Change the OB Rule?

[BigMac]

Ob means out of bounds. Don't hit it there and you dont have a problem. It's part of the game. You know it when you are on the tee, so avoid.

I don't imagine that most people who hit OB were intentionally aiming there.

 

[blueonblack]

What's OB?

 

[BigMac]

What's OB?

Not sure if serious....

 

[blueonblack]

Not sure if serious....

Desired effect achieved.
Ya usually hit it where you're thinking about. Wherever that may be.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

Disagree. I definitely play away from OB when it is within 15 yards of the edge of the fairway and I rarely aim away from a lateral hazard to the same degree. OB costs me two shots and dumping it in a lateral hazard is only 1 shot.

I don't really get why this isn't obvious. I've changed my approach to a ton of holes because of this. Deterrence is a thing.

Is the intersection of the set of people that want to play by the rules and the set of people that totally disregard the strategic risk/reward of a shot all that big? If someone doesn't care enough to try to avoid the possibility of a harsh penalty then why do they care that the penalty is harsh?

The two stroke fairway drop thing is an elegant solution to the one valid objection to the OB rule. Which is that having to go back to the tee during casual play is a huge drag. The rest is just whining about the score IMO.

 

[LICC]

I don't really get why this isn't obvious. I've changed my approach to a ton of holes because of this. Deterrence is a thing.

Is the intersection of the set of people that want to play by the rules and the set of people that totally disregard the strategic risk/reward of a shot all that big? If someone doesn't care enough to try to avoid the possibility of a harsh penalty then why do they care that the penalty is harsh?

The two stroke fairway drop thing is an elegant solution to the one valid objection to the OB rule. Which is that having to go back to the tee during casual play is a huge drag. The rest is just whining about the score IMO.

It is the utter illogic in applying a harsher penalty for the same bad swing.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

It is the utter illogic in applying a harsher penalty for the same bad swing.

It isn't the same bad swing unless it is totally divorced from context. If I'm driving and take too much speed into the turn it matters as to how bad I'm driving if I end up maybe skidding off into a field as opposed to if I plunge over a cliff.

 

[BigDill]

If the basis for OB being a harsher penalty is to act as a deterrent to hitting the ball OB, then logically the penalty should increase the more often it happens. Second OB should be 3 strokes, 3rd 4 strokes etc. otherwise, is it really an effective deterrent?

Also, if the reason that a lateral water hazard is different because sometimes a “submerged” ball is still playable, then logically OB should be given the same sort of conditional relief, i.e if an OB ball is still payable, you should have the option of playing it where it lies and taking a one stoke penalty.

 

[RealPretendPsychic]

I would like to reiterate my hatred of this rule. Last round I hit a ball into the OB tree line and couldn’t find it. Took my drop and 18 penalty strokes, played a nice layup, missed the green, chipped on, and two putted for a triple bogey 8. If that farmer’s field was a darn pond, I’d have been sitting pretty with a double bogey 7

Besides, does having to hit a provisional or add the extra penalty really decrease the frequency of my drunk buddy stomping through someone’s backyard looking for and/or hitting his ball?

 

[tahoebum]

It is the utter illogic in applying a harsher penalty for the same bad swing.

Life and golf are not fair. I lost a total of 5 or 6 balls last summer at my home course and two or three of them were drives that were less than 10 yards off the fairway but the fall leaves made them impossible to find in 3 minutes. Same penalty as OB on well struck shots that were not very far offline.

One of the courses I play 30+ times each summer finishes with forced carries on the 17th and 18th holes over 220 yards often into a prevailing wind. The carry was 255 yards off the back on the 17th when I played it off the tips a few weeks ago. A slight mishit that doesn’t carry the hazard is the same penalty as a ball OB. I find it humorous that so many b*tch about the OB penalty when the water hazards I commonly deal with and a lost ball carry the same exact stroke and distance penalty. Find a different game or just take a mulligan if you don’t like to play by the rules.

 

[BigDill]

I would like to reiterate my hatred of this rule. Last round I hit a ball into the OB tree line and couldn’t find it. Took my drop and 18 penalty strokes, played a nice layup, missed the green, chipped on, and two putted for a triple bogey 8. If that farmer’s field was a darn pond, I’d have been sitting pretty with a double bogey 7

Besides, does having to hit a provisional or add the extra penalty really decrease the frequency of my drunk buddy stomping through someone’s backyard looking for and/or hitting his ball?

Your first mistake was not driving up to that tree area and checking to see if it was red stake or white stake. That way you could have driven back to the tee box, determined your best line considering all probabilities, and then aim for the nearest water hazard.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

If the basis for OB being a harsher penalty is to act as a deterrent to hitting the ball OB, then logically the penalty should increase the more often it happens. Second OB should be 3 strokes, 3rd 4 strokes etc. otherwise, is it really an effective deterrent?

No. That might make it more of a deterrent, but so would an automatic disqualification. Or having your hands cut off.

If two strokes doesn't deter someone, then they get to add two strokes. No moral judgement here. Deterrence does not have to be about totally eliminating a behavior. Just discouraging it somewhat is fine.

Also, if the reason that a lateral water hazard is different because sometimes a “submerged” ball is still playable, then logically OB should be given the same sort of conditional relief, i.e if an OB ball is still payable, you should have the option of playing it where it lies and taking a one stoke penalty.

Having the option of playing a ball that is OB literally opens a person up to a variety of adverse legal consequences.

Maybe if two strokes isn't a deterrent then a destruction of property misdemeanor for taking a divot out of a neighboring lawn might cut it?

 

[greenOak]

No. That might make it more of a deterrent, but so would an automatic disqualification. Or having your hands cut off.

If two strokes doesn't deter someone, then they get to add two strokes. No moral judgement here. Deterrence does not have to be about totally eliminating a behavior. Just discouraging it somewhat is fine.

Having the option of playing a ball that is OB literally opens a person up to a variety of adverse legal consequences.

Maybe if two strokes isn't a deterrent then a destruction of property misdemeanor for taking a divot out of a neighboring lawn might cut it?

The problem though with the deterrent argument is that if most golfers treat OB the same as a water hazard from a course management perspective (even though they shouldn't), then the two shot penalty is not actually doing anything to deter them anymore than the one shot penalty from a water hazard.

Although I'm not a fan of stroke + distance penalties mostly due to pace reasons, having two stroke penalties and one stroke penalties does make strategy a little more interesting. There's a hole on a course that I play that has OB right and water left, and you better believe I favor the side with the water. People who don't are just losing strokes unnecessarily.

 

[BigDill]

No. That might make it more of a deterrent, but so would an automatic disqualification. Or having your hands cut off.

If two strokes doesn't deter someone, then they get to add two strokes. No moral judgement here. Deterrence does not have to be about totally eliminating a behavior. Just discouraging it somewhat is fine.

If deterrence is the reason for the rule (and not elimination for the protection of life and property) then aren’t hazards also a deterrent? Seems to me like they should be treated the same.

Having the option of playing a ball that is OB literally opens a person up to a variety of adverse legal consequences.

Maybe if two strokes isn't a deterrent then a destruction of property misdemeanor for taking a divot out of a neighboring lawn might cut it?

First, not all OB is on someone else’s property. Often, it’s on golf course property. I suppose it would be similar to a ball being in the middle of a lake or at the edge of it. Second, are people really getting arrested for hitting golf balls off someone’s lawn? I feel like that is a bit of an overblown scenario.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

If we are going to get into illogic, well.... adopting the one stroke OB rule arguably screws up the balance of the game and can result in perverse incentives.

If you lessen the OB penalty without lessening the lost ball penalty, wouldn't now the burden be on the player to prove the ball went OB rather than lost in the course since it is the lesser penalty just as it is now with a water hazard? That could be a big problem as there aren't a whole lot of OB areas that are closely mown, and not all are in a direct line of sight. In some cases it would require trespassing to ID the ball.

However, if we, to eliminate this problem, lessen the penalty for both and allow a stroke/drop in the area where you think a ball is lost and/or OB, then there is the issue that you could be better off not finding the ball as not all unplayable lies are mitigated by two clublengths.

Then there would often be a huge issue as to the general area. A few feet can be highly significant if there are trees or patches of high grass.

 

[BigMac]

Second, are people really getting arrested for hitting golf balls off someone’s lawn? I feel like that is a bit of an overblown scenario.

I'll start be reiterating that I'm in favor of the rule being changed. But with that said, I'm also a realist - and yes, there are definitely golfers who would be rude/stupid enough to play a ball right off somebody's lawn. Granted, not a lot of them, but they definitely exist. I've seen guys climb over fences/walls into back yards to retrieve errant balls while the residents were home, and I have no doubt they would have played their ball if the fence/wall wasn't in their way. Society is full of inconsiderate and stupid people, and some of them play golf.

 

[OGputtnfool]

If the basis for OB being a harsher penalty is to act as a deterrent to hitting the ball OB, then logically the penalty should increase the more often it happens. Second OB should be 3 strokes, 3rd 4 strokes etc. otherwise, is it really an effective deterrent?

Also, if the reason that a lateral water hazard is different because sometimes a “submerged” ball is still playable, then logically OB should be given the same sort of conditional relief, i.e if an OB ball is still payable, you should have the option of playing it where it lies and taking a one stoke penalty.

You really think there needs to be an option to play the ball out of the middle of an interstate highway?

 

[BigDill]

I'll start be reiterating that I'm in favor of the rule being changed. But with that said, I'm also a realist - and yes, there are definitely golfers who would be rude/stupid enough to play a ball right off somebody's lawn. Granted, not a lot of them, but they definitely exist. I've seen guys climb over fences/walls into back yards to retrieve errant balls while the residents were home, and I have no doubt they would have played their ball if the fence/wall wasn't in their way. Society is full of inconsiderate and stupid people, and some of them play golf.

Oh I have no doubt. What I was saying is that I can’t imagine a bunch of people getting arrested for property damage for hitting a ball off grass.

You really think there needs to be an option to play the ball out of the middle of an interstate highway?

There is technically an option for playing a ball from the center of a lake, so...

But no, I do not think so, and that wasn’t my point.

 

[OGputtnfool]

...i.e if an OB ball is still payable, you should have the option of playing it where it lies and taking a one stoke penalty.

Sure reads that way.

 

[Elbow Jobertski]

The problem though with the deterrent argument is that if most golfers treat OB the same as a water hazard from a course management perspective (even though they shouldn't), then the two shot penalty is not actually doing anything to deter them anymore than the one shot penalty from a water hazard.

Sure. So they pay the price for not caring by having extra strokes. We aren't talking murder here. Just giving less of a crap about hitting a ball into a place they shouldn't.

If people don't care, they don't care. There are a whole heap of philosophical and practical problems with deterrence as a justification for punishment. It has to be geared towards people who both know better and have a realistic choice. A lot of golfers don't care about the rules. So they aren't deterred. This isn't perfect. Probably better to put up trees or a net if the clientele is prone to not caring.

Although I'm not a fan of stroke + distance penalties mostly due to pace reasons, having two stroke penalties and one stroke penalties does make strategy a little more interesting. There's a hole on a course that I play that has OB right and water left, and you better believe I favor the side with the water. People who don't are just losing strokes unnecessarily.

Yes, exactly. You have been deterred from risky behavior.

Others won't be. Even so, overall risk is less than without the rule.

 

[LICC]

It isn't the same bad swing unless it is totally divorced from context. If I'm driving and take too much speed into the turn it matters as to how bad I'm driving if I end up maybe skidding off into a field as opposed to if I plunge over a cliff.

In your analogy, it would be the same result, off a cliff or off a bridge into the bottom of a lake. No valid reason exists to justify a harsher penalty fir OB, IMO

 

[LICC]

Life and golf are not fair. I lost a total of 5 or 6 balls last summer at my home course and two or three of them were drives that were less than 10 yards off the fairway but the fall leaves made them impossible to find in 3 minutes. Same penalty as OB on well struck shots that were not very far offline.

One of the courses I play 30+ times each summer finishes with forced carries on the 17th and 18th holes over 220 yards often into a prevailing wind. The carry was 255 yards off the back on the 17th when I played it off the tips a few weeks ago. A slight mishit that doesn’t carry the hazard is the same penalty as a ball OB. I find it humorous that so many b*tch about the OB penalty when the water hazards I commonly deal with and a lost ball carry the same exact stroke and distance penalty. Find a different game or just take a mulligan if you don’t like to play by the rules.

There is a big difference between the random unfairness of the natural features of a course, and the rules developed by people to apply to playing the game. The rules should not have inherent random unfairness.

 

[LICC]

Life and golf are not fair. I lost a total of 5 or 6 balls last summer at my home course and two or three of them were drives that were less than 10 yards off the fairway but the fall leaves made them impossible to find in 3 minutes. Same penalty as OB on well struck shots that were not very far offline.

One of the courses I play 30+ times each summer finishes with forced carries on the 17th and 18th holes over 220 yards often into a prevailing wind. The carry was 255 yards off the back on the 17th when I played it off the tips a few weeks ago. A slight mishit that doesn’t carry the hazard is the same penalty as a ball OB. I find it humorous that so many b*tch about the OB penalty when the water hazards I commonly deal with and a lost ball carry the same exact stroke and distance penalty. Find a different game or just take a mulligan if you don’t like to play by the rules.

The penalty for failing to carry a hazard is not the same as OB, unless the hazard begins immediately after the tee box, which in that case means you have a poorly designed hole.

 

[LICC]

No. That might make it more of a deterrent, but so would an automatic disqualification. Or having your hands cut off.

If two strokes doesn't deter someone, then they get to add two strokes. No moral judgement here. Deterrence does not have to be about totally eliminating a behavior. Just discouraging it somewhat is fine.

Having the option of playing a ball that is OB literally opens a person up to a variety of adverse legal consequences.

Maybe if two strokes isn't a deterrent then a destruction of property misdemeanor for taking a divot out of a neighboring lawn might cut it?

Losing a ball and getting a penalty is plenty of deterrent. Adding an additional penalty is just irrational.

 

[LICC]

If we are going to get into illogic, well.... adopting the one stroke OB rule arguably screws up the balance of the game and can result in perverse incentives.

If you lessen the OB penalty without lessening the lost ball penalty, wouldn't now the burden be on the player to prove the ball went OB rather than lost in the course since it is the lesser penalty just as it is now with a water hazard? That could be a big problem as there aren't a whole lot of OB areas that are closely mown, and not all are in a direct line of sight. In some cases it would require trespassing to ID the ball.

However, if we, to eliminate this problem, lessen the penalty for both and allow a stroke/drop in the area where you think a ball is lost and/or OB, then there is the issue that you could be better off not finding the ball as not all unplayable lies are mitigated by two clublengths.

Then there would often be a huge issue as to the general area. A few feet can be highly significant if there are trees or patches of high grass.

OB was only one penalty for most of the first 60 years the rules existed. It worked just fine. The rules already have provisions for making honest estimates if a ball went into a pond or not. The “virtually certain” standard. That is the exact same conflict you describe and it exists today already in the Penalty Area v lost ball context.