Jump to content

Double Penalty for Out of Bounds


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, cnosil said:


Sorry not logical or good reasons. I could counter all of those with another statement,  but I won’t.  


 

 

The point is, there is valid reason or logic behind most of the rules relating to those issues you brought up. That is not the case with the OB penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I try not to comment when it comes to the rules of golf. But after reading 9 pages of this on and off for days now I would have though this might have calmed down some. But no...... So here is my two

Why is rolling through a Stop sign different than rolling through a Yield sign?  Its an identical action, treated differently based on the shape and color of the sign.  Because the folks who have set

Just my opinion, but who said golf is fair? You get penalized for well-struck shots occasionally, and you get away with poor ones from time to time. I have a buddy who’s only ace came from a bladed 9

Posted Images

20 minutes ago, LICC said:

The point is, there is valid reason or logic behind most of the rules relating to those issues you brought up. That is not the case with the OB penalty.

https://www.rules.golf/~/media/Files/RulesDotGolf/New/Consideration-of-Alternatives-to-the-Stroke-and-Distance-Relief-Procedure-for-Balls-that-are-Lost-or-Out-of-Bounds-FINAL.ashx

 

kind of sums up the evaluation the consideration of fairness and the logic that led to the decision on OB and lost ball. 

  • Like 4

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  to 16.5* w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  Bellum Winmore 787

Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330, :taylormade-small:TM-180

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LICC said:

The point is, there is valid reason or logic behind most of the rules relating to those issues you brought up. That is not the case with the OB penalty.

If you hit the ball off the golf course property you must re-tee it and take a penalty stroke. Pretty logical. 

  • Like 3

:taylormade-small:             SIM 9.5* (GD XC 6X) 

:taylormade-small:             SIM 15* (GD DI 7X) 

:taylormade-small:             3 DHY (GD DI HY8X)

:srixon-small:                    ZX7 4-PW (KBS C Taper S)

:titelist-small:                     Vokey SM8 49 08 F ( KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                     Vokey SM8 55 08 M (KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                     Vokey SM8 59 04 L  (KBS 610)

:scotty-cameron-1:                Special Select SquareBack 2 33"

:titelist-small:                     ProV1

Twitter                     @THEZIPR23

 

"One thing Golf has taught me, is that my muscles have no memory."

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

If you hit the ball off the golf course property you must re-tee it and take a penalty stroke. Pretty logical. 

If you hit the ball into the ocean, you can drop within two club lengths of the line it passed with only a one-stroke penalty. The combination of that and what you said is not logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LICC said:

If you hit the ball into the ocean, you can drop within two club lengths of the line it passed with only a one-stroke penalty. The combination of that and what you said is not logical.

Only if the committee deemed the ocean a penalty area. Which the rules cover very logically just like they do OB. 

  • Like 2

:taylormade-small:             SIM 9.5* (GD XC 6X) 

:taylormade-small:             SIM 15* (GD DI 7X) 

:taylormade-small:             3 DHY (GD DI HY8X)

:srixon-small:                    ZX7 4-PW (KBS C Taper S)

:titelist-small:                     Vokey SM8 49 08 F ( KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                     Vokey SM8 55 08 M (KBS 610)

:titelist-small:                     Vokey SM8 59 04 L  (KBS 610)

:scotty-cameron-1:                Special Select SquareBack 2 33"

:titelist-small:                     ProV1

Twitter                     @THEZIPR23

 

"One thing Golf has taught me, is that my muscles have no memory."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, cnosil said:

https://www.rules.golf/~/media/Files/RulesDotGolf/New/Consideration-of-Alternatives-to-the-Stroke-and-Distance-Relief-Procedure-for-Balls-that-are-Lost-or-Out-of-Bounds-FINAL.ashx

 

kind of sums up the evaluation the consideration of fairness and the logic that led to the decision on OB and lost ball. 

This has been a great debate!  So nobody sees any problem with the fact that the article referenced, and I couldn't find when the link that was posted was actually written, with a rule that requires a 7 page explanation of the logic behind the rule and the article references that the rule has "been being looked into, and discussed" for  apparently NINE YEARS AT THIS POINT. 

Nobody finds it suspect, that  a rule which has been questioned for nine years, and is going to "continue to be looked into", just maaaay not be a logical, or good one.

 

Edited by stuka44
  • Like 3

Driver: :nike-small:VR Pro

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

Only if the committee deemed the ocean a penalty area. Which the rules cover very logically just like they do OB. 

From the USGA Committee Procedures:

But there may be locations where there are large open areas bordering the actual property lines where there would be no objection to players playing. In this case there is no need to place stakes or otherwise define the boundary.

So not being "on the property" isn't such an awful result that must be punished more harshly. Also,

Where a body of water such as a stream, lake, sea, or ocean, borders the course, it is permissible to mark such an area as a penalty area rather than marking it as out of bounds. The phrase “on the course” in the definition of “penalty area” does not mean on property owned by the course; rather it refers to any area not defined as out of bounds by the Committee.

Therefore, having just one penalty and not two for not being on the property of the course is also fine.

There is no logic in any of this. Make the penalty for OB the same as a PA, like it was years ago, and then it all makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stuka44 said:

This has been a great debate!  So nobody sees any problem with the fact that the article referenced, and I couldn't find when the link that was posted was actually written, with a rule that requires a 7 page explanation of the logic behind the rule and the article references that the rule has "been being looked into, and discussed" for  apparently NINE YEARS AT THIS POINT. 

Nobody finds it suspect, that  a rule which has been questioned for nine years, and is going to "continue to be looked into", just maaaay not be a logical, or good one.

 

I don't have problems with the length;  those organizations tend to be verbose,  but it does show that they have considered various options and have applied logic to their decision.  While many may not agree with the logic,  the decision to make OB a stroke and distance penalty has been reviewed in depth.   

I can't find a date either,  I was just looking to see if I could find the reasoning behind the penalty and found the article.  They should really be dated 🙂  

Update:  I looked at the properties for the PDF file and it looks like it was created in 2017

 

 

  • Like 3

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  to 16.5* w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  Bellum Winmore 787

Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330, :taylormade-small:TM-180

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LICC said:

There is no logic in any of this. Make the penalty for OB the same as a PA, like it was years ago, and then it all makes sense.

There have been multiple iterations for how the rule was written.  How about we go back to three strokes as was done at one time by the R&A 🙂

Per the document the logic for applying S&D is:

To date, our conclusion has been that it is inappropriate to allow a fundamentally different relief procedure for a ball that is out of bounds for the following reasons: 

  • Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; 
  • There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and 
  • It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief.

Additionally it states:

  • There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result.

 

There is reasoning and logic behind the decision;  you just don't like the logic that they provided.  

 

  • Like 3
  • Love 2

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  to 16.5* w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  Bellum Winmore 787

Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330, :taylormade-small:TM-180

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, cnosil said:

There have been multiple iterations for how the rule was written.  How about we go back to three strokes as was done at one time by the R&A 🙂

Per the document the logic for applying S&D is:

To date, our conclusion has been that it is inappropriate to allow a fundamentally different relief procedure for a ball that is out of bounds for the following reasons: 

  • Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; 
  • There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and 
  • It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief.

Additionally it states:

  • There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result.

 

There is reasoning and logic behind the decision;  you just don't like the logic that they provided.  

 

  • Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; Players would have the consequence of one penalty for one bad swing, the same as the strategic challenge of playing a hole with a lateral pond.
  • There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and There are safety reasons to avoid going near ponds and lakes; also, the rules allow for adjacent properties to not be considered OB
  • It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief. This is an illogical conclusion and not a reason.

There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result. The vast, vast majority of players will not play a hole any differently if the penalty were stroke only instead of stroke and distance. If anything, not re-teeing to go drop would cause less likelihood of another ball going OB. The very, very few players who may (even then unlikely to happen often) play a hole differently because the risk is two penalties instead of one, would be the highly skilled players who are less likely to hit OB.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LICC said:
  • Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences; Players would have the consequence of one penalty for one bad swing, the same as the strategic challenge of playing a hole with a lateral pond.
  • There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and There are safety reasons to avoid going near ponds and lakes; also, the rules allow for adjacent properties to not be considered OB
  • It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief. This is an illogical conclusion and not a reason.

There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result. The vast, vast majority of players will not play a hole any differently if the penalty were stroke only instead of stroke and distance. If anything, not re-teeing to go drop would cause less likelihood of another ball going OB. The very, very few players who may (even then unlikely to happen often) play a hole differently because the risk is two penalties instead of one, would be the highly skilled players who are less likely to hit OB.

Fine,  you win,  I'm done. 

  • Haha 4

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  to 16.5* w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  Bellum Winmore 787

Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330, :taylormade-small:TM-180

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, LICC said:

There is a general concern that any reduction in the severity of the penalty for hitting a ball out of bounds could sometimes result in players more often risking a shot near the course boundaries and possibly result in more balls ending up on other property where damage could result. The vast, vast majority of players will not play a hole any differently if the penalty were stroke only instead of stroke and distance. If anything, not re-teeing to go drop would cause less likelihood of another ball going OB. The very, very few players who may (even then unlikely to happen often) play a hole differently because the risk is two penalties instead of one, would be the highly skilled players who are less likely to hit OB.

So the rules committee gives a sound reason for the strict penalty  and not reducing it for OB in that they believe SOME PLAYERS MAY risk it more often should the penalty be less and you respond by SPEAKING for the vast, vast majority of golfers?  Not only is your comment more than likely wrong, you have ZERO facts to back it up. 

You have no chance to change anyone’s mind by making comments like this.  This topic just as well be locked up as it has become arguments/complaining for the sake of it.  

  • Like 5

 

 

 

What is in my Bag Boy Revolver

Driver:    PXG Gen2 0811x 10.5* set to small + with a VA Composites Nemesys 55s @ 44.75"

Fairway:  :srixon-small: F85 5 wood with a UST Elements Chrome 7F5 @ 41.5"

Irons: Testing the Titleist T200 irons 4-W2 with Project X LZ 5.5 shaft -1/2" and 1* Up

Wedge: Titleist SM7 56* with Project X LZ 5.0 shaft

Putter:  :scotty-cameron-1: Custom Futura X5 flow neck with a UST Frequency Filtered shaft -1" with a SS wristlock grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, LICC said:

The vast, vast majority of players will not play a hole any differently if the penalty were stroke only instead of stroke and distance. If anything, not re-teeing to go drop would cause less likelihood of another ball going OB. The very, very few players who may (even then unlikely to happen often) play a hole differently because the risk is two penalties instead of one, would be the highly skilled players who are less likely to hit OB.

Anytime my ball ends up out of bounds, I can assure you that the above statement is true.  If it does, I can assure you that the risk to the property owner is exactly the same, if I go back to the tee and hit another one.  I wasn't planning on the first one going at his house, but it did.  Now whatever it was in my swing which caused the first one to hook or slice at his house, just may rear its ugly head again, with potentially worse results, I will speak for the vast majority of weekend hackers, ALSO. Very few are  in any real control of weather their ball slices toward someone's house that is OB.     The idea that weekend hackers are evaluating where out of bounds is and would play differently if the penalty was only stroke, and not stroke and distance was clearly written by people who have very little real idea as to what weekend golf is and, who weekend hackers are.  

"Tips Guy" we all know him.  He shoots 110+, and according to him "crushes it 300 yards off the tee", and playing anything less than the "Tips" is beneath him.  The USGA really thinks "tips guy" and those like them are evaluating where out of bounds is and are going to play differently. 

Edited by stuka44
spelling correction
  • Like 1

Driver: :nike-small:VR Pro

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, cnosil said:

Fine,  you win

Thank you.

16 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Anytime my ball ends up out of bounds, I can assure you that the above statement is true.  If it does, I can assure you that the risk to the property owner is exactly the same, if I go back to the tee and hit another one.  I wasn't planning on the first one going at his house, but it did.  Now whatever it was in my swing which caused the first one to hook or slice at his house, just may rear its ugly head again, with potentially worse results, I will speak for the vast majority of weekend hackers, ALSO. Very few are  in any real control of weather their ball slices toward someone's house that is OB.     The idea that weekend hackers are evaluating where out of bounds is and would play differently if the penalty was only stroke, and not stroke and distance was clearly written by people who have very little real idea as to what weekend golf is and, who weekend hackers are.  

"Tips Guy" we all know him.  He shoots 110+, and according to him "crushes it 300 yards off the tee", and playing anything less than the "Tips" is beneath him.  The USGA really thinks "tips guy" and those like them are evaluating where out of bounds is and are going to play differently. 

The main observation is that none of those here who abrasively or otherwise are defending this rule can articulate any reasoned explanation why OB or a pond is any different for purposes of the penalty. All they say is "off the property". That is not a reason.

I could understand if the rules had "Safety Areas" or something like that, which imposed a harsher penalty for balls that go to spots that could be dangerous. But that wouldn't necessarily be all OB. It could be some types of OB areas where there are homes or roads, but also tee boxes, ponds on courses known to have alligators, adjacent fairways where the golfer can't see if other golfers are there, etc. I still wouldn't support it as I think one penalty is enough, but that would at least make some sense, instead of the illogical mish mosh we have now.

Edited by LICC
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, blackngold_blood said:

So the rules committee gives a sound reason for the strict penalty  and not reducing it for OB in that they believe SOME PLAYERS MAY risk it more often should the penalty be less and you respond by SPEAKING for the vast, vast majority of golfers?  Not only is your comment more than likely wrong, you have ZERO facts to back it up. 

You have no chance to change anyone’s mind by making comments like this.  This topic just as well be locked up as it has become arguments/complaining for the sake of it.  

I have years of experience playing golf with hundreds of other golfers (and @stuka44's comment above). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LICC said:

I have years of experience playing golf with hundreds of other golfers (and @stuka44's comment above). 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Good Talk!

 

Shouldnt be surprised though. That’s about as fact based as the rest of the argument. 

  • Like 3

 

 

 

What is in my Bag Boy Revolver

Driver:    PXG Gen2 0811x 10.5* set to small + with a VA Composites Nemesys 55s @ 44.75"

Fairway:  :srixon-small: F85 5 wood with a UST Elements Chrome 7F5 @ 41.5"

Irons: Testing the Titleist T200 irons 4-W2 with Project X LZ 5.5 shaft -1/2" and 1* Up

Wedge: Titleist SM7 56* with Project X LZ 5.0 shaft

Putter:  :scotty-cameron-1: Custom Futura X5 flow neck with a UST Frequency Filtered shaft -1" with a SS wristlock grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LICC said:

The vast, vast majority of players will not play a hole any differently if the penalty were stroke only instead of stroke and distance

If thats actually true, it's a clear indication that the vast majority of players make illogical choices on the course.

  • Like 3

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LICC said:

Thank you

You shouldn’t take it as a compliment and doesn’t mean you are right. 

  • Love 1

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  to 16.5* w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  Bellum Winmore 787

Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330, :taylormade-small:TM-180

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

If thats actually true, it's a clear indication that the vast majority of players make illogical choices on the course.

Why? They see trouble and play away from if they aren’t confident in their swing, whether there is one penalty or two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LICC said:

Why? They see trouble and play away from if they aren’t confident in their swing, whether there is one penalty or two. 

I'm not going to give you lessons in statistically logical decision making on the golf course.  Please refer to Broadie.

  • Like 2

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...