Out of bounds question

[cliveb]

There's a debate going on about which I'd like clarification. On our course there's a red penalty area (a ditch), but the opposite side of the ditch is internal OB. If your ball is in the ditch it's in play, but over the ditch is OB. Consider a ball that initially lands out of bounds but then bounces into the ditch. Some people are saying it's still OB. They are quoting this AI-generated answer to support their position:

No, if a golf ball lands out of bounds and then bounces into a red penalty area before coming to rest, it is still considered out of bounds and not in play. The ball is deemed out of bounds when all of it is outside the boundary edge of the course, regardless of any subsequent movement into a penalty area. The key factor is the ball's position when it comes to rest, but the initial out-of-bounds status is determined at the moment it first crosses the boundary line. Since the ball was already out of bounds before entering the penalty area, it does not become in bounds simply because it later entered a penalty area.

This just sounds wrong to me. For sure, you can't take lateral relief since you'd then be dropping OB, but I can't find anything in the ROG that implies the ball is actually OB. (On our course in this scenario, back-on-line relief would still be feasible in some cases as the ditch is curved).

My feeling is that AI has simply got this wrong, but I'd like confirmation from our resident rules experts in case I've missed some subtle issue. Rule 18.2a(2) seems pretty unambiguous to me.

 

[Slab]

As you say it seems pretty clear in the rule you quote for when a ball is OOB. That AI just doesn't fit

 

[Imurg]

AI....it's the future you know.....

 

[backwoodsman]

It's in bounds. The ball's status is determined when it comes to rest. (Consider a ball that crosses a boundary in flight, but which curves back before it lands in bounds).

Unfortunately, AI can only learn from the information already out on the Net - and there's more out there than truth

 

[Neilds]

Do the people who are saying it is OOB also think a ball that skims over the water is actually in the water as that it where it first landed? Clowns!

 

[NearHull]

Do the people who are saying it is OOB also think a ball that skims over the water is actually in the water as that it where it first landed? Clowns!

That set off an earworm

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…………

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Do the people who are saying it is OOB also think a ball that skims over the water is actually in the water as that it where it first landed? Clowns!

Or the ball that hits a branch of a tree overhanging OOB but luckily bounces back in play…tough…that’s OOB? No. I didn’t think so. Though maybe I’ll be corrected.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

I’m no rules official but I was always taught a ball is only out of bounds when in comes to rest. A quick check of the R&A rules app on my phone confirms this.

Also a quick google search also confirms: The R&A and USGA (the governing bodies for golf rules) specifically state that a Local Rule declaring a ball out of bounds if it merely crosses a boundary, even if it re-crosses and comes to rest on a part of the course, is not authorized

So I’m afraid your pals have been lazy in trying to get AI to answer for them rather than doing the leg work themselves and are now dying on a hill that doesn’t exist. R&A rules confirm it’s not OOB and they can’t argue local rules will state otherwise.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

There's a debate going on about which I'd like clarification. On our course there's a red penalty area (a ditch), but the opposite side of the ditch is internal OB. If your ball is in the ditch it's in play, but over the ditch is OB. Consider a ball that initially lands out of bounds but then bounces into the ditch. Some people are saying it's still OB. They are quoting this AI-generated answer to support their position:

No, if a golf ball lands out of bounds and then bounces into a red penalty area before coming to rest, it is still considered out of bounds and not in play. The ball is deemed out of bounds when all of it is outside the boundary edge of the course, regardless of any subsequent movement into a penalty area. The key factor is the ball's position when it comes to rest, but the initial out-of-bounds status is determined at the moment it first crosses the boundary line. Since the ball was already out of bounds before entering the penalty area, it does not become in bounds simply because it later entered a penalty area.

This just sounds wrong to me. For sure, you can't take lateral relief since you'd then be dropping OB, but I can't find anything in the ROG that implies the ball is actually OB. (On our course in this scenario, back-on-line relief would still be feasible in some cases as the ditch is curved).

My feeling is that AI has simply got this wrong, but I'd like confirmation from our resident rules experts in case I've missed some subtle issue. Rule 18.2a(2) seems pretty unambiguous to me.

So if a ball hits a tree OOB and then comes back onto the course they would think it’s still OOB

The ball will only be considered OOB when it’s at rest

 

[LincolnShep]

Maybe they should try engaging their own intelligence before trying to use artificial intelligence.

 

[Colin L]

It's in bounds. The ball's status is determined when it comes to rest. (Consider a ball that crosses a boundary in flight, but which curves back before it lands in bounds).

Unfortunately, AI can only learn from the information already out on the Net - and there's more out there than truth

Be better just reading the Rules of Golf.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Be better just reading the Rules of Golf.

Agreed and literally takes seconds, if they had to use AI to work it out they could have used the R&A in less time and got the right answer. It took me less than 60seconds to find it using the apps search function.

 

[cliveb]

Be better just reading the Rules of Golf.

Thanks Colin. As the first of our resident rules experts to reply, can you just confirm that the AI statement is simply wrong and that the ball is definitely in bounds?
I need to be 100% sure before I tell the others in the debate at my club.

 

[D-S]

Thanks Colin. As the first of our resident rules experts to reply, can you just confirm that the AI statement is simply wrong and that the ball is definitely in bounds?
I need to be 100% sure before I tell the others in the debate at my club.

That’s a bit of a kick in the teeth of those that correctly replied and quoted directly from the rule.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Thanks Colin. As the first of our resident rules experts to reply, can you just confirm that the AI statement is simply wrong and that the ball is definitely in bounds?
I need to be 100% sure before I tell the others in the debate at my club.

So ignoring all the other multiple replies that correctly highlighted the ruling

 

[cliveb]

That’s a bit of a kick in the teeth of those that correctly replied and quoted directly from the rule.

If you read my original post fully, you'll see that I had referred to the relevant rule and was already pretty certain of the answer.
The reason for my post was that I wanted one of the rules officials to confirm my belief, just in case I was missing something.
Apart from Colin, nobody else who replied is (as far as I am aware) one of the qualified rules officials that post here.
Anyone other than a rules official telling me what I thought I had already figured out wasn't really giving me any additional reassurance.

I apologise if the wording of my post was seen as a snub to any of the others. That was not my intention.
But let me just quote what I said in the original post:
"My feeling is that AI has simply got this wrong, but I'd like confirmation from our resident rules experts in case I've missed some subtle issue."
I think that makes it pretty clear that I wanted a rules expert to give their view.
Of course anyone else is free to have their say, and I am grateful for them trying to help.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

If you read my original post fully, you'll see that I had referred to the relevant rule and was already pretty certain of the answer.
The reason for my post was that I wanted one of the rules officials to confirm my belief, just in case I was missing something.
Apart from Colin, nobody else who replied is (as far as I am aware) one of the qualified rules officials that post here.
Anyone other than a rules official telling me what I thought I had already figured out wasn't really giving me any additional reassurance.

I apologise if the wording of my post was seen as a snub to any of the others. That was not my intention.
But let me just quote what I said in the original post:
"My feeling is that AI has simply got this wrong, but I'd like confirmation from our resident rules experts in case I've missed some subtle issue."
I think that makes it pretty clear that I wanted a rules expert to give their view.
Of course anyone else is free to have their say, and I am grateful for them trying to help.

Clearly not because several people gave you the exact ruling taken from the rule book as per the rules of golf. The same rule and rule book the rules official quoted but only his opinion and comment counts as trustworthy. Strange way to show gratitude

 

[rulie]

The Rules actually contemplate and recognize that a ball might enter a red penalty area from out of bounds. It's all discussed in Model Local Rule section B-2, which also provides the mechanism for the player to take penalty relief other than stroke and distance (by allowing penalty relief on the opposite side of the red penalty area).

 

[cliveb]

Clearly not because several people gave you the exact ruling taken from the rule book as per the rules of golf. The same rule and rule book the rules official quoted but only his opinion and comment counts as trustworthy. Strange way to show gratitude

Is it not possible to be grateful that people have tried to help, even if they haven't?

Those people quoted exactly the rule I'd already mentioned. I am as capable of reading the rule book as anyone else, and my initial post made it clear that I had done so.

But reading the rule book doesn't necessarily cover every possible subtle circumstance.
If the rules themselves are so comprehensive that they cover every eventuality, then why do we also have a plethora of clarifications?

THAT is why I was seeking reassurance from a qualified rules official - in case there was some issue that I had missed.
And Colin was the only one to reply who is a rules official (as far as I am aware).

I accept that the way I worded my reply to Colin could be taken as dissing everyone else, and have already apologised if anyone took it that way.

 

[rulefan]

As there had been so many replies confirming that a ball at rest determines its status, there seemed little point in adding further responses.