Out of Bounds ?

[Sawgrass]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

I didn't get your point earlier, and now I do. I find it both amusing and engaging, but it's only a valid point for those who believe that an area which extends infinitely in one direction somehow swings down and around and ends up making a kind of circle. I believe the Earth is round, and if you head off in an infinite line away from any point on the Earth you will never get back to the Earth or any fairway on it.

 

I could, of course be wrong about that, but in the meantime, and unless the RBs tell me otherwise, I'll ground my club in the fairway without any anxiety as to your interesting point.

 

(And I'll rely on Committee markings and statements to define OOB.)

 

If I ask you to go in a particular direction and keep going, I don't expect you to end up in the air heading towards outer space!

I'll bow to the superior knowledge of a physicist, but I can't see any other interpretation of extending in this context to not mean along ground ( or sea) level

 

By now I expected Dpavs to ask me to go in a particular direction and keep going, but not you!

[Sawgrass]

Dpavs -

 

So we agree that the Committee has a responsibility to clearly mark & define the course.

 

Under your interpretation that golfers are not allowed to play from property not owned by the golf course, do you pull public records on adjoining parcel ownership and easements before playing?

 

The issue I have is that under your interpretation of the rules, the burden is shifted back onto the golfer to apply an additional criteria in order to determine the course of play. The burden clearly lies entirely with the Committee here - both in the case where they fail to mark a boundary or the boundary marked includes an adjacent property.

 

I think your taking it to an absurdity and I'm sure you recognize that your opening statements are somewhat facetious. That aside, I'm really not suggesting any additional burden be placed on players. The burden we are talking about on the player already exists. Where the course\club\committee fails to properly define, mark or designate certain course features it's already up the golfer to exercise the best discretion possible and confer with an opponent or tournament official when necessary. There really is nothing that I have suggested that makes that any different.

 

Once again, what you are saying is simply not true.

 

A player need only determine if he's through the green, on a putting green or wrong putting green, on the teeing ground, OB, in a Water Hazard, or in a bunker when he plays. Excluding OB for a moment, all of those areas have ROG definitions by which a player can discern his play, and none except the teeing area require any markers at all to do so. While it's a point of contention between us, OB can also (only) be discerned by markers or descriptions. But you have suggested that the Rules don't require markings or descriptions to define OB, and that property ownership also plays a fundamental role. You should see that as an additional burden, but somehow you don't.

 

(To be clear, water hazards and bunkers are defined by topographical features which might on occasion be somewhat difficult to decipher if unmarked or vague, but that difficulty never reaches the level of deciphering a potentially invisible property line.

[augustgolf]

[LeoLeo99]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

I didn't get your point earlier, and now I do. I find it both amusing and engaging, but it's only a valid point for those who believe that an area which extends infinitely in one direction somehow swings down and around and ends up making a kind of circle. I believe the Earth is round, and if you head off in an infinite line away from any point on the Earth you will never get back to the Earth or any fairway on it.

 

I could, of course be wrong about that, but in the meantime, and unless the RBs tell me otherwise, I'll ground my club in the fairway without any anxiety as to your interesting point.

 

(And I'll rely on Committee markings and statements to define OOB.)

 

If I ask you to go in a particular direction and keep going, I don't expect you to end up in the air heading towards outer space!

I'll bow to the superior knowledge of a physicist, but I can't see any other interpretation of extending in this context to not mean along ground ( or sea) level

 

You're assuming the earth is not flat? You sure about that?

[Sawgrass]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

I didn't get your point earlier, and now I do. I find it both amusing and engaging, but it's only a valid point for those who believe that an area which extends infinitely in one direction somehow swings down and around and ends up making a kind of circle. I believe the Earth is round, and if you head off in an infinite line away from any point on the Earth you will never get back to the Earth or any fairway on it.

 

I could, of course be wrong about that, but in the meantime, and unless the RBs tell me otherwise, I'll ground my club in the fairway without any anxiety as to your interesting point.

 

(And I'll rely on Committee markings and statements to define OOB.)

 

If I ask you to go in a particular direction and keep going, I don't expect you to end up in the air heading towards outer space!

I'll bow to the superior knowledge of a physicist, but I can't see any other interpretation of extending in this context to not mean along ground ( or sea) level

 

You're assuming the earth is not flat? You sure about that?

Zactly. Assumes facts not in evidence!

[ruca]

A question for you (sawgrass)

 

Your ball is in the fairway. You ground your club in preparing to take your stroke.

I stop you, and point out that 1) the committee have failed to define oob as they should, and 2) to your left there is a water hazard which extends indefinitely

 

Because it extends indefinitely, it extends all the way around the world and back onto the golf course ( on the right hand side), and all the way onto the fairway where your ball lies. Hence your ball is in the hazard. I point out you are due the penalty for grounding your club in the hazard.

Do you agree?

 

 

My point is ( and was the point of my previous posts which may have been missed), although this is to me patently absurd, it nonetheless is the conclusion according to the rules ( as I see it- unless I missed something) Thus at some level there has to be a determination of what is absurd and what isn't. Hence I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that if a ball ends up in someone's living room on private property, it should be considered oob. That it isn't the way the rule is strictly written isn't the end of the argument, or one can construct more obviously ludicrous scenarios than the one above, and you would be bound by them according to the rules.

 

I didn't get your point earlier, and now I do. I find it both amusing and engaging, but it's only a valid point for those who believe that an area which extends infinitely in one direction somehow swings down and around and ends up making a kind of circle. I believe the Earth is round, and if you head off in an infinite line away from any point on the Earth you will never get back to the Earth or any fairway on it.

 

I could, of course be wrong about that, but in the meantime, and unless the RBs tell me otherwise, I'll ground my club in the fairway without any anxiety as to your interesting point.

 

(And I'll rely on Committee markings and statements to define OOB.)

 

If I ask you to go in a particular direction and keep going, I don't expect you to end up in the air heading towards outer space!

I'll bow to the superior knowledge of a physicist, but I can't see any other interpretation of extending in this context to not mean along ground ( or sea) level

 

You're assuming the earth is not flat? You sure about that?

 

You just reminded me of when someone informed me of the flat earth society , bizarre and strangely fascinating reading!

[HitEmTrue]

That's a pretty interesting and hopefully unique situation and I suppose we can create conjectures regarding any number of situations where the course has done something not well thought through.

 

I suppose though in your hypothetical (or was some course actually stupid enough to do this without defining the far side of the ditch as OB?), the entire forest to the far side of the water hazard would be part of the hazard.

 

Actually, allowing a course to extend to the hazard to infinity simplifies matters greatly. If the other side is OB, in many situations you won't be able to tell if you ball ended up in the hazard, or if it went OB. Now you are forced to take stroke-and-distance penalty on a ball that is very likely in the hazard.

[Dpavs]

Dpavs -

 

So we agree that the Committee has a responsibility to clearly mark & define the course.

 

Under your interpretation that golfers are not allowed to play from property not owned by the golf course, do you pull public records on adjoining parcel ownership and easements before playing?

 

The issue I have is that under your interpretation of the rules, the burden is shifted back onto the golfer to apply an additional criteria in order to determine the course of play. The burden clearly lies entirely with the Committee here - both in the case where they fail to mark a boundary or the boundary marked includes an adjacent property.

 

I think your taking it to an absurdity and I'm sure you recognize that your opening statements are somewhat facetious. That aside, I'm really not suggesting any additional burden be placed on players. The burden we are talking about on the player already exists. Where the course\club\committee fails to properly define, mark or designate certain course features it's already up the golfer to exercise the best discretion possible and confer with an opponent or tournament official when necessary. There really is nothing that I have suggested that makes that any different.

 

Once again, what you are saying is simply not true.

 

A player need only determine if he's through the green, on a putting green or wrong putting green, on the teeing ground, OB, in a Water Hazard, or in a bunker when he plays. Excluding OB for a moment, all of those areas have ROG definitions by which a player can discern his play, and none except the teeing area require any markers at all to do so. While it's a point of contention between us, OB can also (only) be discerned by markers or descriptions. But you have suggested that the Rules don't require markings or descriptions to define OB, and that property ownership also plays a fundamental role. You should see that as an additional burden, but somehow you don't.

 

(To be clear, water hazards and bunkers are defined by topographical features which might on occasion be somewhat difficult to decipher if unmarked or vague, but that difficulty never reaches the level of deciphering a potentially invisible property line.

 

I'll give you this, you depart from point and go off on tangents I never dreamed were possible with some of your responses...but.... I would never tell you which direction you could go Saw, it would just start another argument as to what is up, down or sideways. :taunt:

[Sawgrass]

Dpavs -

 

So we agree that the Committee has a responsibility to clearly mark & define the course.

 

Under your interpretation that golfers are not allowed to play from property not owned by the golf course, do you pull public records on adjoining parcel ownership and easements before playing?

 

The issue I have is that under your interpretation of the rules, the burden is shifted back onto the golfer to apply an additional criteria in order to determine the course of play. The burden clearly lies entirely with the Committee here - both in the case where they fail to mark a boundary or the boundary marked includes an adjacent property.

 

I think your taking it to an absurdity and I'm sure you recognize that your opening statements are somewhat facetious. That aside, I'm really not suggesting any additional burden be placed on players. The burden we are talking about on the player already exists. Where the course\club\committee fails to properly define, mark or designate certain course features it's already up the golfer to exercise the best discretion possible and confer with an opponent or tournament official when necessary. There really is nothing that I have suggested that makes that any different.

 

Once again, what you are saying is simply not true.

 

A player need only determine if he's through the green, on a putting green or wrong putting green, on the teeing ground, OB, in a Water Hazard, or in a bunker when he plays. Excluding OB for a moment, all of those areas have ROG definitions by which a player can discern his play, and none except the teeing area require any markers at all to do so. While it's a point of contention between us, OB can also (only) be discerned by markers or descriptions. But you have suggested that the Rules don't require markings or descriptions to define OB, and that property ownership also plays a fundamental role. You should see that as an additional burden, but somehow you don't.

 

(To be clear, water hazards and bunkers are defined by topographical features which might on occasion be somewhat difficult to decipher if unmarked or vague, but that difficulty never reaches the level of deciphering a potentially invisible property line.

 

I'll give you this, you depart from point and go off on tangents I never dreamed were possible with some of your responses...but.... I would never tell you which direction you could go Saw, it would just start another argument as to what is up, down or sideways. :taunt:

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is all straight ahead, and you don't get it.

[Augster]

That's a pretty interesting and hopefully unique situation and I suppose we can create conjectures regarding any number of situations where the course has done something not well thought through.

 

I suppose though in your hypothetical (or was some course actually stupid enough to do this without defining the far side of the ditch as OB?), the entire forest to the far side of the water hazard would be part of the hazard.

 

Actually, allowing a course to extend to the hazard to infinity simplifies matters greatly. If the other side is OB, in many situations you won't be able to tell if you ball ended up in the hazard, or if it went OB. Now you are forced to take stroke-and-distance penalty on a ball that is very likely in the hazard.

 

This.

 

On our 7th hole we have woods to the left of the fairway that are labeled as a "penalty area" (LH). The woods are only about 20 yards deep, then there is a railroad track beyond the woods. For a while they tried white stakes on the course side of the woods making the entire woods OB. There is a small pond to the right of the fairway. So if you never wanted to be OB or in the pond, the correct play was to play down #2, hitting directly at oncoming groups. Not safe and lots of provisionals if you hook the ball and try to hit the 7th fairway. When it's firm, the ball will land middle of the fairway, run through the rough, and OB.

 

So they made the woods a penalty area, but also defined beyond the woods as OB as it is railroad property. If you hit a high hook, you could carry the woods and go OB. Even balls you "think" are likely in the woods didn't satisfy KVC so you'd have to hit a provisional AND search for your ball in case you find it in the hazard. Total waste of time.

 

They finally just picked up the white stakes on the property line and now you can hook it over the woods and play from the railroad tracks if you find it, or take PLC and drop.

[2bGood]

Same as augustgolf, we had a home owner on our course who did not like the look of the OB stakes around his yard so he would remove them. Sure enough shortly after removing them, during an area major area event, someone hit into his yard that was visiting from another course.

 

The golfer insisted, as the yard was not marked, he could play his ball. I was on the committee and we backed him up after the round.

 

Funny enough I paid the home owner a visit as he called to complain about someone hitting off his yard. To my surprise he was a reasonable guy and got the irony that he was complaining about a situation he caused.

[Dpavs]

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is all straight ahead, and you don't get it.

 

Don’t take my taunt seriously Saw, I was just engaging in what I hoped to be banter in good fun and I do respect what you are saying.

 

To be honest, I agree with part of what you conjecture. I do feel, however, that you interject elements which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also you have a tendency to state things as fact but seldom offer anything dispositive from the rules or decisions which would support your position. The one cite you did offer was not germane to a discussion regarding boundaries but rather was off subject as it related to water hazards having an infinite extension. My belief was that you are wanting to extend that ruling so as to apply to boundaries also. That is an extrapolation which I simply do not agree to. I believe the USGA was very specific in that ruling and that it only applies to water hazards. Perhaps if you stated your case more clearly with supporting decisions or rules it would be more convincing to me. To say something is fact or incontrovertible and to prove such are two different things and I simply have not seen enough evidence to support most of what you state.

[Sawgrass]

Water hazards are an "in bounds" part of the course. Water hazards exist on property that is not owned by the course. Therefore "in bounds" may exist on property other than the course's.

 

I've posted a decision stating this and the definition of OB. It is you who have not provided evidence from the rules, not I.

 

That's all I got, let the USGA take it further for you.

[HitEmTrue]

The one cite you did offer was not germane to a discussion regarding boundaries but rather was off subject as it related to water hazards having an infinite extension.

 

Here's part of that citation:

 

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.

 

This is so on point to this discussion.

[Dpavs]

The one cite you did offer was not germane to a discussion regarding boundaries but rather was off subject as it related to water hazards having an infinite extension.

 

Here's part of that citation:

 

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.

 

This is so on point to this discussion.

 

What I have repeatedly indicated regarding the above cite is that it is very specifically limited by the following language ... "on the course in the Definition of "Water Hazard"so it cannot simply be applied to other on or off course areas or features beyond Water Hazards and as such is irrelevant to the discussion of what may or may not be OB.

 

So no, I do not agree that it is on point in the least.

[HitEmTrue]

What I have repeatedly indicated regarding the above cite is that it is very specifically limited by the following language ... "on the course in the Definition of "Water Hazard"so it cannot simply be applied to other on or off course areas or features beyond Water Hazards and as such is irrelevant to the discussion of what may or may not be OB.

 

So no, I do not agree that it is on point in the least.

 

The citation in that decision lines up exactly with the definitions of "course" and "out of bounds". The ball is either on the course, or it is OB. There is no third state.

[Hardluckster]

You stated, and continue to argue, that property not owned by the course is OB. The decision Saw cited clearly makes it clear that that is not the case. Now you say that because it is a ruling on water hazards, it doesn't apply to other areas (OB specifically, I guess).

 

Can privately owner property be inbounds or not? The decisions clearly states that the answer is yes.

 

I think you are debating just for the enjoyment of the banter, because the point has been made and proven.

[Dpavs]

You stated, and continue to argue, that property not owned by the course is OB. The decision Saw cited clearly makes it clear that that is not the case. Now you say that because it is a ruling on water hazards, it doesn't apply to other areas (OB specifically, I guess).

 

Can privately owner property be inbounds or not? The decisions clearly states that the answer is yes.

 

I think you are debating just for the enjoyment of the banter, because the point has been made and proven.

 

Wow, to repeat myself again... I believe that this is only true in one very very limited circumstance and that is in the case of defining a WATER HAZARD. It cannot be extended to other areas... not sure why you do not get that point.

[Hardluckster]

Wow, to repeat myself again... I believe that this is only true in one very very limited circumstance and that is in the case of defining a WATER HAZARD. It cannot be extended to other areas... not sure why you do not get that point.

 

So, private property is OB, except for this specific case - because it doesn't fit into your argument.

 

Seems to me that you're the one who doesn't get it.

 

I understand that you are arguing that point, I'm just saying that is doesn't seem very logical.

[DaveLeeNC]

Wow, to repeat myself again... I believe that this is only true in one very very limited circumstance and that is in the case of defining a WATER HAZARD. It cannot be extended to other areas... not sure why you do not get that point.

 

So, private property is OB, except for this specific case - because it doesn't fit into your argument.

 

Seems to me that you're the one who doesn't get it.

 

I understand that you are arguing that point, I'm just saying that is doesn't seem very logical.

 

I know of a club that discovered that one of their greens was only a couple feet from the property line (instead of the 20 or so yards per the markers). From what I was told they talked to the owners (it was actually a vacant lot) and played the hole 'as marked' until the next year when they moved the green (as part of a planned redesign which is how this got discovered in the first place).

 

dave

[HitEmTrue]

You stated, and continue to argue, that property not owned by the course is OB. The decision Saw cited clearly makes it clear that that is not the case. Now you say that because it is a ruling on water hazards, it doesn't apply to other areas (OB specifically, I guess).

 

Can privately owner property be inbounds or not? The decisions clearly states that the answer is yes.

 

I think you are debating just for the enjoyment of the banter, because the point has been made and proven.

 

Wow, to repeat myself again... I believe that this is only true in one very very limited circumstance and that is in the case of defining a WATER HAZARD. It cannot be extended to other areas... not sure why you do not get that point.

 

Dpavs,

 

So a privately owned course sits next to public land. There is natural (un-maintained) land between golf holes that looks exactly like the public land...so there is no way to tell where the golf course ends and the public land begins. The course has not marked OB.

 

Player hits it left of the fairway, toward public land. Is the ball OB? Can the player play the ball as it lies?

[Sawgrass]

My head hurts.

[Slagathor]

My head hurts.

 

It gets worse, Sawgrass. My survey equipment would be deemed an illegal distance measuring device since it has to take elevation into account to accurately locate property lines.

[Sawgrass]

My head hurts.

 

It gets worse, Sawgrass. My survey equipment would be deemed an illegal distance measuring device since it has to take elevation into account to accurately locate property lines.

 

Talk about Catch 22!

[Dpavs]

Other than what I have already indicated, which I have tried to do plainly and concisely as possible.. I think this is over for me.

 

As this is coming down to just a bunch of hypothetical situations which I really do not feel like responding to because we are just going in circles at this point.

 

But I will leave you with this real situation which actually happened in a league I play in last year. It does however also illustrate how ludicrous some situations can get, hypothetical or real and that the ultimate problem in trying to resolve the question is due to a failing by the course\club to adequately mark or note the boundaries of the course.

 

A ball is hit far left and goes past the rough, over a road, crosses a small creek (which is not staked or marked in any manner as a hazard) and lands in a fenced back yard of a nearby home. There are no white stakes by the road or elsewhere and none of these items are noted on the scorecard or anywhere else as being out of bounds. How do you proceed and treat your next shot?

[sui generis]

Other than what I have already indicated, which I have tried to do plainly and concisely as possible.. I think this is over for me.

 

As this is coming down to just a bunch of hypothetical situations which I really do not feel like responding to because we are just going in circles at this point.

 

But I will leave you with this real situation which actually happened in a league I play in last year. It does however also illustrate how ludicrous some situations can get, hypothetical or real and that the ultimate problem in trying to resolve the question is due to a failing by the course\club to adequately mark or note the boundaries of the course.

 

A ball is hit far left and goes past the rough, over a road, crosses a small creek (which is not staked or marked in any manner as a hazard) and lands in a fenced back yard of a nearby home. There are no white stakes by the road or elsewhere and none of these items are noted on the scorecard or anywhere else as being out of bounds. How do you proceed and treat your next shot?

 

Pick it cleanly. No big divot or out comes the Rottweiler.

[rogolf]

Other than what I have already indicated, which I have tried to do plainly and concisely as possible.. I think this is over for me.

 

As this is coming down to just a bunch of hypothetical situations which I really do not feel like responding to because we are just going in circles at this point.

 

But I will leave you with this real situation which actually happened in a league I play in last year. It does however also illustrate how ludicrous some situations can get, hypothetical or real and that the ultimate problem in trying to resolve the question is due to a failing by the course\club to adequately mark or note the boundaries of the course.

 

A ball is hit far left and goes past the rough, over a road, crosses a small creek (which is not staked or marked in any manner as a hazard) and lands in a fenced back yard of a nearby home. There are no white stakes by the road or elsewhere and none of these items are noted on the scorecard or anywhere else as being out of bounds. How do you proceed and treat your next shot?

 

Go play a course where the Committee has correctly marked it. Otherwise, it's the same rules as a knife fight and nobody will adjudicate.

[HitEmTrue]

But I will leave you with this real situation which actually happened in a league I play in last year. It does however also illustrate how ludicrous some situations can get, hypothetical or real and that the ultimate problem in trying to resolve the question is due to a failing by the course\club to adequately mark or note the boundaries of the course.

 

A ball is hit far left and goes past the rough, over a road, crosses a small creek (which is not staked or marked in any manner as a hazard) and lands in a fenced back yard of a nearby home. There are no white stakes by the road or elsewhere and none of these items are noted on the scorecard or anywhere else as being out of bounds. How do you proceed and treat your next shot?

 

Since I can't play the ball, I take an unplayable lie. Most likely the stroke-and-distance option.

[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).

 

 

 

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.

 

You've got a circular argument going. If you're playing by the rules of golf, the *actual* course boundaries obviously matter, like down to the inch.

 

If you can't tell where the boundaries are, then don't get your panties in a bunch of someone steps onto your property, because, well, there's noway to tell where your property line ends and where the course's begins.

 

BTW, have you ever lived on a golf course?

[Dpavs]

Forgot to add one other thing, if I do get a response from the USGA I will make sure to post it word for word here.

 

It's been fun but for now it's time for me to....