In or Out?

[Foxholer]

Sorry but I am with Orikoru on this and beg to differ and think that it absolutely wasn’t very black and white. The situation that the less knowledgable or switched-on golfer would be faced with is at best ambiguous and confusing, at the worst quite easy to get completely wrong.

But I wonder what the rule is if the discovered intention of the club is that the OOB is beyond the cut grass and not defined by a straight line between the two posts.

It's what the markings/card indicate!

 

[Orikoru]

I had the reverse situation a couple of years ago - my ball was in the edges of thick rough on the right hand side of the fairway/rough with white posts marking OOB.
the hole curved from left to right so I was able to look from the white post short of my ball to the next one and see that it was just in bounds so I payed it.

I wonder how many of the contributors to this thread would have decided that actually it should have been deemed out of bounds because it wasn’t on the cut grass as the greenkeepers/committee had meant as the boundary!

So kind of like this you mean??



Yeah, I'd have ruled myself out of bounds there to be honest.

 

[Colin L]

Yeah, if it was painfully obvious that you were beyond the stakes, but in this situation it's not particularly obvious so could easily be missed by casual golfers. And therefore not corrected later either because all assumed they acted correctly. I can't believe you won't accept that this happens from time to time?? As I said earlier in the thread, in all our monthly comps there must be at least 4 or 5 rule breaks that go unnoticed and never punished every week.

This gets more unreal by the moment. You asked on what basis you would get disqualified for playing a ball that you thought was on the course but was actually out of bounds. I gave you the rules-based answer and that gets turned into my not accepting that this happens from time to time despite the fact that I've made no such comment. It's pure invention and nothing whatsoever to do with the answer to your question.

Perhaps you really meant to write "Thanks for the explanation"?

 

[Colin L]

So kind of like this you mean??

View attachment 42057
,
Yeah, I'd have ruled myself out of bounds there to be honest.

Ah well, you win some and you lose some. ?l

 

[Orikoru]

This gets more unreal by the moment. You asked on what basis you would get disqualified for playing a ball that you thought was on the course but was actually out of bounds. I gave you the rules-based answer and that gets turned into my not accepting that this happens from time to time despite the fact that I've made no such comment. It's pure invention and nothing whatsoever to do with the answer to your question.

Perhaps you really meant to write "Thanks for the explanation"?

So you misunderstood the question then. I did not ask on what basis what a DQ be the correct ruling. You said I would end up with a DQ and I asked how that would happen if nobody in the group realised a rule had been broken. I didn't ask you to parrot the rule back to me for the 8th time.

 

[Genu9]

So kind of like this you mean??

View attachment 42057

Yeah, I'd have ruled myself out of bounds there to be honest.

So if the bit to the left of the red line was green you'd rule yourself in bounds? Surely you go by the OOB markers.

 

[Orikoru]

So if the bit to the left of the red line was green you'd rule yourself in bounds? Surely you go by the OOB markers.

I said it earlier but if there was a clear line between nice mown grass and unruly crap, and the markers that do exist were on that line, my brain would basically jump to the conclusion that the markers are telling us that that line is the boundary line. Obviously over the course of this thread I've learned that that is wrong.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If that intention was expressed clearly in the Local Rules as a definition of the boundary, then the ball in the original situation would be on the course. The intention has to be explicitly stated. In the absence of such a definition, the white stakes define the boundary and the ball would be out of bounds as has been consistently said throughout this remarkable thread.

As I thought. However I’d be very cheesed off if it was simply carelessness or thoughtlessness by the club or greens team that created the situation, even more cheesed off if the club knew the situation but considered it absurd that anyone would think a straight line between posts defined the boundary.

 

[Swango1980]

Sorry but I am with Orikoru on this and beg to differ and think that it absolutely wasn’t very black and white. The situation that the less knowledgable or switched-on golfer would be faced with is at best ambiguous and confusing, at the worst quite easy to get completely wrong.

But I wonder what the rule is if the discovered intention of the club is that the OOB is beyond the cut grass and not defined by a straight line between the two posts.

There are two different things here, not sure if that is where the confusion stems from (or if the confusion really is that some refuse to accept the written rule as clarified).

If a golfer was faced with this situation, then without being aware exactly of how out of bounds is defined, I can see how they could get this wrong. Technically, they shouldn't, especially for experienced golfers, as it is a pretty common rule in golf. However, I can still see where the confusion lies.

However, the rule has since been explained (pretty much immediately), and it was very much black and white. The ball was out of bounds.

So, no issues with the discussion that followed since, if it had specifically been about how out of bounds is marked by the committee, potential issues of poor marking and the impact that may have on some or many golfers. However, the tone of the thread seemed to be "you say it is out of bounds, but I still don't think it is because it probably was not the intention, a post might be missing, the line might be wobbly, we can use a different undefined line, etc." Therefore, it became a debate that some felt the rule could be interpreted as they please, rather than the importance of course marking.

 

[Bdill93]

Well Ive learned something from this thread anyway! Our 15th often offers up this exact issue and staking at our place is always to a poor standard.

I never knew that you just drew a straight line from post to post and ive played in multiple competitions over the last couple of years. Lots of debate above, and its great to see people know the rules well, but no one at my club comes across as knowledgeable on these subjects as the forum. Ive seen players do what Orikoru has suggested and never thought anything the wiser as it seemed the common sense approach. How wrong I was!

 

[Swango1980]

So you misunderstood the question then. I did not ask on what basis what a DQ be the correct ruling. You said I would end up with a DQ and I asked how that would happen if nobody in the group realised a rule had been broken. I didn't ask you to parrot the rule back to me for the 8th time.

Is that really a proper question though. You could take any rule in the game of golf, and if the player or nobody else realised there was an infringement, then of course there'd be no penalty. How could anyone penalise anybody for anything of nobody knew there was an infringement to begin with?

It would be the same as asking "a player's ball is in bounds, but up against the out of bounds stake. That player removes the stake to play the ball, not realising this is not permitted. No one in the group realises this either, or do not see it occur. Will the player be penalised?" The literal answer is clearly NO, as there is nobody to raise the infringement. However, under the Rules of Golf, if the "Will" was changed to "Should", then the answer is a black and white Yes.

 

[Orikoru]

Is that really a proper question though. You could take any rule in the game of golf, and if the player or nobody else realised there was an infringement, then of course there'd be no penalty. How could anyone penalise anybody for anything of nobody knew there was an infringement to begin with?

It would be the same as asking "a player's ball is in bounds, but up against the out of bounds stake. That player removes the stake to play the ball, not realising this is not permitted. No one in the group realises this either, or do not see it occur. Will the player be penalised?" The literal answer is clearly NO, as there is nobody to raise the infringement. However, under the Rules of Golf, if the "Will" was changed to "Should", then the answer is a black and white Yes.

It was just a direct response to something he said mate.

 

[Swango1980]

As I thought. However I’d be very cheesed off if it was simply carelessness or thoughtlessness by the club or greens team that created the situation, even more cheesed off if the club knew the situation but considered it absurd that anyone would think a straight line between posts defined the boundary.

It is OK to be frustrated if the Club have poorly defined out of bounds, or set up the course poorly in other ways. It is OK to question that, and point out the error of their ways. When I was on the Committee at our last club, we had all sorts of battles with the owner to ask the green staff to mark penalty areas and out of bounds much more clearly in areas, as there were plenty of areas of confusion. This is why they eventually burnt a line between one hole and the driving range. However, there were still plenty of issues. We had internal out of bounds to the left of the 12th. Sometimes the stakes were up against the long grass before the trees, some time they were several club lengths out towards the 12th fairway, as they randomly got taken out and put back in. However, OB was still always defined by the straight line between the stakes, with maybe a few curse words if your ball was not quite in the long grass. At end of day, if you hit the ball to the left, you take that risk.

 

[chrisd]

even more cheesed off if the club knew the situation but considered it absurd that anyone would think a straight line between posts defined the boundary.

If the "club" considered that its members didn't know the simple rule of oob markings I'd think the club should wonder what other straight forward rules their members don't know too!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If the "club" considered that its members didn't know the simple rule of oob markings I'd think the club should wonder what other straight forward rules their members don't know too!

Actually - the other way round...as perhaps as unlikely as it might seem, the club of course knows the rule in respect of boundary posts and straight line between them, but in this scenario doesn't bother with intermediate posts because it is obvious to all that the posts identify the edge of the cut grass as the boundary and there is no need to provide further definition. Of course we know that the club is mistaken.

Pity we don't know the intent of the club in respect of that boundary.

 

[Orikoru]

Actually - the other way round...as perhaps as unlikely as it might seem, the club of course knows the rule in respect of boundary posts and straight line between them, but in this scenario doesn't bother with intermediate posts because it is obvious to all that the posts identify the edge of the cut grass as the boundary and there is no need to provide further definition. Of course we know that the club is mistaken.

Pity we don't know the intent of the club in respect of that boundary.

My honest feeling is that they've just been lazy in not putting out enough white stakes. Throw a couple out and think "that'll do" without realising they've chopped off a large bit of playable area they didn't intend to.

 

[chrisd]

Actually - the other way round...as perhaps as unlikely as it might seem, the club of course knows the rule in respect of boundary posts and straight line between them, but in this scenario doesn't bother with intermediate posts because it is obvious to all that the posts identify the edge of the cut grass as the boundary and there is no need to provide further definition. Of course we know that the club is mistaken.

Pity we don't know the intent of the club in respect of that boundary.

Unless you've asked you can't possibly know the clubs "intention" and to me it really doesn't matter. If the green keeper lays out the course then the rules apply to that layout, there may be a reason why it was done as it was, it isn't down to individual players to ignore the rules of golf just because they disagree with the layout. My club has a stupid penalty area set up which I've expressed my view on to the club officers, they won't change it so I, and others who agree with me, still play to the rules as things are laid out and not to how we believe they should be.

 

[Bdill93]

My honest feeling is that they've just been lazy in not putting out enough white stakes. Throw a couple out and think "that'll do" without realising they've chopped off a large bit of playable area they didn't intend to.

Honestly think the groundskeepers at my club wouldnt even be aware they have made an area unplayable Theyre not golfers themselves!

 

[Swango1980]

I wonder how many people see a set of yellow tees in the winter teeing area, especially at this time of year, and yet decide to tee off the main tee box anyway? Why? Because, in their opinion, the clubs intention was to probably have the tee markers on the main tee, but the green staff forgot to change them back.

 

[Bdill93]

I wonder how many people see a set of yellow tees in the winter teeing area, especially at this time of year, and yet decide to tee off the main tee box anyway? Why? Because, in their opinion, the clubs intention was to probably have the tee markers on the main tee, but the green staff forgot to change them back.

Your course sounds about 100x fancier than mine! A winter tee area is something of dreams for our members