Out of Bounds ?

[Sawgrass]

Let's say your opponent carries white stakes in his golf bag and runs forward to your ball, and before you get there or see him, stakes you into a stroke and distance penalty . . . how would you treat him in the bar later if someone told you about his misdeeds?

 

Saw, don't know whether you took that question seriously or not, but it was meant that way.

 

If I owned property on a course and the private property of my yard wasn't staked as OB, I would seriously consider making it as such (on my property line of course). I would also suggest to my neighbors to do the same if they didn't want golfers hitting from their yards.

 

I realize that it isn't marked my the official course committee, but it would deter at least some some golfers, I would think.

 

Just as a side note, I agree with your opinion on the OB rule here. In fact it has come up in groups I've played in before, although I've never actually had it happen to me personally.

 

I think the homeowner putting up "fake" stakes would be a wise action, and IMO most players would think they were real and abide by them . . . as probably is "just." But another approach would be for the homeowners to ask the course to mark things that way. The course would/should gracefully comply, and I'd guess could be sued into compliance if they didn't.

 

Back to humor: an electric fence might work.

[Edaw68]

Everyone who has pointed out that while the rules state the ball is in bounds and playable if it is in private yard not marked as OB (or defined in another way such as on the card), but the yard is clearly marked as private and no trespassing, how would you advise a golfer to procede if you're refereeing a competition?

[Sawgrass]

Everyone who has pointed out that while the rules state the ball is in bounds and playable if it is in private yard not marked as OB (or defined in another way such as on the card), but the yard is clearly marked as private and no trespassing, how would you advise a golfer to procede if you're refereeing a competition?

 

No decent committee would allow this to happen.

 

But refs don't "advise" players. They inform them as to the Rules, the players make their own choices, one of which is a S&D penalty at any time.

[Sawgrass]

Head meet wall.

 

We obviously disagree as to what is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, definitions and decisions in this case so no point in trying to change any minds here.

 

Have fun and hit'em straight!

It's not "reasonable" to say that the Rules say something they don't say. But sure, carry on with your unchanged mind.

[Edaw68]

Everyone who has pointed out that while the rules state the ball is in bounds and playable if it is in private yard not marked as OB (or defined in another way such as on the card), but the yard is clearly marked as private and no trespassing, how would you advise a golfer to procede if you're refereeing a competition?

 

No decent committee would allow this to happen.

 

But refs don't "advise" players. They inform them as to the Rules, the players make their own choices, one of which is a S&D penalty at any time.

 

So you're refereeing a high school match and a 15 year old kid asks you "is this in play?"

[Dpavs]

Head meet wall.

 

We obviously disagree as to what is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, definitions and decisions in this case so no point in trying to change any minds here.

 

Have fun and hit'em straight!

It's not "reasonable" to say that the Rules say something they don't say. But sure, carry on with your unchanged mind.

 

Neither do they specifically support your conjecture Saw... I mean I respect what you are saying but you are extrapolating a question answered as to a hazard line onto a boundary line, the two of which are absolutely different. In the end there is no rule or decision I can find which definitively answers the question regarding private property and boundary lines, ergo what the rules say and the reasonable interpretation thereof is both good for the goose and gander.

[Sawgrass]

Everyone who has pointed out that while the rules state the ball is in bounds and playable if it is in private yard not marked as OB (or defined in another way such as on the card), but the yard is clearly marked as private and no trespassing, how would you advise a golfer to procede if you're refereeing a competition?

 

No decent committee would allow this to happen.

 

But refs don't "advise" players. They inform them as to the Rules, the players make their own choices, one of which is a S&D penalty at any time.

 

So you're refereeing a high school match and a 15 year old kid asks you "is this in play?"

 

I indicated that if I was involved I wouldn't have let it happen in the first place.

 

But are you suggesting that the "moral" approach is for the ref to lie to the player in support of some perspective on "ethics?"

[sui generis]

Head meet wall.

 

We obviously disagree as to what is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, definitions and decisions in this case so no point in trying to change any minds here.

 

Have fun and hit'em straight!

It's not "reasonable" to say that the Rules say something they don't say. But sure, carry on with your unchanged mind.

 

Neither do they specifically support your conjecture Saw... I mean I respect what you are saying but you are extrapolating a question answered as to a hazard line onto a boundary line, the two of which are absolutely different. In the end there is no rule or decision I can find which definitively answers the question regarding private property and boundary lines, ergo what the rules say and the reasonable interpretation thereof is both good for the goose and gander.

 

Please, if OB is neither marked by the Committee nor cited in Local Rules, the golf course has no boundaries.

[Sawgrass]

Head meet wall.

 

We obviously disagree as to what is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, definitions and decisions in this case so no point in trying to change any minds here.

 

Have fun and hit'em straight!

It's not "reasonable" to say that the Rules say something they don't say. But sure, carry on with your unchanged mind.

 

Neither do they specifically support your conjecture Saw... I mean I respect what you are saying but you are extrapolating a question answered as to a hazard line onto a boundary line, the two of which are absolutely different. In the end there is no rule or decision I can find which definitively answers the question regarding private property and boundary lines, ergo what the rules say and the reasonable interpretation thereof is both good for the goose and gander.

 

Yes, the Rules do specifically support my "conjecture."

 

The definitions say in part that OB is:

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

 

 

And . . .

33-2. The Course

 

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

 

The Committee must define accurately:

 

(i)

the course and out of bounds,

So, the Rules say that the Committee defines the boundaries. What part of the Rules suggests to you that other entities define them?

[Sawgrass]

I'll add this definition as well:

 

course" is the whole area within any boundaries established by the Committee (see Rule 33-2).

 

de-bolded

[Edaw68]

Everyone who has pointed out that while the rules state the ball is in bounds and playable if it is in private yard not marked as OB (or defined in another way such as on the card), but the yard is clearly marked as private and no trespassing, how would you advise a golfer to procede if you're refereeing a competition?

 

No decent committee would allow this to happen.

 

But refs don't "advise" players. They inform them as to the Rules, the players make their own choices, one of which is a S&D penalty at any time.

 

So you're refereeing a high school match and a 15 year old kid asks you "is this in play?"

 

I indicated that if I was involved I wouldn't have let it happen in the first place.

 

But are you suggesting that the "moral" approach is for the ref to lie to the player in support of some perspective on "ethics?"

Nope, I was asking if you'd let some poor kid new to golf break the law because the rules of golf don't address it. And while the committee shouldn't allow it, in the real world this kind of thing absolutely can happen.

[HitEmTrue]

Sawgrass, fix the bold!

[Dpavs]

Head meet wall.

 

We obviously disagree as to what is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, definitions and decisions in this case so no point in trying to change any minds here.

 

Have fun and hit'em straight!

It's not "reasonable" to say that the Rules say something they don't say. But sure, carry on with your unchanged mind.

 

Neither do they specifically support your conjecture Saw... I mean I respect what you are saying but you are extrapolating a question answered as to a hazard line onto a boundary line, the two of which are absolutely different. In the end there is no rule or decision I can find which definitively answers the question regarding private property and boundary lines, ergo what the rules say and the reasonable interpretation thereof is both good for the goose and gander.

 

Yes, the Rules do specifically support my "conjecture."

 

The definitions say in part that OB is:

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

 

 

And . . .

33-2. The Course

 

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

 

 

The Committee must define accurately:

 

course and out of bounds,

So, the Rules say that the Committee defines the boundaries. What part of the Rules suggests to you that other entities define them?

 

Maybe I should put it this way... I believe the implications of the rules are such that the Committee cannot define adjacent private property as in bounds. Yes it is an extrapolation on my part to believe such.

 

Recall that I alluded to the USGA's recent discussion of how to handle OB for casual play where in they specifically referred to neighboring properties and the chance that players "more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property"

 

To me it is clear here that the USGA is recognizing that neighboring properties cannot be part of the course. However as you point out there is an exception to this in regards to Hazards.

 

Now, let's look at the answer to question regarding Hazards which you cited.

 

"The Committee may define the body of water as a water hazard (or lateral water hazard), even though it is off the club's property. The phrase "on the course" in the Definition of "Water Hazard" does not mean on property owned by the club; rather, it refers to any area not defined as out of bounds by the Committee."

 

First this is a very limited question and answer and I do not believe it can or should be extrapolated beyond water hazards. In limiting it's answer as to being "on the course" regarding only "water hazards" and not indicating the same would be true for any other type of hazard not needing to be property owned by the club as long as it is not designated as being "out of bounds", further recognizes that neighboring properties, other than for the very limited purpose of defining water hazards, are not part of the course.

[TheGeekGolfer]

I'm little late to this discussion. However, from what I can find, the rules don't indicate 'how' the boundaries of the course are to be defined. Some courses use white stakes, some use fences, etc.

 

Question. Does this course have a map on the scorecard? I would suggest that if there is a map and it's fairly accurate. Then, that would suffice for defining the course boundaries.

 

Just a thought.

[Shilgy]

So is it a dq or penalty strokes if the committee does not define the margins of the course? They are told they "must".

 

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

The Committee must define accurately:

(i) the course and out of bounds,

(ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,

(iii) ground under repair, and

(iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.

[Augster]

So is it a dq or penalty strokes if the committee does not define the margins of the course? They are told they "must".

 

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

The Committee must define accurately:

(i) the course and out of bounds,

(ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,

(iii) ground under repair, and

(iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.

 

Penalty strokes, obviously. You can't DQ a committee. They can only choose to WD. :)

[Augster]

Everyone who has pointed out that while the rules state the ball is in bounds and playable if it is in private yard not marked as OB (or defined in another way such as on the card), but the yard is clearly marked as private and no trespassing, how would you advise a golfer to procede if you're refereeing a competition?

 

No decent committee would allow this to happen.

 

But refs don't "advise" players. They inform them as to the Rules, the players make their own choices, one of which is a S&D penalty at any time.

 

So you're refereeing a high school match and a 15 year old kid asks you "is this in play?"

 

Yes. It is in play. It is up to the player to choose how to proceed.

 

There are no boundaries to a "course" if they aren't defined. Anyone in Hawaii is still inside the lateral hazard left of 18 at Pebble Beach.

[Edaw68]

I certainly hope people would tell the poor kid not to trespass and to take an unplayable.

[Sawgrass]

Head meet wall.

 

We obviously disagree as to what is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, definitions and decisions in this case so no point in trying to change any minds here.

 

Have fun and hit'em straight!

It's not "reasonable" to say that the Rules say something they don't say. But sure, carry on with your unchanged mind.

 

Neither do they specifically support your conjecture Saw... I mean I respect what you are saying but you are extrapolating a question answered as to a hazard line onto a boundary line, the two of which are absolutely different. In the end there is no rule or decision I can find which definitively answers the question regarding private property and boundary lines, ergo what the rules say and the reasonable interpretation thereof is both good for the goose and gander.

 

Yes, the Rules do specifically support my "conjecture."

 

The definitions say in part that OB is:

"Out of bounds" is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

 

 

And . . .

33-2. The Course

 

a. Defining Bounds and Margins

 

 

The Committee must define accurately:

 

course and out of bounds,

So, the Rules say that the Committee defines the boundaries. What part of the Rules suggests to you that other entities define them?

 

Maybe I should put it this way... I believe the implications of the rules are such that the Committee cannot define adjacent private property as in bounds. Yes it is an extrapolation on my part to believe such.

 

Recall that I alluded to the USGA's recent discussion of how to handle OB for casual play where in they specifically referred to neighboring properties and the chance that players "more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property"

 

To me it is clear here that the USGA is recognizing that neighboring properties cannot be part of the course. However as you point out there is an exception to this in regards to Hazards.

 

Now, let's look at the answer to question regarding Hazards which you cited.

 

"The Committee may define the body of water as a water hazard (or lateral water hazard), even though it is off the club's property. The phrase "on the course" in the Definition of "Water Hazard" does not mean on property owned by the club; rather, it refers to any area not defined as out of bounds by the Committee."

 

First this is a very limited question and answer and I do not believe it can or should be extrapolated beyond water hazards. In limiting it's answer as to being "on the course" regarding only "water hazards" and not indicating the same would be true for any other type of hazard not needing to be property owned by the club as long as it is not designated as being "out of bounds", further recognizes that neighboring properties, other than for the very limited purpose of defining water hazards, are not part of the course.

Sorry, your perception of implications does not rise to the level of what the Rules actually say.

 

Look at it this way, if property other than the course's was inherently defined as out of bounds, players would be held responsible for knowing where the property ended, even if it wasn't marked. It's just silly.

[Shilgy]

Sorry, your perception of implications does not rise to the level of what the Rules actually say.

 

Look at it this way, if property other than the course's was inherently defined as out of bounds, players would be held responsible for knowing where the property ended, even if it wasn't marked. It's just silly.

I gotta admit I was leaning the other way on the wording but your last two sentences just cured me. Thanks for that.

[Dpavs]

Sorry, your perception of implications does not rise to the level of what the Rules actually say.

 

Look at it this way, if property other than the course's was inherently defined as out of bounds, players would be held responsible for knowing where the property ended, even if it wasn't marked. It's just silly.

 

Contrarily I find your interpretation silly as it would suggest that the USGA has framed the rules such to allow for infringement of property rights. This is a proposition which I find completely ridiculous.

 

I look at it differently in regards to what the USGA expects. What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. Why should this be an exception? I would find it even more silly to suggest that the USGA expects or suggests that players to trespass on to private land to play a ball situate on a neighboring property.

[sui generis]

Sorry, your perception of implications does not rise to the level of what the Rules actually say.

 

Look at it this way, if property other than the course's was inherently defined as out of bounds, players would be held responsible for knowing where the property ended, even if it wasn't marked. It's just silly.

 

Contrarily I find your interpretation silly as it would suggest that the USGA has framed the rules such to allow for infringement of property rights. This is a proposition which I find completely ridiculous.

 

I look at it differently in regards to what the USGA expects. What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. Why should this be an exception? I would find it even more silly to suggest that the USGA expects or suggests that players to trespass on to private land to play a ball situate on a neighboring property.

 

Rather than speculating on the ruling bodies intentions, why not ask the one in our backyard? (There aren't any white stakes preventing you from going in there.)

 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/contact-us.html

[Dpavs]

Sorry, your perception of implications does not rise to the level of what the Rules actually say.

 

Look at it this way, if property other than the course's was inherently defined as out of bounds, players would be held responsible for knowing where the property ended, even if it wasn't marked. It's just silly.

 

Contrarily I find your interpretation silly as it would suggest that the USGA has framed the rules such to allow for infringement of property rights. This is a proposition which I find completely ridiculous.

 

I look at it differently in regards to what the USGA expects. What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. Why should this be an exception? I would find it even more silly to suggest that the USGA expects or suggests that players to trespass on to private land to play a ball situate on a neighboring property.

 

Rather than speculating on the ruling bodies intentions, why not ask the one in our backyard? (There aren't any white stakes preventing you from going in there.)

 

http://www.usga.org/...contact-us.html

 

I was actually think the same thing and your post urged me to do so... ergo I have sent an inquiry and am curious to see how the USGA responds.

[Sawgrass]

Sorry, your perception of implications does not rise to the level of what the Rules actually say.

 

Look at it this way, if property other than the course's was inherently defined as out of bounds, players would be held responsible for knowing where the property ended, even if it wasn't marked. It's just silly.

 

Contrarily I find your interpretation silly as it would suggest that the USGA has framed the rules such to allow for infringement of property rights. This is a proposition which I find completely ridiculous.

 

I look at it differently in regards to what the USGA expects. What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. Why should this be an exception? I would find it even more silly to suggest that the USGA expects or suggests that players to trespass on to private land to play a ball situate on a neighboring property.

I take some solace in that you've muted your previously expressed certainty. (I initially objected when you stated your opinion as fact.)

 

But to be clear not one poster here has disagreed with the part of your above post I put in red. Of course the USGA is looking for accurate and appropriate boundaries. I as much said that when I posted R 32-2. Of course they are not encouraging conflict with neighbors. They do their part with the Rules, but the Committees have responsibility as well.

[DaveLeeNC]

How about the case where the property owner has a gun. Does decision 1-4/10 apply? :taunt: :taunt:

 

dave

[KyGolf]

Maybe this?

[larrybud]

Contrarily I find your interpretation silly as it would suggest that the USGA has framed the rules such to allow for infringement of property rights. This is a proposition which I find completely ridiculous.

 

How do you know if you're trespassing on private property if there are no boundary markers? You're making assumptions that someone knows the boundaries, and if they did, then of course the question of whether the ball is OB or not wouldn't be a question at all.

 

This is the point you seem to be missing. It's not always obvious.

 

Here's a shot from a local golf course. At some point here ends the course and begins private property. Can you tell me where that line is? This is a perfect example, because in this view you cannot tell where that line is (you can when you're at ground level because it is marked).

 

 

[Newby]

What looks like a shallow ditch about halfway between the house and the cart(?) path. At the end of the brown patch behind the large house.

 

?

[Dpavs]

Contrarily I find your interpretation silly as it would suggest that the USGA has framed the rules such to allow for infringement of property rights. This is a proposition which I find completely ridiculous.

 

How do you know if you're trespassing on private property if there are no boundary markers? You're making assumptions that someone knows the boundaries, and if they did, then of course the question of whether the ball is OB or not wouldn't be a question at all.

 

This is the point you seem to be missing. It's not always obvious.

 

Here's a shot from a local golf course. At some point here ends the course and begins private property. Can you tell me where that line is? This is a perfect example, because in this view you cannot tell where that line is (you can when you're at ground level because it is marked).

 

 

 

Well if I was going to be facetious I would say most likely where the neighbors stop mowing their grass.

 

But I already answered this. It may of course not be obvious if the club or course has failed to add some marking for the boundaries where needed. But what I believe is the case is that (to quote myself) "What the USGA expects is for clubs to define their boundaries appropriately so that players are not left to interpret where property lines are. Anything poorly defined or marked for that matter puts a burden on the players. "

 

Might not be fair and might be hard for players to do, but that is the club or courses fault of course. This happens in other regards too at times... and as players we just need to exercise the best discretion possible, right?

 

I don't think I was missing the point that it might be hard to know where the boundaries are if they are not clearly marked regarding neighboring properties and if you

tresspass accidentally, well you do I guess. Given all the courses and different scenario's out there it's going to happen I would think, but I don't think that really sways me one way or the other regarding where the actual course boundaries are. The one thing just doesn't have anything to with the other as I see it.

[Sun Devil]

In non-tournament casual rounds .... common sense should prevail. With no actual OB posts and nothing on the score card .... I'm taking a no penalty drop from the private property. Private property rights trumps ROG.