OOB border?

[Beezerk]

I was going to hijack the other OOB thread but thought better of it so I have a simple question.

Say there's OOB markers, they are around 6 inches in diameter, there's a barbed wire fence which is connected between the markers to stop wildlife getting in.
Is the ball OOB when it is fully past the marker/stake or past the barbed wire as there's a good few inches between the two?
Been looking for images on Google but to no avail.

 

[MashieNiblick]

In the definition of OOB it says

"When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the*out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports)."

A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds so the ball would be OOB when all of it is over the inside margin of the posts at ground level.

 

[Beezerk]

Perfect, thanks for that. Some of the images I found on Google showed the outside margin to be the border which is where the confusion started.

 

[azazel]

And correspondingly, when a line is used to mark out of bounds then the line itself is out of bounds. Therefore a ball lying partially on the line but with part still on the course is in bounds, but a ball lying on the line completely is out, yes?

 

[rulefan]

And correspondingly, when a line is used to mark out of bounds then the line itself is out of bounds. Therefore a ball lying partially on the line but with part still on the course is in bounds, but a ball lying on the line completely is out, yes?

Yes.

Just ignore the width of any white line and concentrate on the infinitely thin line that is the inside edge bordering the course.

Interestingly (to me at least) is that a ball touching the infinitely thin line bordering a water hazard or GUR margin (from the outside) is deemed to be in the hazard or GUR but touching the (infinitely thin) OOB line (from the outside) is not specifically deemed to be 'in/on' the course.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Oh dear. I was told that if any part of the ball was touching the (imaginary) line between the white posts then the ball was OOB. I have always gone with that info and also passed it on to other players when the situation arises. No one has ever questioned this 'fact' or said anything to the contrary.

Not sure how many, if any, wrong calls have been made because of this but the curse of the rules 'expert' has struck again. If in doubt get the rules book out is a pretty easy lesson to learn.

 

[backwoodsman]

Interestingly (to me at least) is that a ball touching the infinitely thin line bordering a water hazard or GUR margin (from the outside) is deemed to be in the hazard or GUR but touching the (infinitely thin) OOB line (from the outside) is not specifically deemed to be 'in/on' the course.

Perfectly logical. Rationalise it this way. The infinitely thin line defines the edge of something. To be outside that something, the ball has to be completely over and separated from that line. If some of the ball is not over and separated from that line, then it is still in that something. Touching lacks the "separated from" element.

Edit: Damn.... ignore. I've missed the point. ( I think )

 

[MashieNiblick]

In case it helps at all I found quite a good diagram on the R&A site covering both posts and lines.


http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2013/January/Course-Marking-1.aspx

 

[Region3]

Interestingly (to me at least) is that a ball touching the infinitely thin line bordering a water hazard or GUR margin (from the outside) is deemed to be in the hazard or GUR but touching the (infinitely thin) OOB line (from the outside) is not specifically deemed to be 'in/on' the course.

Perfectly logical. Rationalise it this way. The infinitely thin line defines the edge of something. To be outside that something, the ball has to be completely over and separated from that line. If some of the ball is not over and separated from that line, then it is still in that something. Touching lacks the "separated from" element.

Edit: Damn.... ignore. I've missed the point. ( I think )

The way I think about it is that the line is part of whatever it is marking, so red/yellow lines mark a water hazard and white lines mark the golf course.

If the ball is on the line it is in the hazard or in the golf course.

 

[Fish]

The way I think about it is that the line is part of whatever it is marking, so red/yellow lines mark a water hazard and white lines mark the golf course.

If the ball is on the line it is in the hazard or in the golf course.

But the picture on the right clearly shows a ball "on the line" and being OOB, so that's not ideal and too general. Those pictures have changed how I thought OOB was defined.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The way I think about it is that the line is part of whatever it is marking, so red/yellow lines mark a water hazard and white lines mark the golf course.

If the ball is on the line it is in the hazard or in the golf course.

how I understand it

For a ball to be in bounds then some part of it must be on the course - the line is classed as part of the boundary markers and not the course so on the line is OOB

 

[Region3]

The way I think about it is that the line is part of whatever it is marking, so red/yellow lines mark a water hazard and white lines mark the golf course.

If the ball is on the line it is in the hazard or in the golf course.

Apologies, I guess I'm wrong but don't know why I thought that. I thought the whole of the line was part of the golf course.

Every day's a school day

But the picture on the right clearly shows a ball "on the line" and being OOB, so that's not ideal and too general. Those pictures have changed how I thought OOB was defined.

how I understand it

For a ball to be in bounds then some part of it must be on the course - the line is classed as part of the boundary markers and not the course so on the line is OOB

 

[evahakool]

U

In the definition of OOB it says

"When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the*out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports)."

A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds so the ball would be OOB when all of it is over the inside margin of the posts at ground level.

Thanks for the definition and diagram, I always thought that if your ball was between any part of oob posts it was not oob, so it's good to know it's just the inside of the posts,our course has some boulders painted white as oob markers I take it this rule would apply to boulders as it would to posts, is that correct?

 

[Colin L]

But the picture on the right clearly shows a ball "on the line" and being OOB, so that's not ideal and too general. Those pictures have changed how I thought OOB was defined.

The picture on the right shows a painted line which, from a practical point of view, has to have width. The "line" you use for deciding if a ball is in or out of bounds has no width and is the edge of the course side of the painted line. For a ball to be OOB, it has to be wholly over that line. The two white balls clearly are not, whereas the red ones are. If the painted line is wide enough as in this illustration, a ball might still be on the line but be beyond the course side edge and therefore OOB.

 

[Fish]

The picture on the right shows a painted line which, from a practical point of view, has to have width. The "line" you use for deciding if a ball is in or out of bounds has no width and is the edge of the course side of the painted line. For a ball to be OOB, it has to be wholly over that line. The two white balls clearly are not, whereas the red ones are. If the painted line is wide enough as in this illustration, a ball might still be on the line but be beyond the course side edge and therefore OOB.

Yeah I got it and interpreted exactly that way.

 

[ventura]

This came up in a match today and knew the correct ruling from reading this before :thup: