Change the OB Rule?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 16,230
- Reaction score
- 4,352
- Location
- Edmond, Oklahoma (NW OKC)
- Handicap
- -10.0
Just be ready for your GIR to go up and your total putts to follow when you start playing on larger greens.
#RollBackTheFirstCut
- Moderator
- #179
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?
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.
- Moderator
- #181
haha, oh, they definitely hit there sometimes. Especially on 18.Thank God they marked it OB. Now nobody should ever hit over there since everyone hits away from OB.
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.
HipCheck
@robmillertime
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 807
- Handicap
- 7
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.
LICC
Well-known member
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.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?
- Moderator
- #184
That is not even close to my logic lmao
HipCheck
@robmillertime
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 807
- Handicap
- 7
Good Digest article (yes, I know!) on the history of it. Once OB was a THREE stroke penalty!
===============================
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.
===============================
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....
Never was a fan of the stroke and distance penalty. Everything should be treated as a lateral.
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.
I think OB, lost ball and water/"penalty areas" should all be treated the same - one stroke penalty, no distance. Makes things simpler and makes more sense, which is exactly why it will never happen. I also don't think there should be any internal OB on courses unless there's a compelling reason for it (player safety, environmentally sensitive area, etc.).
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.
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.
As much as I hate OB and homes lining fairways, peoples' property needs to be protected by more than a 1 shot penalty and drop.
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.
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.
The way I see it, Out Of Bounds is outside the boundary of the hole/course, therefore the penalty should be harsher than hitting a hazard within the boundary of the course
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)
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)
NEhomer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2020
- Messages
- 1,392
- Reaction score
- 1,948
- Handicap
- 10.1
How about we leave OB alone and we stop whining about it?
I've said it before...disaster lurks on the golf course and one swing can bring ruin as it has for all the years I've played and watched the game. Now some of you want to eliminate that?
Toughen up buttercups; golf is hard. Don't hit it OB.
I've said it before...disaster lurks on the golf course and one swing can bring ruin as it has for all the years I've played and watched the game. Now some of you want to eliminate that?
Toughen up buttercups; golf is hard. Don't hit it OB.
LICC
Well-known member
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?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 16,230
- Reaction score
- 4,352
- Location
- Edmond, Oklahoma (NW OKC)
- Handicap
- -10.0
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
LICC
Well-known member
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.
Mr Moke
Low class golfer.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 517
- Location
- Charlie Town Missouri
- Handicap
- Distance
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?
I know, let's make golf even harder. Not only should OB be more penal but let's make penalty areas tougher too. If you hit your ball into a penalty area, you have NO CHOICE but to hit out of it. Can't see it at the bottom of the pond? Tough break for you.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