Yesterday during the final round of coverage we saw DJ hit a ball OB. This of course leads to a different penalty than that of the water hazard. One ball was playable, one was not.
There was a social media firestorm with tweets such as this and many others like it.
Now clearly this tweet forgets that sometimes OB is set in place, because it means no longer on the property of the golf course. Retrieving one’s ball might not be applicable in these instances.
Yet that still brings many questions regarding the rules. Should they be changed? Sound off below.
Bumping this.
That’s somewhat selective, isn’t it? Ponds aren’t usually created to keep people away from anything.
Are these facts or conjecture?
As I completely disagree, and don’t know anyone who supports that logic, I’m going to have to comfortably agree to disagree.
I agree ?. And if you’re dropping within two club lengths from where the ball crossed OB, you are probably playing out of some gnarly rough or behind some trees (I know too well…) so to me it’s plenty punitive with that change.
And just because 2 instances that meets the criteria means that it exists everywhere? Both may be false equivalencies.
True. They are to protect access to the hole in some shape or form. OB is meant to define the course boundaries.
Still don’t see the value in making OB more of a penalty than a penalty area. The idea that 2 strokes vs 1 stroke affords any more protection of off course areas for the vast majority of golfers who aren’t pin point accuracy golfers just doesn’t make sense to me. Nobody intends or aims for the OB not do they intend or aim for a hazard/pond/trees etc.
OB usually isn’t created either (excluding internal OB). It is a necessity of the property. When it comes to how to play the hole, the genesis of the OB or the pond doesn’t matter.
Several people above said the same thing as I did. It defies logic that an average golfer would see a pond or see a OB stake, on an otherwise exact same hole, and would decide to go risky and hit close to the pond but stay safe and away from the OB because one is a single penalty and the other is a double penalty. They see both as penalties or lost balls and will play each the same way. Logical.
Disagree. OB is absolutely created to keep people away from things.
you seem to be implying that removing hazards is an issue. i’m saying merging hazards and penalty areas into one hybrid area seems to make a lot of sense. maybe i’m just not understanding the point you’re making?
Hence why I left the NE for a more polite and welcome area. I know full well of what you speak.
I was just making a joke that they eliminated the term ‘hazard’ in the new rules with ‘penalty area’ taking over… thus the LOL thing attached.
shows what i know about the rules. i didn’t even know they did that haha
Where have you been? I know it has been discussed here.
The area that is OB is almost never created for that purpose. The course is usually laid out next to or around the OB area. Courses through housing, or courses that abut the edge of the property line. OB is hardly ever created to be OB.
lmao how could you possibly know that?
If we change the OB rule can we change these to GIR?
View attachment 8951169
View attachment 8951170
That’s simple. Just tell the mx crew to mow the greens larger.
Zero putts and a celebration.
Hit it hard next time.
Look at the courses. Read the history of courses. Read about the topic on golfclubatlas.com Read books on golf course architecture. Many ways.
Brilliant. Emailing now.
Just be ready for your GIR to go up and your total putts to follow when you start playing on larger greens.
#RollBackTheFirstCut
Nine holes on my golf course were designed on/beside roads.
Two of the not included holes were designed around the driving range.
All are OB.
Next book?
Thank God they marked it OB. Now nobody should ever hit over there since everyone hits away from OB.
haha, oh, they definitely hit there sometimes. Especially on 18.
Either way, I think it’s two different conversations here… three actually.. And I’m not sure I am totally sold on OB being a two stroke penalty, but I do understand why it would be.
Dude this is way, WAAAAAAAY too simple for golf. Complicated it up, and maybe the USGA will listen.
Golf rules are literally the reason golfers ignore golf rules. Vicious cycle.
According to your logic, they built the roads in order to put OB challenges for the golf course, rather than route the golf course in the space available next to the roads.
That is not even close to my logic lmao
===============================
Many average golfers either don’t understand that rule or refuse to observe it. They "drop one" on the course near the spot where they figure their first shot disappeared, add a stroke, and play from there.
Stroke and distance was part of golf’s original list of rules, in 1744, but during subsequent decades and centuries it was repeatedly modified, dropped, resurrected, and modified again. Sometimes you counted only the bad stroke and the do-over; sometimes you added a penalty but got a drop. The most severe version was adopted by the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews in 1842: three strokes and distance, meaning that if you hit a ball out of bounds your next stroke, played from the spot where you struck your first, counted as your fifth. That lasted until 1846.
In 1951, the R & A and the USGA agreed to apply the single-stroke-and-distance penalty universally. But there was still plenty of grumbling, and in 1959 the Southern California Golf Association, with the support of 90 per cent of its members, adopted a local rule eliminating what it described as the "unfair penalty stroke in connection with ball out of bounds, lost ball and unplayable lie." Thenceforth, in Southern California, if you did something stupid the assessment was "stroke only." You counted the bad shot and the replay (from the original spot), but nothing in between.
The California revolt had some prominent supporters — among them Gene Sarazen, who told Golf Digest, "Golf is a game of luck. The stroke and distance penalty gives luck extra value. A guy gets into trouble at the wrong time or on the wrong hole and it is the equivalent of two strokes added to his card. The population is growing and taking up more space, so out-of-bounds holes are increasing. The double penalty rule is entirely unnecessary."
The USGA relented for a year, in 1960, but the stroke-only faction ultimately lost out, and the current rule, with minor tinkering, has been in place all over the world since 1968. But who knows? Maybe the governing bodies will come around to Sarazen’s point of view.
Phil would have played his from the gravel…. ?
If you’re playing with me I’ll call it whatever you want me to call it. But if I hit that on my approach shot, you better call it a nice shot
As a guy who has lost a dozen balls in a round, I agree with this statement. Heck, that round already cost me a ton of money, why have the 140 written on the score card too.
As far as playing an OB ball, no way – you take a drop within the course boundaries, take your stroke and play on. I can’t even fathom how anybody could think it would be okay to play out of somebody’s yard, but you know some tool somewhere would do it. That would be a hard no for me, I won’t even go onto somebody’s property to retrieve a ball. If there’s no fence and I can retrieve it from in bounds with a club or ball retriever I’ll do it – but if there’s a wall/fence and/or it involves me physically going onto their property, no way.
The white stakes aren’t there for the collection of penalties. They’re there as a deterrent, to be avoided at all costs.
Of course, that just means they’re somehow magnetized for incoming wayward shots. [emoji6]
I can think of 2 courses immediately that I play that have holes that dogleg around an OB area (range on one course, farmers field on another)
Why should it be harsher? What is the difference if it is OB off the course or in the bottom of a pond, from the aspect of the strategy and execution of playing a golf hole?
You have a way with words. I think I like it.
This has nothing to do with the strategy and execution of playing a golf hole – a hazard is an obstacle to be avoided whilst getting from tee to green, whereas OB defines the limits of the playing area
If you leave the limits of the playing area you should be penalised more than if you just find an obstacle on the course
That is a conclosory statement not supported by a good reason. The bottom of a pond is not a physically playable part of the course. There is no substantive difference.
So it’s true, the ROG are not chiseled in stone.
Thanks for the insight.
You make a compelling argument. I think we should also revert all the latest changes back to the "good ole days" to make it even harder. This game should be hard. I think we should get rid of graphite shafts, woods should really be made of wood, and get rid of all of these pansy-ass carts. Walking is the only true way to play golf. Riding on an electric mobile thingy is cheating.
After all, if there is one thing we can all agree on, is that golf is to easy with all of us hitting 350 yard drives, 15k spin balls, and greens that are absolutely flat. ?
Side note: Nobody wants to eliminate "ruin on the golf course". The difficulty in NOT hitting the ball into the OB or Hazard doesn’t change magically because it is 1 stroke vs 2 stroke penalty. Does it affect a golfers attitude? Possibly. But I still postulate that golfers good enough to change their targets effectively due to beign 1 stroke vs 2 stroke penalty PROBABLY weren’t going in there to begin with. The folks not good enough to control the shot won’t be impacted either since they can’t control it even if it was a 3 stroke penalty.
Counter argument: As @HipCheck mentioned in his post, should OB actually go back to a 3 stroke penalty from 1846? Would that offer MORE protection and safety for off course excursions in today’s long hitter, house encroachment, era of golf?
A pond is an obstacle within the confines of the course designed to be avoided and is completely different to being outside of the course boundary
Just because you can’t play your ball from within the water (although it has been done by numerous players over the years) doesn’t mean it should be treated differently to completely leaving the defined boundary of the course
OOOOhhhhh that’s a good one. We could also talk about adding wind mills to putting greens.
I am fine leaving as is. I am not on the USGA rules committee. But other than "to protect peoples property/safety", I haven’t heard any reason other than "because its the rule!" why this one couldn’t be a mandatory, must drop 1 stroke penalty ( no playing out like in a hazard/other penalty areas ) with a 1 or 2 club drop range and call it done. Nobody is for hitting balls off of railroad tracks, peoples lawns or living rooms, back seats of cars, etc. And making the penalty 2 strokes, 3 strokes or 8 strokes, doesn’t really change someones ability to not hit into that penalty area. The skill of the guy on the tee doesn’t change just because it costs more strokes if you hit there. The 2 stroke penalty does’t make the course easier to play, it makes it harder to score for only certain skill golfers.
You keep saying that, but you aren’t giving any valid reason why that makes any difference.
And you cannot physically play a ball submerged at the bottom of a pond.
At the same time, if that’s a hazard stake, I can just play it. But if it’s a pond, I (most likely) couldn’t. Golf is tough, guys.
Now if you have internal OB, your golf course was built in the wrong place.
This is interesting…