On course, OB question

[LeoLeo99]

Wow, if that's OB and you have to walk back to the tee to hit your third, that's a big bowl of sh1t soup right there. Give me a break.

 

He'd only have to return to the tee if he hadn't played a provisional ball. Bad luck starts somewhere.

 

I thought you couldn't play a provisional for a ball potentially lost in a water hazard.

[HitEmTrue]

I thought you couldn't play a provisional for a ball potentially lost in a water hazard.

 

Wrong thread. :)

 

< edit >

Although you may play a provisional for a ball potentially lost in a water hazard...if it may be OB or lost outside of a water hazard.

[Newby]

Wow, if that's OB and you have to walk back to the tee to hit your third, that's a big bowl of sh1t soup right there. Give me a break.

 

He'd only have to return to the tee if he hadn't played a provisional ball. Bad luck starts somewhere.

 

I thought you couldn't play a provisional for a ball potentially lost in a water hazard.

 

What water hazard?

 

You may play a provisional if the ball may be OOB (or may be lost outside a water hazard).

[Golfnuck]

Hey, on course

 

 

Card says OB is "fence on 13". Is that ball OB? I'd say yes as the Posts are holding up the fence but I'd like your ruling.

 

Thanks.

 

I should add if you line up the course side line from post to post it's clearly over that line.

 

OP just curious is that fence in the middle of the golf course?

 

It looks like another fairway on the other side.

[HitEmTrue]

Wow, if that's OB and you have to walk back to the tee to hit your third, that's a big bowl of sh1t soup right there. Give me a break.

 

As it is, the rule works for a brand-new chain link fence, a barbed wire fence, or even an old beat up fence like this:

 

 

[Sean2]

I would call in a rules official. You don't want to be penalized for signing an incorrect scorecard.

[rogolf]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary). The RBs don't seem to have recognised this and have created a piece of land that is owned by the courses owner but is not on the course.

 

If the fence is placed on the course side, the golfing problem is solved but it then gives rise to possible disputes of land titles.

 

Which is the most expensive problem to solve?

The "course" is defined by the Committee (Rule 33-2a) and is not required to coincide with the property lines of the golf club.

 

That was the point of my post.

 

I certainly didn't get that from your post. You seemed to be criticizing the ruling bodies for not writing the definition of out of bounds so that it would coincide with the course property lines.

[Sawgrass]

I just want to say, "People! Read the freakin' Definitions!"

[Augster]

Hey, on course

 

 

Card says OB is "fence on 13". Is that ball OB? I'd say yes as the Posts are holding up the fence but I'd like your ruling.

 

Thanks.

 

I should add if you line up the course side line from post to post it's clearly over that line.

 

OP just curious is that fence in the middle of the golf course?

 

It looks like another fairway on the other side.

 

That's the driving range on the other side of the fence. Those poles are put in to put netting well up in the air to protect players playing 13 from hard slices that come off the driving range. A couple of pics.

 

Street view

 

 

Sky view

 

 

 

[Augster]

Also, thanks for the help on this gentleman. Here's a recap of the cluster of an "argument" with my FC's.

 

I pull hook it into the fence, but the upper fence has a huge hole in it right where I hit it so it may have gone on the driving range. I say I'm hitting a provisional and one of my FC's said he saw it down and it's on this side of the fence. I said I didn't see it down. And if it came straight down, I know it may be OB because the poles are so wide. FC says he saw where it dropped, on the course side of the fence, and the ball is in play. I'm not allowed a provisional.

 

I say that I didn't see it down. It MAY have gone through the hole in the fence and "looked" like it was down on the course side of the fence but is really beyond the fence. I also said it MAY be on this side of the fence AND still be OB. Plus, even though he saw it down, it was not visible from the tee, so it MAY also be lost.

 

So I hit a provisional.

 

I get to the point and sure enough the ball lies as in the first pic. I tell my FC's I believe that ball is OB as it is beyond the course side "line" of the poles. FC's say the card says "fence on 13" is OB. So I say I'll do 3-3 and play both balls in and look it up later and ask on here. Declared the provisional ball as the ball I was going to score with, then played both of them out, taking 7 and 6.

 

I scored the 7 with the provisional ball, so I took the 7.

 

It's sometimes tough to bring up the right finds on the Rules app when you have TWO FC's insisting you're playing it incorrectly.

 

I'm really thankful for all the help. I wouldn't have even thought to check the definition of OB I was so sure it was a Decision I had read. (as linked by HitEm)

 

[snoilr1]

Depends on your state. In NJ the posts go on the inside. In PA the posts can go on the outside.

 

Interesting...here in Texas it would typically be a home owner's association that would require the good side to face out. Along a street, for example.

 

Whatever building code governs will often have a requirement. When I had my fence built, my home city has a code requiring the front of the fence to face out, and the posts to face the owner's property.

[Sawgrass]

It's useful to know that a fc's opinion on a Rule is absolutely without enforcement power. Their testimony may be of value, their opinion is bupkis.

 

You did good, Augster.

[Newby]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary). The RBs don't seem to have recognised this and have created a piece of land that is owned by the courses owner but is not on the course.

 

If the fence is placed on the course side, the golfing problem is solved but it then gives rise to possible disputes of land titles.

 

Which is the most expensive problem to solve?

The "course" is defined by the Committee (Rule 33-2a) and is not required to coincide with the property lines of the golf club.

 

That was the point of my post.

 

I certainly didn't get that from your post. You seemed to be criticizing the ruling bodies for not writing the definition of out of bounds so that it would coincide with the course property lines.

 

No. Just commenting on the problem. They could have done of course but that could have possibly conflicted with the treatment of stone walls, hedges or other types of demarcation. Certainly, the question is often asked at rules evening run for members at clubs.

[chickenpotpie]

This situation brings a few things to mind for me...

 

1) the designer of the fence probably has no clue about the rules or fence design for that matter, because they should have put the posts on the range side of the fence

 

2) related to #1, I'd hazard a guess that the course is purely thinking the chain links themselves are OB, not the posts. Thinking about how this would be stated on a scorecard, they're just going to call out a fence, not a fence post. And that's how most people are probably playing it (i.e. the way that either the designer of the course or the designer of the fence intended, irrespective of the way the rules are written)

 

3) I'm guessing the OP is an exception since he called it on himself, but I could imagine a number of fights starting by people trying to enforce the actual rule on an opponent who thinks his ball is in bounds.

[Sawgrass]

This situation brings a few things to mind for me...

 

1) the designer of the fence probably has no clue about the rules or fence design for that matter, because they should have put the posts on the range side of the fence

 

2) related to #1, I'd hazard a guess that the course is purely thinking the chain links themselves are OB, not the posts. Thinking about how this would be stated on a scorecard, they're just going to call out a fence, not a fence post. And that's how most people are probably playing it (i.e. the way that either the designer of the course or the designer of the fence intended, irrespective of the way the rules are written)

 

3) I'm guessing the OP is an exception since he called it on himself, but I could imagine a number of fights starting by people trying to enforce the actual rule on an opponent who thinks his ball is in bounds.

 

Hi CPP, haven't said hello since the Torrey Pines TMAG event in '13!

 

Reading you post reminds me of how critical it is for every player to read the Definitions. In just that one short segment one learns how to figure out if your ball is OB (there are so many types of fencing, painted lines along with stakes, guy wires, etc. that every player simply needs to know how to deal) how to define the teeing ground (I've seen pros screw this up) how to know for sure if your ball is in a hazard, how to precisely define the Nearest Point of Relief, what constitutes Ground Under Repair . . .

[Shilgy]

This situation brings a few things to mind for me...

 

1) the designer of the fence probably has no clue about the rules or fence design for that matter, because they should have put the posts on the range side of the fence

 

2) related to #1, I'd hazard a guess that the course is purely thinking the chain links themselves are OB, not the posts. Thinking about how this would be stated on a scorecard, they're just going to call out a fence, not a fence post. And that's how most people are probably playing it (i.e. the way that either the designer of the course or the designer of the fence intended, irrespective of the way the rules are written)

 

3) I'm guessing the OP is an exception since he called it on himself, but I could imagine a number of fights starting by people trying to enforce the actual rule on an opponent who thinks his ball is in bounds.

As to number 1. The probably did the fence that way intentionally. If the other side of the fence is the range they need to pick up the balls. With the posts on the other side a lot more balls would collect in areas where they would have to hand pick rather than running around with the tractor.

[miket_81]

I have a question that goes along with this that I've wondered for a long time and have got 100 different answers for.

 

Green line is a curb to a street.

White dots are OB Stakes

Black dot is ball.

 

On this hole and 1 other the course defines the curb as OB. There are OB Stakes there I guess to remind people that the curb is OB..

 

This question could be applied to a curved fence as well.

 

What is the ruling?

 

The intention was to make the curb (road) OB but since it is such a sharp curve you would have to put out a hundred stakes to correctly define it that way. Then no one could come close to swinging a club within a couple feet of OB.

[Shilgy]

I have a question that goes along with this that I've wondered for a long time and have got 100 different answers for.

 

Green line is a curb to a street.

White dots are OB Stakes

Black dot is ball.

 

On this hole and 1 other the course defines the curb as OB. There are OB Stakes there I guess to remind people that the curb is OB..

 

This question could be applied to a curved fence as well.

 

What is the ruling?

 

The intention was to make the curb (road) OB but since it is such a sharp curve you would have to put out a hundred stakes to correctly define it that way. Then no one could come close to swinging a club within a couple feet of OB.

That ball is OB. The course would be better served to paint a white line on the curb and get rid of the stakes imo.

[Stuart_G]

What is the ruling?

 

According to the rules, OB can be defined by stakes/fence posts or it could also be defined by lines on the ground. However, whether specifying the 'curb' as the OB is sufficient to define a 'line' in the context of the rules, I couldn't say for sure. The rules say the lines should be white but it doesn't say they must be. When both stakes and lines are used, the lines take precedence. Either way, painting lines on the ground would certainly be one valid approach (and very clear to the players) the course could take.

[miket_81]

What is the ruling?

 

According to the rules, OB can be defined by stakes/fence posts or it could also be defined by lines on the ground. However, whether specifying the 'curb' as the OB is sufficient to define a 'line' in the context of the rules, I couldn't say for sure. The rules say the lines should be white but it doesn't say they must be. When both stakes and lines are used, the lines take precedence. Either way, painting lines on the ground would certainly be one valid approach (and very clear to the players) the course could take.

 

It sure makes it simple. If it's inside the curb it's in, if not out...

This came up in a tournament I was playing in. Ball was inside the curb but outside the stakes.

 

In the "book" at the club that shows all the local rules and such, it mentions a few holes that have OB defined by White Stakes and a couple OB defined by the curb. Clearly the intention was to have the a ball outside the curb be deemed OB.

 

Still a couple argue there argue that the ball is OB.

[rogolf]

Imo, there is nothing wrong with defining the OOB "line" as the inside edge (course side) of the curb and that the stakes only identify the presence of OOB. Just write it such that it's clear.

[Sawgrass]

I wish to add to the confusion by saying that the Rules make it clear that when a stone wall is declared an OB indicator, the Rules at the very same time make it completely unclear as to whether it's the inside or outside of the wall that defines the edge of the OB. (That choice has to be made by the committee.)

 

IMO a curb is nothing but a tiny wall. Sure, call the curb OB, but please tell us which edge -- or paint it so we'll know for sure!

[bigmoneyp]

Are the large posts even holding up the chain link fence or are they holding up the net from the driving range? Seems the chain link fence would have it own smaller posts.

[miket_81]

What if their are posts on both sides?

 

That might be a way for the course to get around it if they actually wanted to make the Fence OB.

Put 3 posts in the ground on the driving range side of the fence and paint them white.

[Sawgrass]

What if their are posts on both sides?

 

That might be a way for the course to get around it if they actually wanted to make the Fence OB.

Put 3 posts in the ground on the driving range side of the fence and paint them white.

 

Or, two white stakes could do the trick!

[HitEmTrue]

Are the large posts even holding up the chain link fence or are they holding up the net from the driving range? Seems the chain link fence would have it own smaller posts.

 

Yes, you are correct! He posted more pics in post #39.

 

Hmmm.

[Baitkiller]

I'm confused. What side of the avacado is the fence on?

[Caddykev]

Was this in tournament or club play? I do not recall any tournament I have ever played following the in course ob rule.

[Newby]

Imo, there is nothing wrong with defining the OOB "line" as the inside edge (course side) of the curb and that the stakes only identify the presence of OOB. Just write it such that it's clear.

 

Agree.

It is very common to specify in a Local Rule something like 'Over the wall ...' or 'On or over the tarmac road' or 'Beyond the near edge of the lawn ....'

If the physical definition is clear, neither white lines nor stakes are necessary; maybe black top white stakes could be used to indicate that OB is nearby if the margin is not in clear view..

[llewol007]

No, the fence itself is the landmark depicting the OB so you either have to be on one side or the other or on top of the fence with more than 50% of the ball leaning on the outside portion.