Local rule to limit the length of tee shot

[DickInShorts]

Colin L said:

“Now if only our NE Buddha didn't have me on ignore, he would know not merely think that the rule is unenforceable under the Rules of Golf. H just doesn't know what he is missing. “

 

[salfordlad]

I can't quite grasp what you have in mind as the problem, but what you're suggesting just doesn't fit what I assume we are talking about and which I was certainly referring to at my own club. Our 1st hole runs along the east edge of the course, bordering on houses all the way down it. It is 276 yards off the back tee and so drivable by a long hitter. The problem was that all too often an attempt to drive the green would be pushed/sliced out right, frequently wind assisted as the prevailing wind is from the west and end up in one of the neighbouring properties. The solution, which lies outwith the Rules of Golf is to limit under a Club rule the length of a tee shot. That means that the "no-go" area, the area your tee shot is not supposed to end up in is the remainder of the hole, the area into which you are playing your next shot, the area that includes the putting green. That obviously cannot be a No Play Zone. You must be picturing a rather different situation! Here's the set-up on our 1st hole as it is now, re-aligned with an internal boundary, well-placed bunkers and the limitation of tee shots indicated by the dotted red line. It has created a shaped, two-shot to green hole that directs play away from the neighbours' properties. It works.

View attachment 44164

Yes, I was envisaging very different geography - the OP was not specific. I had in mind an approach intended to exclude a specific piece of the course from any play. Your situation poses different challenges. That said, I see no reason why you cannot also include a Code of Conduct based penalty (one stroke or two) for a tee stroke that goes beyond the red line because of the community and safety issues involved. I think it would be less intrusive on the golf than an internal OOB boundary that some courses need to use (of course, that is not a practical option here). RBs are saying clubs can introduce golf penalties under a Code of Conduct for the likes of failing to rake bunkers and fill in divots, but this seems to be a stronger case than those. And your current approach is a particularly blunt instrument that involves the inequity of requiring someone that only hits it 150 with the driver being forced to give up even more ground.

 

[salfordlad]

Are you suggesting that the area to the right in Colin's picture (ie the OOB) is 1) declared a NPZ PA with 2) the consequential penalties?

No.

 

[rulefan]

No.

The area beyond the red line?

 

[salfordlad]

The area beyond the red line?

In Colin's picture.

 

[rulefan]

Colin

Surely what is now a 'forced layup' would affect the Course Rating and probably the hole par?

 

[Colin L]

Yes, I was envisaging very different geography - the OP was not specific. I had in mind an approach intended to exclude a specific piece of the course from any play. Your situation poses different challenges. That said, I see no reason why you cannot also include a Code of Conduct based penalty (one stroke or two) for a tee stroke that goes beyond the red line because of the community and safety issues involved. I think it would be less intrusive on the golf than an internal OOB boundary that some courses need to use (of course, thgemenat is not a practical option here). RBs are saying clubs can introduce golf penalties under a Code of Conduct for the likes of failing to rake bunkers and fill in divots, but this seems to be a stronger case than those. And your current approach is a particularly blunt instrument that involves the inequity of requiring someone that only hits it 150 with the driver being forced to give up even more ground.

The reason why we don't have a penalty written into a Code of Conduct is that by 2019 when that became a possibility, there was no need for it as the restriction on the distance permitted off the tee was established and accepted and we were well past the initial period of having to warn one or two members and advise a few visitors that they wouldn't be welcomed back. Had we been introducing the measures post-2019, we may well have incorporated sanctions into a Code of Conduct. But in any case, you have to have defined what is not allowed before you can say what the sanction is for doing what is not allowed. Limiting the distance a tee shot should go may be a blunt instrument but what alternative would you suggest? The concern was about the blunt instruments that were landing in our neighbour' gardens - in one instance in a baby's pram. That the pram was mercifully unoccupied at the time was sheer chance.

There is no inequity in our arrangement as we do not say anything about club selection. Everyone regardless of their ability and their length off the tee is restricted to the same maximum distance and with the distance being some 200 yards. For those who can't hit. ball further than that anyway, it makes no difference. Our long hitters may still find it irksome, I dare say, but as far as I know, no-one has transgressed in a long time. I agree that specifying that players are not allowed to use a driver is inequitable and thought at the time that it was also inconsistent with the fact that the Rules never dictate what club a player must use or not use.

This is how it's worded:

FIRST HOLE
SAFETY NOTICE
To protect our neighbours and their properties, you must play your tee shot from the red, yellow or white tee on the 1st hole with the intention that the ball stops no nearer the hole than the left hand bunker. Deliberately playing beyond this limit will be considered an intentional disregard for safety and a serious breach of club discipline.

 

[salfordlad]

Colin
Thank you for the further info, I was confusing references in other posts to only requiring an iron off the tee. If what you have is doing the job, then great. I was only injecting, essentially as an academic exercise, that RBs have now provided a tool for Committees to invent their own golf penalties - and while that is likely to remain used very little (thankfully, probably) - it is an option.

 

[rudebhoy]

Boldon (Tyne and Wear) has the same irons only rule on the 1st hole. 299 yard par 4 with housing down the right hand side.

 

[Colin L]

Colin
Thank you for the further info, I was confusing references in other posts to only requiring an iron off the tee. If what you have is doing the job, then great. I was only injecting, essentially as an academic exercise, that RBs have now provided a tool for Committees to invent their own golf penalties - and while that is likely to remain used very little (thankfully, probably) - it is an option.

It's an option that I'll bring up for consideration in this winter's review of our Terms of the Competition but firstly, we'd have to introduce a Code of Conduct! Your reference to the Code of Conduct sanction and the question raised in the thread about Opens make me think of the value of a stroke sanction since the "Don't darken this door again" response makes no difference on the day. The offender could nonetheless win the competition and not be too bothered about not being invited back.

 

[rulefan]

Colin

Did the course raters know or make any comments? Incidentally, what is the par set at?

 

[salfordlad]

It's an option that I'll bring up for consideration in this winter's review of our Terms of the Competition but firstly, we'd have to introduce a Code of Conduct! Your reference to the Code of Conduct sanction and the question raised in the thread about Opens make me think of the value of a stroke sanction since the "Don't darken this door again" response makes no difference on the day. The offender could nonetheless win the competition and not be too bothered about not being invited back.

It seems to me there need be nothing complicated about introducing a Code of Conduct on an issue a club considers important enough and it can just be part of the local rules list. It only needs to advise that it is a Code of Conduct issued under authority of Rule 1.2b to protect a Committee from any accusation that it is not a 'legal' local rule. As a simple example:

Royal Gorbals Golf Club Local Rules

A. xxxx
B. yyyy
C. Golf Buggies Exclusion Zones. This local rule is a Code of Conduct issued under authority of Rule 1.2b.
Golf Buggies must not be driven into the areas marked by oil lines surrounding the putting greens or onto the teeing grounds.
Penalty for breach of this local rule: first breach - one stroke penalty; subsequent breach - general penalty.

 

[Colin L]

Colin

Did the course raters know or make any comments? Incidentally, what is the par set at?

Unchanged at Par 4. The SSS did not change either . The arrangement was approved by Scottish Golf.

 

[rulefan]

I appreciate this is a pragmatic way of handling the problem. But I suspect there will always people who will enjoy trying to pick holes in anything different or unusual. And sometimes I count myself as one.
I may have missed something but assume a long hitter duffs his tee shot such that it only goes 10' (say). Is he now allowed to go for the green?

 

[Colin L]

There's aye someone.
That's not been legislated for but I think it should go into the category of "If it happens, let me know and if it happens again, we'll do something about it."
We are quality golfers. Our duffed shots make it to the penalty area 40 yards in front of the tees.

 

[cliveb]

Limiting the distance a tee shot should go may be a blunt instrument but what alternative would you suggest? The concern was about the blunt instruments that were landing in our neighbour' gardens - in one instance in a baby's pram. That the pram was mercifully unoccupied at the time was sheer chance.

Two comments:

1. Surely it's possible to slice a sub-200 yard shot into the neighbours' gardens?

2. I think you're very lucky that the local authority's health and safety department is happy with your solution. Plenty of others would require that the hole be put out of use until it is reconfigured so that shots cannot go in the gardens.

 

[rulefan]

Presumably 'holes in one' will still be required to stand their round in the 19th whether intentional or accidental.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Out of interest, which came first; the golf course or the current house owner?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Out of interest, which came first; the golf course or the current house owner?

Doesn’t matter anymore - the house owner will always win if it went to court

 

[Colin L]

Two comments:

1. Surely it's possible to slice a sub-200 yard shot into the neighbours' gardens?

The hole has been reconfigured such that the line of play for the shorter tee shot is generally away from the boundary and the course boundary moved left further to direct play away from the boundary of our land. Trees have been planted across part of the hole on the right with the same objective and although still quite young certainly play their part as you know it is all too likely that if you end up in them your line of play will be blocked. The shortened tee shot means that the trajectory of a slice is unlikely to take a ball higher than the line of mature trees down the side of the course. or if higher, have the length to reach the properties.

You can seldom say never when it comes to possibilities in golf but the likelihood of a ball landing in a garden is, as I understand it, very small indeed.