Alternative to OB lining hole after hole on residential golf courses

[Jim_Coleman]

   Many municipalities have ordinances prohibiting early morning mowing. I’m pretty sure we mow the greens at the borders last.

[Rob Marshall]

   Many municipalities have ordinances prohibiting early morning mowing. I’m pretty sure we mow the greens at the borders last.

It's 7:00 am in our town. Our crew sits behind the green until the clock ticks 7:00. It's the 2nd hole so it needs to be done as soon as possible. We pushed our first tee time back 15 minutes. Course has been there for 60 years. First time we've ever had a complaint.

[Duncan Cheslett]

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.


If a golfer hits a tee shot OB onto an adjoining property he must reload, with the distinct possibility that he does the exact same thing again.


If he hits his tee shot over a red staked area he gets a drop under penalty where his ball crossed the line. It is very unlikely that he is going to jeopardise neighbouring properties with his next shot.


There is a very strong case for replacing ALL white stakes with red ones…

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

First, almost nobody actually re-tees. Most go forward and play from there. Under the Rules, currently, this is allowed - they can even play from the fairway. With two strokes, hitting their fourth, just like they had re-teed and hit the edge of the fairway.

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.

Tom, why is "strategy" in quotes? Are you implying that it's not a "strategy" because it's derived from statistics? Are people who understand the odds in other games (poker, chess, whatever?) not employing a "strategy? Stockbrokers, etc. aren't employing a strategy? A football coach who understands the stats on when to go for it on fourth down isn't applying a "strategy"? Or did i interpret that incorrectly?

There is a very strong case for replacing ALL white stakes with red ones…

You can play from a red-staked area. I'm sure people wouldn't like to have people in their yard taking divots. Of course, if you convert all of these to No Play Zones… that could work, but then you're reducing the penalty for hitting the ball there from effectively two strokes (stroke and distance) to one stroke (no distance). Thus, as others have noted, people may then end up with MORE balls in their yard than when it's a stiffer penalty.

[Mark Mammel]

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!

Tom's quote above. I have to say that in Scotland 12 random jurors are not needed to have a major impact on a golf course's OB line. I'm sure you recall when Royal Dornoch completely shifted the 3rd fairway a few yeqrs ago, including 3 bunkers on the right, because homeowners on the bluff both high above and VERY far left of the shot line complained that they feared errant tee balls would impact their property. I am not aware that a ball ever found its way there; I know that when I stood on that tee I couldn't figure out how one would pull off such a short even if intended. The bunkers now no longer gather the ball hit slightly to the right of the intended line as they once did, changing the strategy of the hole completely.

[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.

This.


If a golfer hits a tee shot OB onto an adjoining property he must reload, with the distinct possibility that he does the exact same thing again.


If he hits his tee shot over a red staked area he gets a drop under penalty where his ball crossed the line. It is very unlikely that he is going to jeopardise neighbouring properties with his next shot.


There is a very strong case for replacing ALL white stakes with red ones…

Duncan, don't clubs have the option of dropping a ball in play with a penalty as a local rule? That said, I don't know of a UK club that has adopted the rule.

Mark

Gullane is claiming shots into the road as a reason to alter the courses. Nothing new, Health and Safety is often used as a false crutch.

Ciao

[JohnVDB]

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!

Tom's quote above. I have to say that in Scotland 12 random jurors are not needed to have a major impact on a golf course's OB line. I'm sure you recall when Royal Dornoch completely shifted the 3rd fairway a few yeqrs ago, including 3 bunkers on the right, because homeowners on the bluff both high above and VERY far left of the shot line complained that they feared errant tee balls would impact their property. I am not aware that a ball ever found its way there; I know that when I stood on that tee I couldn't figure out how one would pull off such a short even if intended. The bunkers now no longer gather the ball hit slightly to the right of the intended line as they once did, changing the strategy of the hole completely.

They gather mine pretty regularly.  No way I’m going near the gorse if I can help it.

[JohnVDB]

   Many municipalities have ordinances prohibiting early morning mowing. I’m pretty sure we mow the greens at the borders last.

It's 7:00 am in our town. Our crew sits behind the green until the clock ticks 7:00. It's the 2nd hole so it needs to be done as soon as possible. We pushed our first tee time back 15 minutes. Course has been there for 60 years. First time we've ever had a complaint.

When I was working on the Futures Tour, we had an event where the club was prohibited from mowing the 10th green before 7AM.  5th didn’t tell us.  We had our first tee time of 1 and 10 set for 7.  They assured us the green would be mowed before the group could tee off and get to their drives.  Somehow they did it.

[JohnVDB]

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.


If a golfer hits a tee shot OB onto an adjoining property he must reload, with the distinct possibility that he does the exact same thing again.


If he hits his tee shot over a red staked area he gets a drop under penalty where his ball crossed the line. It is very unlikely that he is going to jeopardise neighbouring properties with his next shot.


There is a very strong case for replacing ALL white stakes with red ones…

Duncan, don't clubs have the option of dropping a ball in play with a penalty as a local rule? That said, I don't know of a UK club that has adopted the rule.

Mark

Gullane is claiming shots into the road as a reason to alter the courses. Nothing new, Health and Safety is often used as a false crutch.

Ciao

Yes, they have that option, but it is a two-stroke penalty just as going back and playing another ball up to there would be. That is an option to get around the possibility of someone being so bad that they continually hit balls out of bounds from the same tee that some people above seem concerned about.


During everyday play, that option is recommended for lost balls at Dornoch rather than slowing down play for the walk of shame.


Nobody will ever convince me that hitting a ball off the golf course should be a lesser penalty than someone losing a ball in the rough and I can’t see making that a one-stroke penalty.

[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.

This.


If a golfer hits a tee shot OB onto an adjoining property he must reload, with the distinct possibility that he does the exact same thing again.


If he hits his tee shot over a red staked area he gets a drop under penalty where his ball crossed the line. It is very unlikely that he is going to jeopardise neighbouring properties with his next shot.


There is a very strong case for replacing ALL white stakes with red ones…

Duncan, don't clubs have the option of dropping a ball in play with a penalty as a local rule? That said, I don't know of a UK club that has adopted the rule.

Mark

Gullane is claiming shots into the road as a reason to alter the courses. Nothing new, Health and Safety is often used as a false crutch.

Ciao

Yes, they have that option, but it is a two-stroke penalty just as going back and playing another ball up to there would be. That is an option to get around the possibility of someone being so bad that they continually hit balls out of bounds from the same tee that some people above seem concerned about.


During everyday play, that option is recommended for lost balls at Dornoch rather than slowing down play for the walk of shame.


Nobody will ever convince me that hitting a ball off the golf course should be a lesser penalty than someone losing a ball in the rough and I can’t see making that a one-stroke penalty.

Yes, a 2 stroke penalty. But your Dornoch scenario does not make sense for handicapping now that daily cards can be used for handicapping. Two different rules for the same situation which impact the handicap. That's a tough rule to locally adopt unless it is in play for comps as well.

Ciao

[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.

There is a very strong case for replacing ALL white stakes with red ones…

“People say there are no atheists in foxholes. A lot of people think this is a good argument against atheism. Personally, I think it's a much better argument against foxholes.”

-Kurt Vonnegut

Golf has enough of a land footprint problem for their to be a zone around the property where other uses are not permitted. Be a good neighbor and take resposibility for your golf ball. There is no rule or mandate that you *HAVE* to put any neighboring property at risk by hitting Driver off the tee and while I'm aware of most of the local liability laws here in the US I think it's utter rubbish that a golfer can negligently hit a tee shot (especially when they most likely have no control over that shot) and put life/property at risk.

[Edward Glidewell]

I've played a course (can't remember where now) in a tourist/resort area with houses/condos on both sides of some holes that had a local rule where balls in yards were a free drop back into play -- you were essentially supposed to play it as ground under repair.


There were limits in that it wasn't applicable if you hit a ball over a house into the front yard or anything like that, but for a ball that may have landed in the fairway and then bounced into a yard only 10 feet away, free drop back into the rough was the play.


I'm sure the main reason was just to keep golfers moving around quickly and not cause backups on a busy course, but it worked pretty well in practice on a relatively narrow golf course. It also kept people from hitting out of yards, since there was no reason to (plenty of recreational golfers will still go and hit a ball OB as though the OB stakes don't matter).