Are there limits on Out of Bounds

Seve OB

Lucky enough to be playing this morning. New local internal out of bounds has been introduced because “someone was nearly hit by a ball”

Now we have a hole which has OB all the way down the right hand side and now has a this new OB section down the left hand side of about 150 meters which brings in the landing zone of tee shots or even second shots (it’s a par 5)

Pinch point now of about 30 yards tops where if you are left or right of the fairway you are OB. This surely cannot be allowed? It is right at the landing zone for lots, it does spread out and if you are a longer hitter you will have a slightly wider landing area but if you are shorter or off the back tees, you probably have about 50 yards of fairway max with pond on the left and carry the pond is OB.

It’s daft. Hole was always badly designed, but now it is just comical.

DuckSlice

I'm not sure if there is a limit but if it makes the hole un-playable then that sounds a bit daft.

Also wouldn't they have to re-assess the index of the hole? sounds like it has been made much more difficult?

Kid Charlemagne

I think its forbidden. I recall being told that the 9th i think it was in roganstown originally had ob on both sides. Practice ground on left. Course border on the right. the course border (a stream) was changed to a red stakes hazard.

DuckSlice

Kid Charlemagne wrote: »

I think its forbidden. I recall being told that the 9th i think it was in roganstown originally had ob on both sides. Practice ground on left. Course border on the right. the course border (a stream) was changed to a red stakes hazard.

I looked up the rules of golf and it certainly looks like its ok.

A-4
Internal Out of Bounds
Purpose. For course design or safety reasons, a Committee can choose to specify that a particular part of the course is out of bounds during the play of a particular hole.

This is done to stop players who are playing that hole from playing to and from another part of the course. For example, on a dogleg hole, an internal out of bounds may be used to prevent a player from cutting the dogleg by playing a ball to the fairway of another hole.

But a Local Rule stating that a ball is out of bounds if it crosses a boundary, even if it re-crosses the boundary and comes to rest on the same part of the course, is not authorized.

Xander10

Could they shorten it to a safer par 4?

Tempora

etxp wrote: »

But a Local Rule stating that a ball is out of bounds if it crosses a boundary, even if it re-crosses the boundary and comes to rest on the same part of the course, is not authorized.

Unrelated to the exact topic at hand but this is interesting to me.

I have played at a club in the past where they have a local rule that you cannot hit over a certain set of trees to cut the corner. Was not aware this rule would be prohibited under the general rules.

Seve OB

Xander10 wrote: »

Could they shorten it to a safer par 4?

I’ve always said it was the clever solution, would be a fantastic and safe par 4.

But they won’t do it. Requires thinking and being creative. Will no longer be par 72!

I’ve seen much worse problems in other clubs but normally you’ll get some sort of discussion around options.

A quick easy lazy solution has been implemented here unfortunately and it just ruins the hole

blue note

I'd say you're spot on that they wouldn't consider making it a par 4 because they want the course to be a par 72. It's stupid, but it seems to be regarded as the best par for a course. Really it should depend more on your land. After you work out your possible hole layouts, you might find that the best 18 will have 5 par 3s and 3 par 5s. And if you don't have space for a par 72, I'd be compromising on the par of the course long before the quality of the holes.

Golfgraffix

Internal out of bounds for the most part is lazy design abd lazy response to poor design. I hate it

paulos53

We have 2 par 5s with internal OB on the left and the course boundary on the right for sections of each hole.

They usually cause carnage in the monthly medals

eoghan104

Seve OB wrote: »

I’ve always said it was the clever solution, would be a fantastic and safe par 4.

But they won’t do it. Requires thinking and being creative. Will no longer be par 72!

I’ve seen much worse problems in other clubs but normally you’ll get some sort of discussion around options.

A quick easy lazy solution has been implemented here unfortunately and it just ruins the hole

It only ruins the hole in your opinion don't forget. I don't think it's as bad as you are making out.

There is loads of room there you just have to be better. I agree a par 4 would be great but I don't know how it would make it any safer.

I was actually in the new OOB with my first shot back on the course last night, I think in comps the driver will be staying in the bag.

Seve OB

eoghan104 wrote: »

It only ruins the hole in your opinion don't forget. I don't think it's as bad as you are making out.

There is loads of room there you just have to be better. I agree a par 4 would be great but I don't know how it would make it any safer.

I was actually in the new OOB with my first shot back on the course last night, I think in comps the driver will be staying in the bag.

Lol of course you have to be better, but easier said than done.
Fair enough, maybe I am being overly critical, but like Golfgraffix above says, it is a lazy and unimaginative response to a minor problem. Poor design to begin with and has been made worse by weak decision making.
IMO nobody should be forced to leave the driver in the bag on a straight par 5.

There is actually quite a bit of bad design around the golf course which I never really twigged till I went on the Golf Digest course review panel some years back and I remember it being specifically discussed as being weak design and the points raised made a lot of sense. It is why it doesn’t get higher rankings.

Back to the hole in question, as it is, and especially off the back sticks, the clubhouse and car park is a magnet for golf balls. Bringing the tee box forward to where the fairway begins removes the clubhouse and the main part of the car park from the equation all together. Further down the right the trees protect the rest of the car park although most drives would now be past this. The 14th tee though would I concede probably end up more in the firing line.

I believe the change was made because 1 person kicked up that they were almost hit. I couldn’t keep count of the amount of times I was nearly hit on 16 or 17 by guys taking short cuts. Maybe we should have internal out of bounds on every hole?

kennethrhcp

paulos53 wrote: »

We have 2 par 5s with internal OB on the left and the course boundary on the right for sections of each hole.

They usually cause carnage in the monthly medals

the 4th can be nervy alright! I've started taking an iron off the tee

eoghan104

Seve OB wrote: »

Lol of course you have to be better, but easier said than done.
Fair enough, maybe I am being overly critical, but like Golfgraffix above says, it is a lazy and unimaginative response to a minor problem. Poor design to begin with and has been made worse by weak decision making.
IMO nobody should be forced to leave the driver in the bag on a straight par 5.

There is actually quite a bit of bad design around the golf course which I never really twigged till I went on the Golf Digest course review panel some years back and I remember it being specifically discussed as being weak design and the points raised made a lot of sense. It is why it doesn’t get higher rankings.

Back to the hole in question, as it is, and especially off the back sticks, the clubhouse and car park is a magnet for golf balls. Bringing the tee box forward to where the fairway begins removes the clubhouse and the main part of the car park from the equation all together. Further down the right the trees protect the rest of the car park although most drives would now be past this. The 14th tee though would I concede probably end up more in the firing line.

I believe the change was made because 1 person kicked up that they were almost hit. I couldn’t keep count of the amount of times I was nearly hit on 16 or 17 by guys taking short cuts. Maybe we should have internal out of bounds on every hole?

Yeah I agree the design isn't perfect but there is very few places where it is and that's just dealing with the ground you have.

All the problems with the miss right and the clubhouse and carpark can be avoided with making it a par 4 but as you say that brings the 14th tee and even the 11th green into play which is arguably more dangerous.

I don't think they needed to do anything, there is very few that are flying the ball all the way to the 14th tee box, especially off the blues. Maybe not using the whites was a better idea and always have the tee from the back.

It's annoying that it was brought in because of people complaining but here we are. There is nothing stopping us pulling the driver I suppose but its ballsy!

Look what happened in your other club when some houses complained about balls in the garden. Now that was a case of a great hole ruined and you hate to see it.

Seve OB

eoghan104 wrote: »

Look what happened in your other club when some houses complained about balls in the garden. Now that was a case of a great hole ruined and you hate to see it.

Yes it was a great hole, but the difference was that it wasn't changed with a quick fix, which introducing internal OB is. Careful consideration was made to redesign the hole (which I though at first was not going to be great) but it has turned into one of best holes on the course. Nobody aimed it out there, it was a result of a bad shot. Bad shots will still happen even though there is OB there now.

eoghan104 wrote: »

Yeah I agree the design isn't perfect but there is very few places where it is and that's just dealing with the ground you have.

Disagree. There is dealing with what you have the clever way and as Golfgraffix says, the lazy way. I've no doubt a good designer would have taken that plot of land and been able to design a better safer course but it might have been a par 70 or even 69 which I'm sure some would object to.