shamleffer]

A new rule is not needed to implement this course status.


Under current rules, those residential areas could today be designated at NoPlay zone Red Penalty Areas.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Good idea!

[JohnVDB]

As Bill said, there areas can be designated as NO Play Zones and red penalty areas.  Nobody could play from them, stand in them or even have their club contact them in playing a stroke.


BUT, while this is allowed, it isn’t recommended and it could lead to more liability to the course because players would use less caution since the penalty is less, resulting in more balls being hit homeowner’s property.

[Jim_Coleman]

   It’s not like I have that much control over my ball, but I can’t say I ever intentionally tried to be more aggressive because the penalty for missing was one shot rather than two. In the words of Bobby Jones, “That’s a game with which I’m not familiar.”

[JohnVDB]

   It’s not like I have that much control over my ball, but I can’t say I ever intentionally tried to be more aggressive because the penalty for missing was one shot rather than two. In the words of Bobby Jones, “That’s a game with which I’m not familiar.”

So, you wouldn’t take a tighter line on a par five around a lake vs. one around OB?

[Jim_Coleman]

   Not good enough. You’ve undoubtedly forgotten, John.

[Jim Lipstate]

I am glad to learn about that change. I hope more courses will institute the rule.

[JohnVDB]

One more reason not to do this, is if there areas on the course near the boundaries where a player could lose a ball, it would be unfair to penalize the player who loses a ball on the course more than the penalty for one who hit his ball off the course.

[Ronald Montesano]

I agree with the guy who chuckled at the notion of taking a tighter line. I don't think any golfer would ever say "Hey, penalty is less, I'm aiming at the lanai." We aren't talking railroad sheds here.

People who would aim anywhere near someone's property should be excommunicated from golf. Shape your ball differently or play a different course. No one forced you to play this resort/residential layout.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with the guy who chuckled at the notion of taking a tighter line. I don't think any golfer would ever say "Hey, penalty is less, I'm aiming at the lanai." We aren't talking railroad sheds here.

People who would aim anywhere near someone's property should be excommunicated from golf. Shape your ball differently or play a different course. No one forced you to play this resort/residential layout.

Are you kidding?  I bet it happens 5000x per day.


One of the things I was surprised and somewhat pleased to learn from my research for Memorial Park and the statistics done by Scott Fawcett et al., was that their recommendation for good players to aim 32.5 yards away from penalty is pretty much the line of instinct that I have employed for years on many famous holes.  [For example, my aiming point on the 18th hole at North Berwick paced out at 33 yards from the o.b.]


Of course, I would miss it o.b. more than 1% of the time . . . probably more like 5% of the time, although I've hit at least twenty tee shots there and don't remember hitting a car yet.  Realistically, I'm not a Tour player, so I can't use a 1% margin of error, and there's less money at stake in shooting my lowest score as there is for theirs.  Better still, I discovered that the key little hollow on the right front of the green and the crowned contour right in front come together at 33 yards from the fence.


Most of the old housing-development courses from the 60s and 70s were built in 300-foot corridors between houses.  Do you aim at the dead center of that no matter what the hole is doing?  I doubt you do; you will aim more like 100 feet away from whichever boundary you perceive as the better line.  And you'll hit it o.b. 1% or 5% or 10% of the time.  Would you aim differently if they changed the penalty for o.b.?  Probably not.  But the better player with $ on the line probably would.


Unfortunately, what matters in U.S. law is what 12 random jurors might think, and 10 of the 12 are likely to be on the side of the homeowner.  So, most developers would be scared to death of a change to the penalty for o.b., and rightly so.  And the USGA does not want to get sued over every injury lawsuit, so they are NOT going to change the stroke-and-distance penalty, anymore than the ASGCA is going to weigh in on a standard for safe golfing corridors.  To do so would guarantee they get added to every lawsuit involving golf course boundary issues, and the USGA is full of lawyers who understand that reality.


What a country!

[Thomas Dai]

Roll the bloody ball back and it won’t go as far offline.
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

The rules of golf don't exist to preserve things whose creation was questionable in the first place.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I agree with the guy who chuckled at the notion of taking a tighter line. I don't think any golfer would ever say "Hey, penalty is less, I'm aiming at the lanai." We aren't talking railroad sheds here.

It's proper strategy. Absolutely lower handicappers in particular are aiming closer to a red penalty area than to OB.

Roll the bloody ball back and it won’t go as far offline.

But then y'all want it to curve more, too, so…

[Ronald Montesano]

Yes, Tom, I am serious.

If people aim intentionally at houses, they also treat pets poorly and were probably bullied as children. People who bring danger intentionally into play, without strategy, have way more baggage to unpack than folks who are properly wired. The problem, then, falls to our legal system and to the enthusiasm of the course for banning the golfer until the case is resolved.

Regarding Erik's point, the better the player, the less likely (by a lot!) that the edgy shot will cause damage.

Regardless of whether the living spaces are designated as this or that, the next shot will still be played from the point where it crossed into the penalty area (and not where it finished.) Better players will determine if this is the risk is worth the reward. As for the other arseholes, see the green wording above.

[Robin_Hiseman]

I don't get the logic in allowing golfers to tee it up again and risk hitting it OOB over and over. Requiring them to drop under penalty further down the hole, thereby reducing the risk of incursions into adjoining homes is surely more logical...and safer.

[Tom_Doak]

If people aim intentionally at houses, they also treat pets poorly and were probably bullied as children. People who bring danger intentionally into play, without strategy, have way more baggage to unpack than folks who are properly wired. The problem, then, falls to our legal system and to the enthusiasm of the course for banning the golfer until the case is resolved.

Regarding Erik's point, the better the player, the less likely (by a lot!) that the edgy shot will cause damage.

Regardless of whether the living spaces are designated as this or that, the next shot will still be played from the point where it crossed into the penalty area (and not where it finished.) Better players will determine if this is the risk is worth the reward. As for the other arseholes, see the green wording above.

Well, if you are talking about actually aiming at the houses, yes I totally agree with you, although I did hit a ball over a house a couple of times in my youth.


But then in blue you talk about the risk and reward of aiming somewhere close to the fence line, and if the penalty is less, wouldn't one expect some players to aim closer?


I have never thought about Robin's point about making the player hit the dangerous shot again if he goes o.b. the first time.  That's a valid argument. 


In the real world, of course, lots of golfers just drop a ball up there near the line and score it like a lateral hazard.

[jeffwarne]

When it's houses both sides, which side exactly is it I'm taking a tighter line to?
Sadly, this is why strategic centerlines with options don't really work on courses where both sides is lost ball/OB.
The "preferred angle" is rarely worth the potential two shot loss.
We face this at The Bridge where the native is native and unfindable(while quite beautiful) I will say I enjoy watching the women navigate around via power alleys, over , or short of centerline bunkers, with zero fear of hitting it far enough to reach the native.
Younger more athletic 12's have a much, much higher risk than reward when attempting the strategically advantaged line, due to the sheer capability of reaching the native(or OB), and really should be aiming at the center of the corridor, even if it's populated by a bunker.


As Thomas states, some of this could be restored by having that athletic 12 missing it 230 yards out rather than 270.


and Robin nailed it. Why have them retee and risk another home?
His argument alone should BURY the nonsense that a red line will encourage more wild/aggressive play down housing lines-especially with OB both sides.
On your typical godawful both sides OB development course, the player frequenting the houses isn't aiming on a more advantaged or strategic line, he's aiming down the middle, and simply has little control of his ball, and has the ability to hit it farther than he used to offline due to longer lighter shafts and hot balls, and probably more athletically players in general playing the game.
He's not thinking about homeowners, he's simply playing the course, using the club that he thinks is best suited for the job.
Should he be? I'll let Ron opine on that, but balls are leaving courses and corridors at a higher rate than ever due to the sheer distances golfers hit it.
I hit a good drive yesterday and a superintendent half my age hit it 80 yards past me. There were probably 5 players in the world capable of hitting a balata ball with a 43 inch wooden driver that far in 1980-now there's 5-10 daily playing a your golf course, and only a select few of them know where it's going.
That DOESN'T mean they pull an iron or hybrid when they tackle a 550 yard par 5 with houses on both sides.
Perhaps they should, but they don't.

[Tom_Doak]

There were probably 5 players in the world capable of hitting a balata ball with a 43 inch wooden driver that far in 1980-now there's 5-10 daily playing a your golf course, and only a select few of them know where it's going.
That DOESN'T mean they pull an iron or hybrid when they tackle a 550 yard par 5 with houses on both sides.
Perhaps they should, but they don't.

Not only that, but most of them have learned recently that they should also pull driver on a 370-yard par-4, because statistical "strategy" means getting as close to the hole as you can.

[jeffwarne]

There were probably 5 players in the world capable of hitting a balata ball with a 43 inch wooden driver that far in 1980-now there's 5-10 daily playing a your golf course, and only a select few of them know where it's going.
That DOESN'T mean they pull an iron or hybrid when they tackle a 550 yard par 5 with houses on both sides.
Perhaps they should, but they don't.

Not only that, but most of them have learned recently that they should also pull driver on a 370-yard par-4, because statistical "strategy" means getting as close to the hole as you can.

Ugh-you're so right.
An important fact I left out.

[Sean_A]

I don't get the logic in allowing golfers to tee it up again and risk hitting it OOB over and over. Requiring them to drop under penalty further down the hole, thereby reducing the risk of incursions into adjoining homes is surely more logical...and safer.

Doc


I agree with you. It seems we are a rare breed in thinking that golfers don't have a right to whack balls into neighbouring properties just because its golf or the course was there first.


Ciao

[Jim Lipstate]

I don't get the logic in allowing golfers to tee it up again and risk hitting it OOB over and over. Requiring them to drop under penalty further down the hole, thereby reducing the risk of incursions into adjoining homes is surely more logical...and safer.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Ultimately safer and also moves the game along.

[Kyle Harris]

I don't get the logic in allowing golfers to tee it up again and risk hitting it OOB over and over. Requiring them to drop under penalty further down the hole, thereby reducing the risk of incursions into adjoining homes is surely more logical...and safer.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Ultimately safer and also moves the game along.

Logical solutions built on an illogical premise are not logical.

[Robin_Hiseman]

I don't get the logic in allowing golfers to tee it up again and risk hitting it OOB over and over. Requiring them to drop under penalty further down the hole, thereby reducing the risk of incursions into adjoining homes is surely more logical...and safer.

Doc


I agree with you. It seems we are a rare breed in thinking that golfers don't have a right to whack balls into neighbouring properties just because its golf or the course was there first.


Ciao

It is trespass. A golf course has no right to interfere with, or endanger a neighbouring landowner, regardless of who was there first. The only exception to this that I can think of is if there is a restrictive covenant with a house purchase deal as part of an estate development. The onus is always on the golf course to maintain safe play within its own boundaries. Golf has got away with it for a long time, but the issue is increasingly coming to the fore, especially for the older courses.

[Rob Marshall]

If you buy a house on an existing course where you can get hit by balls it wasn't a well thought out purchase. I'll stop short of saying you are an idiot. We have a lady who lives on your 2nd green that went to the town to complain about the mowers. She bought the house knowing there was a golf course in her backyard. Her house sits about 40 feet from a road where cars wiz by going 50 miles an hour. Directly across the street is a little league complex with 7 fields. Oh and did I mention the Skeet shooting club right next door to the little league fields........But the mower cutting a green for 10 minutes is a problem?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()