[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Dale,

I don't think you are correct in your statement "land is either in bounds or out of bounds, it cannot be both.  With the new tee on 17 it will be in bounds for all play". There unfortunately many examples of parts of a golf course that is out of bounds from one fairway but not from another.

Of course you are correct!  A lesson to self, do not post while rushing out the door to play golf.  It is up to the Committee to decide on the status of the tee, they could mark it to be in play for 16.  Given its position I doubt they will.

Dale / Jon:

My understanding was that clubs that have tees in the OOB area are breaking the rules. The 1st tee at The Grange GC in Dublin (Irl.) was OOB and I believe it was pointed out to the club that this isn't allowed. You can end up in a situation where a ball that's just knocked off the tee peg lies in OOB. What happens if you have an air-shot and miss the ball completely? Similarly, internal OOB where it's simply a line down the side of a fairway (e.g. Lurgan GC, N. Irl) isn't legal I believe. But I could be wrong!

Dónal.

 

[Scott Macpherson]

Scott...

Can I buy your book on Amazon or do I go directly through you?

In prep for my trip to St. Andrews, this looks perfect.

Mac

HI Mac,

You can order the book off our website (http://tmgolfdesign.com/books.html) or if you would rather get a signed copy send me an email (scott@tmgolfdesign.com) and we can sort out getting you a copy from my office in Edinburgh.

Scott

[Brian Phillips]

Mac,

You should order the book it is the best book on the evolution of any course I have ever read.  How this missed the USGA book of the year I do not understand.

[Dale Jackson]

  So if a player hits his tee ball over the fence on 16, is it OB?

  Anthony

 
[/quote]

It is up to the Committee to define the boundaries of the course.  In the case of TOC the fence has been the boundary for very large numbers of years.  Whether the new 17 tee will be defined as in bounds for play on #16 is up to the Committee. 

Dale / Jon:

My understanding was that clubs that have tees in the OOB area are breaking the rules. The 1st tee at The Grange GC in Dublin (Irl.) was OOB and I believe it was pointed out to the club that this isn't allowed. You can end up in a situation where a ball that's just knocked off the tee peg lies in OOB. What happens if you have an air-shot and miss the ball completely? Similarly, internal OOB where it's simply a line down the side of a fairway (e.g. Lurgan GC, N. Irl) isn't legal I believe. But I could be wrong!

Dónal.

 

Again it is up to the Committee to properly, mark/define the course.  Certainly if tee markers are set outside the marked/defined area of the course, that would be a mistake.  But the Committee can adjust the marking/definition to include such a teeing area and then there is no problem.

[Jon Wiggett]

Dale,

I don't think you are correct in your statement "land is either in bounds or out of bounds, it cannot be both.  With the new tee on 17 it will be in bounds for all play". There unfortunately many examples of parts of a golf course that is out of bounds from one fairway but not from another.

Of course you are correct!  A lesson to self, do not post while rushing out the door to play golf.  It is up to the Committee to decide on the status of the tee, they could mark it to be in play for 16.  Given its position I doubt they will.

Dale / Jon:

My understanding was that clubs that have tees in the OOB area are breaking the rules. The 1st tee at The Grange GC in Dublin (Irl.) was OOB and I believe it was pointed out to the club that this isn't allowed. You can end up in a situation where a ball that's just knocked off the tee peg lies in OOB. What happens if you have an air-shot and miss the ball completely? Similarly, internal OOB where it's simply a line down the side of a fairway (e.g. Lurgan GC, N. Irl) isn't legal I believe. But I could be wrong!

Dónal.

 

Donal,

the tee is considered part of the course for the hole that it is on (in this case 17th) but is OOB whilst playing all other holes.

[Scott Macpherson]

Mac,

You should order the book it is the best book on the evolution of any course I have ever read.  How this missed the USGA book of the year I do not understand.

Hi Brian,

Thank you. That is a very kind thing to say. You know I secretly harbored a desire for the book to be well received by the USGA but Tommy Honor beat it. Two very different books, and mine wasn't the right flavor I guess. Still, I have been very lucky with the way the book has been received. Not one bad comment to date, and considering the many people's passionate interest in the topic, I consider that reward enough.

thanks again for buying it.

scott

PS- Maybe GCA should start a Book Club? A number of the guys on here have written great books on golf.

[Brian Phillips]

Scott,

I think a book club would be great.  If only you guys could sell your books on here and maybe GCA.com got a cut of the sales?

How is the project going in England?

Brian

[Kalen Braley]

I hope a rules maven chimes in because I can't find where it says either way what is illegal or otherwise when it comes to marking a part of the course in bounds when playing one hole, but out of bounds when playing a different one.

I think the new tee looks fine....its just a freaking tee box.  But the pattern and precedence being set is very disturbing, especially the tee they put in that actually resides in the fairway of the other course.

[Melvyn Morrow]

All you want to know about the Rules but scared to ask – then check out Barry Rhodes on the following link

http://www.homeofgolf.tv/2009/06/16/barry-rhodes-on-the-rules-of-golf-interview-episode-8/

Melvyn

[Dale Jackson]

Kalen, I am a "rules maven".  Accredited by the R&A, USGA and RCGA.  Worked tournaments in Canada, USA and Asia, including PGA Tour events.

To get technical, Decision 33-2a/12 states:

Q: It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a dogleg hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the “dog-leg”. Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?

A: Yes. For the recommended status of such boundary stakes, see Decision 24/5.

So, in the present case, the Committee could have the new tee on #17 play as in bounds or out of bounds for play on #16.  It must be in bounds for #17 for obvious reasons - the teeing ground must be part of the golf course.

How it plays for the Open next year is up to the Committee for the tournament.  

Decision 33-2a/13 also has some application.

Q: A Committee has decreed that ground surrounding a certain teeing ground is in bounds for tee shots and out of bounds thereafter. Is this permissible?

A: No. In play of a particular hole, an area cannot be both in bounds and out of bounds.

Finally, Decision 33-2a/14

A Committee may make a Local Rule under Rule 33-2a declaring part of an adjoining hole to be out of bounds when playing a particular hole, but it is not permissible for a Committee to make a Local Rule placing an area of the course out of bounds to a stroke played from the teeing ground only.

This is all probably more than anyone wants to know but here it is.

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks Dale,

Much appreciated....I dind't know you were a rules God   

So I guess that settles it then, its legal. 

[Dale Jackson]

I didn't know you were a rules God   

So I guess that settles it then, its legal. 

A Rules God"!!!  Can I quote you?

[Kalen Braley]

I didn't know you were a rules God   

So I guess that settles it then, its legal. 

A Rules God"!!!  Can I quote you?

Dale,

Sure can....slap that on your resume and everyone will be impressed!!   

[Tony_Muldoon]

I second the above, it’s a great book. It seems a little daunting at first; seemingly way more detailed than you might want but what it does demonstrate brilliantly is the effect of technology on TOC and therefore all of golf. I have been thinking a lot about that since reading the book and it’s had a far greater effect on my thoughts than all the recent threads about the same subject on here have.

Can anyone look at the following graph from the book and believe it when we are told the distance has now been maxed out?
 

Would I be correct in thinking the 17th is a backup hole when a tournament is played here?  Hard to believe that moving a tee backwards is going to make things play faster. Even if players are on 16th green they will have longer to wait for the group ahead to move on.  Also does this mean the road is not available for circulation?  The fences will have to be changed for temporary ones?   If the range is where the pro’s warm up for a tournament they must practice from grass in front of the bays meaning there is a MAXIMUM distance of 300 yards so some kind of protection will be needed?  The whole idea’s a mess, an inelegant bandaid.

[Scott Macpherson]

Scott,

I think a book club would be great.  If only you guys could sell your books on here and maybe GCA.com got a cut of the sales?

How is the project going in England?

Brian

Hi Brian,

This is all a bit OT, I'd be happy to sell some books through GCA. It could be a nice new string to the GCA bow.

Re our job at Close House in Newcastle. We got 13 holes and the range seeded. Will finish the remaining 5 in the spring. Am very happy with the progress and the holes built, and happy to post some photos if there is any interest?

Course due to open in Spring 2011.


Tony- Thanks for you kind words on the book too. I figured that I better get all the data packed in. I knew somebody would want the facts eventually.


scott

[Robert Kimball]

Can someone post an aerial shot of the hole? Maybe with the new area highlighted? Hopefully, that won't be too much trouble. I would do it myself but don't know how. . . . .

Thanks, Rob

[Kalen Braley]

Based on what I can tell from the pictures...I've shown it with the orange marking.

[Kalen Braley]

Scratch that...I think its a little further back actually.

Like this.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()