Change the OB Rule?

[DennisMiller]

I'm of 2 minds about this one. I guess the definition of OB is made clear by it being some property off the course, someplace owned by someone else, so let's stretch that to say the owner might not like you slashing divots out of their property. Where I play most is a linear course through a neighborhood. There is OB on both sides of 16 holes.

I do like the reasoning that a ball found OB could be dropped more in the fashion of a lateral hazard.

An aside to that, I object to the red lines drawn around some hazards, generally water hazards. They seem too arbitrary, some 2' away from the water and others appearing to be 6' away. I don't honestly know if there is supposed to be a standard measurement, but my own experience at various courses is that there's doesn't seem to be. How come you can play a ball out of a water hazard without penalty, but suffer such a tough penalty for a ball OB?

 

[LICC]

There are people for whom the far greater penalty for hitting it OB causes them to play shots with less risk of going OB. Which makes it rational.

Me for instance. With OB left I'm not hitting driver because my driver miss is often slinging left and I know if that happens I'm going to be 3 from the tee and no guarantee I don't do it again and take a really silly number. So I play an iron and go from there. Avoiding the penalty lowers my average score.

If it were a penalty area I'd just lol driversmash because worst case now is I'm dropping and hitting 3 closer to the hole with no worry of having to hit another drive.

(the local rule of 2 strokes / drop in fairway rule changes this a bit by taking out the fear of hitting multiple balls OB, but not that much)

I'm not seeing that. You are willing to take one penalty for the risk but not two- that sure isn't common. And that doesn't speak toward the unfairness of a double penalty for the same bad swing that you would have on the same type of hole.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

There seems to be these contradictory notions that the penalty is harsh enough to be remarkable but not harsh enough to justify a change in behavior. The course has an obvious interest, and sometimes a legal interest, to do what it can to discourage people from sailing balls off the property. Or in the case on on-course OB into an adjoining fairway when playing that fairway would be strategically beneficial.

There is a less harsh penalty for hitting into a penalty area that is within the course and presents no safety or legal issues.

One size does not fit all because these course interests are not the same.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

I'm not seeing that. You are willing to take one penalty for the risk but not two- that sure isn't common. And that doesn't speak toward the unfairness of a double penalty for the same bad swing that you would have on the same type of hole.

Without the new local rule it is more than one extra stroke. Both the fear and the reality of hitting multiple drives OB are a significant part of the deterrent. With the new local rule it is less of a deterrent. However, that extra stroke does matter if I am to calculate score probabilities for each course of action. Course management and all that.

(Again, if the penalty is worth complaining about, then penalty is worth trying to avoid)

Fairness is a non-issue. These penalties serve different course interests.

Speeding in a school zone carries an enhanced penalty as opposed to speeding in other contexts even if the speed of the car is the same.

This is not unfair for the same reason OB being a bigger penalty than a penalty area is not unfair.

 

[OGputtnfool]

A 220-yard forced carry starting immediately off the tee box is bad design.

I don't think it's quite 220y, but the Road Hole at St. Andrews has a hefty forced carry off the tee. Would you consider it poorly designed?

 

[LICC]

Without the new local rule it is more than one extra stroke. Both the fear and the reality of hitting multiple drives OB are a significant part of the deterrent. With the new local rule it is less of a deterrent. However, that extra stroke does matter if I am to calculate score probabilities for each course of action. Course management and all that.

(Again, if the penalty is worth complaining about, then penalty is worth trying to avoid)

Fairness is a non-issue. These penalties serve different course interests.

Speeding in a school zone carries an enhanced penalty as opposed to speeding in other contexts even if the speed of the car is the same.

This is not unfair for the same reason OB being a bigger penalty than a penalty area is not unfair.

Lakes and ponds can have safety issues. If the reason for the deterrent was safety, then some OB should be one penalty and some not. The differing penalties are illogical.

 

[LICC]

I don't think it's quite 220y, but the Road Hole at St. Andrews has a hefty forced carry off the tee. Would you consider it poorly designed?

The Road Hole has about a 140 yard carry. Not comparable.

 

[G-Man]

hitting a house is the same as hitting a pond. 1 stroke - mark it down and change the rules... nonsensical that you can often find your ball in OB yet get +2 strokes because of "safety" yet it would be better to hit the water and lose the ball for +1.

 

[tucsoncacti]

The Road Hole has about a 140 yard carry. Not comparable.

Jesus you win ok. Why is it every thread you participate in you have to make it an argument. Are you not exhausted by this? FFS.

 

[LICC]

Jesus you win ok. Why is it every thread you participate in you have to make it an argument. Are you not exhausted by this? FFS.

That is what this thread is- a debate whether or not to change the OB rule.

 

[OGputtnfool]

That is what this thread is- a debate whether or not to change the OB rule.

I think what he's saying is that you just refuse to acknowledge when valid points are made.

 

[Tevenor]

I think what he's saying is that you just refuse to acknowledge when valid points are made.

 

[OGputtnfool]

The Road Hole has about a 140 yard carry. Not comparable.

Except that you're wrong. Even from the front tees, to get to a reasonable approach distance you're gonna need to carry the ball in the realm of 200-210 yards.

 

[RealPretendPsychic]

I can honestly say that I would not hit more houses if the rule was changed. Change the rule!

 

[OGputtnfool]

I was expecting a Friends giphy re: pot meet kettle. You let me down.

Furthermore, the key word in my post was "valid". I stand by my assessment.

 

[LICC]

Except that you're wrong. Even from the front tees, to get to a reasonable approach distance you're gonna need to carry the ball in the realm of 200-210 yards.

View attachment 8952763

You are changing the goal posts. The statement was about the amount to carry, not the amount to get to a reasonable approach distance.

 

[Tevenor]

I was expecting a Friends giphy re: pot meet kettle. You let me down.

Furthermore, the key word in my post was "valid". I stand by my assessment.

I was dying to use the irony one for a while now. I'll do better next time. I promise.

The fact that you doubled-down on the "valid" part makes me giggle a bit, to be honest. It just further reinforces the irony aspect. Big differenec between acknowledging someones opinion/perspective and deciding to discount it and not even acknowledging that their point is worth listening/considering.

For instance, I know that the 2 stroke penalty rule is the rules that we all play under and I acknowledge the view of many in this thread that 'leave it alone' and 'its there for a reason' are valid perspectives. I actually ( shocking I know ) partially agree with that view. It is the rule and it does have an affect on how people play the course. However, I still feel the penalty is to harsh given what it is.

 

[OGputtnfool]

You are changing the goal posts. The statement was about the amount to carry, not the amount to get to a reasonable approach distance.

The amount to carry to play the hole as it was designed, as intended, and not playing for a bogey. If you're fine playing for over par, then I guess you have many options. Heck, if you just wanna say you hit your tee shot and didn't end up in the hazard, OB, or whatever you're trying to carry, then tee it up and bunt it off 1 yard or so. No penalty to that and you didn't hit hazard. Good luck with that. A 140y carry will not get you into position to score on that hole. Furthermore, the line on a 140y carry makes no sense to play.

 

[robrandalgz]

I love the ignore function. It's almost like a stupid filter.

 

[Tevenor]

The amount to carry to play the hole as it was designed, as intended, and not playing for a bogey. If you're fine playing for over par, then I guess you have many options. Heck, if you just wanna say you hit your tee shot and didn't end up in the hazard, OB, or whatever you're trying to carry, then tee it up and bunt it off 1 yard or so. No penalty to that and you didn't hit hazard. Good luck with that. A 140y carry will not get you into position to score on that hole. Furthermore, the line on a 140y carry makes no sense to play.

Sidenote: If we ever get to meet at an experience or randomly playing golf, I am buying the first couple round of drinks. I owe you that much just from this thread alone.

 

[wadesworld]

A few comments:

The biggest argument for the rule to change to be like a lateral hazard is the simple fact that while most golfers complain voceriferously about the severity of the OB rule penalty, most casual golfers completely ignore that penalty. They drop where the ball went out, charge themselves a single stroke and happily turn in their scorecard.

I personally don't think the rule needs to change because the extra penalness (don't think that's a word, but I like it) of the penalty is a deterrent for hitting the ball off property or into areas where it would present danger.

As for "lateral hazards don't penalize you distance" so why should OB? That's very situation-dependent. If you rip one into the water hazard that starts right next to the tee box, you're not getting any distance benefit. Of course there again, a lot of players will misuse the rule and drop where they would like the ball to be rather than where it really crossed.

 

[tucsoncacti]

I personally don't think the rule needs to change because the extra penalness (don't think that's a word, but I like it)

Post of the day

 

[LICC]

The amount to carry to play the hole as it was designed, as intended, and not playing for a bogey. If you're fine playing for over par, then I guess you have many options. Heck, if you just wanna say you hit your tee shot and didn't end up in the hazard, OB, or whatever you're trying to carry, then tee it up and bunt it off 1 yard or so. No penalty to that and you didn't hit hazard. Good luck with that. A 140y carry will not get you into position to score on that hole. Furthermore, the line on a 140y carry makes no sense to play.

If you play to the middle of the fairway for a 240-260 yard drive, from the middle tee, the carry is about 170 on the Road Hole. That is not something comparable to a forced 220+ yard carry over water right at the front of the tee box.

 

[LICC]

I was expecting a Friends giphy re: pot meet kettle. You let me down.

Furthermore, the key word in my post was "valid". I stand by my assessment.

Comparing a 170 yard carry off the tee to a 220 yard water carry off the tee is not valid.

 

[OGputtnfool]

Sidenote: If we ever get to meet at an experience or randomly playing golf, I am buying the first couple round of drinks. I owe you that much just from this thread alone.

It's all good. I'm a cheap date. I haven't had alcohol since 1999 and I rarely drink soda anymore. Juice, milk, or water is about it for me. Doubt I'll ever make another "experience" though. It'd probably have to be an unofficial meet.