We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Lost ball out of bounds rule

DG_1234 said:
OB has never been a "two stroke penalty". It's a one stroke penalty plus the distance. Lateral hazard is the same (if the player's ball last crosses the hazard near from where he/she struck the original shot ).
What is "illogical" about this ? Some hazards and, or, areas of the golf shots are more penal than others and a player uses this criteria to make risk/reward decisions.
For example at Waste Management (Phoenix Open) guys routinely risk playing their tee balls at the short par 4, 17th green (because entering the water hazard to the front left of the green leaves a relatively easy penalty drop-up-and-down-for-par). If that hole had OB area front left of the green players would choose to lay up off the tee and play it as a true two shot par 4. So, there is nothing "illogical" about the different types of penalty areas, it's just part of the game which creates different risk/reward shot opportunities.
Click to expand...
You are right, I misspoke. OB is a double penalty. Stroke AND distance. A lateral hazard is one penalty- stroke, but not distance.
It is entirely illogical for the rules to have different penalties for shots that are equally bad with effectively equally bad results- the inability to play the ball where it last ended up.
Beyond that, you can argue whether the harshness of the penalty makes sense. IMO, one bad swing should be subject to one penalty, not two.
 
Snowman said:
To make it as simple as possible:

You hit a ball out of bounds;

If the course has a local rule allowing it, you have the option to go to where the ball crossed the OB boundary, take a drop within two club lengths (no nearer the hole), take a two stroke penalty and play from there. You're now lying 3, hitting 4.

If the course does not have a local rule allowing the above, you take a penalty of (one) stroke and distance, hitting from where you last hit from. You're now lying 2, hitting 3.


My main gripe about it was the part about the course making a local rule. That puts the onus on the course to reprint all their scorecards with the new local rule, or to post it somewhere and assume that people actually read it. IMO, it should have just been incorporated into the Rules of Golf as an option, period. They could have always done the reverse and stated that a course would have to have a local rule prohibiting it - that way it would be simple enough to not allow it to be used in high-level competitions. Just declare it as a local rule for that tournament that it's not allowed.
Click to expand...
Actually, the local rule allows you to drop in the fairway, at a location based on the reference point of where the ball went OB, with the 2-stroke penalty.
 
And I am still totally confused...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
LICC said:
You are right, I misspoke. OB is a double penalty. Stroke AND distance. A lateral hazard is one penalty- stroke, but not distance.
It is entirely illogical for the rules to have different penalties for shots that are equally bad with effectively equally bad results- the inability to play the ball where it last ended up.
Beyond that, you can argue whether the harshness of the penalty makes sense. IMO, one bad swing should be subject to one penalty, not two.
Click to expand...

Again, depending on where the ball last crossed into a hazard the penalty may be essentially stroke and distance. For example, a tee box with a water hazard line directly in front of it.
And, the concept/definition of logic you are using may be different from what the course architect intended. For example, course owner/operators want to discourage balls from leaving the boundaries from the course proper. Adjacent to the course homes, parks, parking lots etc...are not places where golf balls belong, so it's fitting that a stroke and distance (OB penalty) is incurred. And OB stakes hopefully discourage players from taking a line of play which risks an OB penalty. In contrast, lateral water hazards are within the boundaries of the course and as such typically create for the player a risk/reward shot decision criteria less penal than OB.
Your thinking that "one bad swing should be subject to one penalty" is not true to the nature of the game. While working his/her way around the golf course the player is constantly making risk reward shot decisions, sometimes resulting in swings that cost one, two, three or more shots. For example, if a player's ball is within the trees and he/she decides to try and thread a needle to get the next shot up to the green his/her swing might hit a tree and become a lost ball. So, rather than making the safe play, pitching out sideways to get back to the fairway, he/she made one bad swing which costs him/her 3 or more shots. Or the player who decides to try and drop an approach in close to a sucker front pin location (instead of playing safe for the middle of the green), might leave the ball buried within the front bunker where it takes two shots to get out. His/her "one bad swing" ended up costing two or more shots. Considering the risk/reward factors of shots is a major part of the game, whether the risks result in more shots due to penalty strokes incurred or just putting the ball in out of position places requiring additional swings/shots.
 
Something is wrong when informed golfers, I'd consider anyone who is on a forum more informed than the average hacker, can't agree on the rules of this sport. If they want to grow the game make it easier to play and understand!
 
mdowney58 said:
And I am still totally confused...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The general rule is if you hit OB, you have to go back to your previous spot and take a one stroke penalty. If it was your tee shot for example, you tee up again and now you are hitting 3.
The new rules allow clubs to have a local rule whereby you don’t have to go back to your original spot. You can go to where the ball went OB, drop in the fairway near that OB point, and take a two stroke penalty. Thus, you would be hitting 4 from the fairway. But the course has to apply the local rule, otherwise you have to go back to your original spot.
If instead of OB there was a hazard such as a pond off the fairway and you hit it there, and your ball is unplayable in the hazard (E.g. at the bottom of a pond), you can tee up again and hit 3 off the tee if you want, but you can also drop near the point it went into the hazard (E.g. pond) with a one stroke penalty, thus you are hitting 3 from that spot.
 
DG_1234 said:
Again, depending on where the ball last crossed into a hazard the penalty may be essentially stroke and distance. For example, a tee box with a water hazard line directly in front of it.
And, the concept/definition of logic you are using may be different from what the course architect intended. For example, course owner/operators want to discourage balls from leaving the boundaries from the course proper. Adjacent to the course homes, parks, parking lots etc...are not places where golf balls belong, so it's fitting that a stroke and distance (OB penalty) is incurred. And OB stakes hopefully discourage players from taking a line of play which risks an OB penalty. In contrast, lateral water hazards are within the boundaries of the course and as such typically create for the player a risk/reward shot decision criteria less penal than OB.
Your thinking that "one bad swing should be subject to one penalty" is not true to the nature of the game. While working his/her way around the golf course the player is constantly making risk reward shot decisions, sometimes resulting in swings that cost one, two, three or more shots. For example, if a player's ball is within the trees and he/she decides to try and thread a needle to get the next shot up to the green his/her swing might hit a tree and become a lost ball. So, rather than making the safe play, pitching out sideways to get back to the fairway, he/she made one bad swing which costs him/her 3 or more shots. Or the player who decides to try and drop an approach in close to a sucker front pin location (instead of playing safe for the middle of the green), might leave the ball buried within the front bunker where it takes two shots to get out. His/her "one bad swing" ended up costing two or more shots. Considering the risk/reward factors of shots is a major part of the game, whether the risks result in more shots due to penalty strokes incurred or just putting the ball in out of position places requiring additional swings/shots.
Click to expand...
The idea that golfers will play differently away from an a OB than a pond is not realistic. And you are hard pressed to find many examples of water hazards directly in front of tee boxes (other than the occasional par-3 which usually have designated drop areas anyway) or courses designed for OB to have different risk reward effects than hazards built into the design strategy of the course. And internal OB is part of the course.
Having differing levels of results for similar swings due to the nature and natural features of a course is fine. Having illogical structure in the rules is not. It is a failure of the rules.
 
I've always wished oob were played the same as lateral hazards, it would simplify things and should speed things up. But I also understand why oob is treated more severely. Whenever I assess a shot it's just automatic to 'rank' the severity of potential misses worst to least (oob, yellow stakes, laterals, trees/junk, sand) and plan accordingly. If I think my tee ball might be oob I hit a provisional. But NOW I'm now unsure if I can then later opt for the local rule IF I find my 1st ball just barely crossed oob and I'd be further down the hole selecting it instead of the provisional?
 
LICC said:
Actually, the local rule allows you to drop in the fairway, at a location based on the reference point of where the ball went OB, with the 2-stroke penalty.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. I omitted that little (but important!) detail. (y)
 
Daddio said:
I've always wished oob were played the same as lateral hazards, it would simplify things and should speed things up. But I also understand why oob is treated more severely. Whenever I assess a shot it's just automatic to 'rank' the severity of potential misses worst to least (oob, yellow stakes, laterals, trees/junk, sand) and plan accordingly. If I think my tee ball might be oob I hit a provisional. But NOW I'm now unsure if I can then later opt for the local rule IF I find my 1st ball just barely crossed oob and I'd be further down the hole selecting it instead of the provisional?
Click to expand...
For the first 60 years of R&A rules, OB often was not a stroke and distance penalty. You dropped from your original spot without a stroke penalty. It changed back and forth several times up until the early 1960s I believe.
I may be wrong but I believe if you play a provisional, and your first ball is OB, you have to play the provisional. You can’t choose between two played balls and pick the better situation to play.
 
LICC said:
For the first 60 years of R&A rules, OB often was not a stroke and distance penalty. You dropped from your original spot without a stroke penalty. It changed back and forth several times up until the early 1960s I believe.
I may be wrong but I believe if you play a provisional, and your first ball is OB, you have to play the provisional. You can’t choose between two played balls and pick the better situation to play.
Click to expand...
That's what concerns me too. Mostly because it might dissuade some (especially if burned in past) from hitting a time saving provisional in those 50/50 situations. EZ call if you know it's out, but sometimes it's just a maybe. Now you have to weigh potentially losing benefit of local rule too.
 
Daddio said:
That's what concerns me too. Mostly because it might dissuade some (especially if burned in past) from hitting a time saving provisional in those 50/50 situations. EZ call if you know it's out, but sometimes it's just a maybe. Now you have to weigh potentially losing benefit of local rule too.
Click to expand...
If it is 50/50, you should hit the provisional unless you plan to rely on the local rule. If the 1st ball stayed in bounds then that is the ball you have to play.
 
Jmk202 said:
Something is wrong when informed golfers, I'd consider anyone who is on a forum more informed than the average hacker, can't agree on the rules of this sport. If they want to grow the game make it easier to play and understand!
Click to expand...

It is the obligation of the player to "make the game easier" and, or, understand the game's Rules.
What percentage of players take instruction, practice what they've been taught ? My guess is (at the most) 10%?
What percentage of players ever take the rime to read a Rules of Golf book, or pay attention and learn from Rulings other players receive ? My guess is (at most) 5%.
So if 90% of the players on the course are not making an effort to learn better technique and, or, learn the Rules of the Game, whose fault is that ?
 
DG_1234 said:
It is the obligation of the player to "make the game easier" and, or, understand the game's Rules.
What percentage of players take instruction, practice what they've been taught ? My guess is (at the most) 10%?
What percentage of players ever take the rime to read a Rules of Golf book, or pay attention and learn from Rulings other players receive ? My guess is (at most) 5%.
So if 90% of the players on the course are not making an effort to learn better technique and, or, learn the Rules of the Game, whose fault is that ?
Click to expand...
The illogical difference of the OB rule and the hazards rule makes it confusing for recreational players.
 
If I have doubt my ball will be found, I play provisional ball. The idea is that you suspect you cannot find the ball or it has landed OOB. Then if my first ball is found within 3 minutes I have to play that.

If I am not mistaken you cannot play provisional if you hit into a hazard/penalty area where you are required to drop as those are penalty areas. You have to announce the ball is provisional before hitting or it becomes the ball in play under the penalty of 1 stroke, no matter what happens to the first ball you hit.
 
Luchnia said:
If I have doubt my ball will be found, I play provisional ball. The idea is that you suspect you cannot find the ball or it has landed OOB. Then if my first ball is found within 3 minutes I have to play that.

If I am not mistaken you cannot play provisional if you hit into a hazard/penalty area where you are required to drop as those are penalty areas. You have to announce the ball is provisional before hitting or it becomes the ball in play under the penalty of 1 stroke, no matter what happens to the first ball you hit.
Click to expand...
You can always hit again from your original spot under stroke and distance penalties, from any place.
 
And just to be clear, you are correct- if you announce a provisional and find your first ball anywhere except OB, that found ball is the one you have to play. Then, you can go back to the original spot with S&D penalties if you want. Or possibly take back on line relief or lateral relief if in a Penalty Area if available.
 
LICC said:
The illogical difference of the OB rule and the hazards rule makes it confusing for recreational players.
Click to expand...

If by "recreational players" you mean folks shooting 100 , the reality is that they are confused by every aspect of golf. That is, swing technique, club selection, course management, etiquette, Rules and more is all very confusing (and should be) to anyone either new to golf or not much committed to learning about it.
If a player does not want to learn the many facets of the game, whose fault it that ?
In years past I tried to learn the game of bowling, and I've also tried to play a musical instrument. But I never put in enough learning and practice time to understand either one, or achieve any sort of proficiency. That's on me, I own the confusion I still have about bowling and playing a musical instrument. If I want to understand something it's up to me to learn and practice, and golf is no different.
 
Last edited:
The reason OB is stroke and distance is OB was originally the boundaries of the course, hence out of bounds


Almost Fiddy Plus 2
 
DG_1234 said:
If by "recreational players" you mean folks shooting 100 , the reality is that they are confused by every aspect of golf. That is, swing technique, club selection, course management, etiquette, Rules and more is all very confusing (and should be) to anyone either new to golf or not much committed to learning about it.
If a player does not want to learn the many facets of the game, whose fault it that ?
In years past I tried to learn the game of bowling, and I also tried to play a musical instrument. But I never put in enough learning and practice time to understand either one, or achieve any sort of proficiency. That's on me, I own the confusion I still have about bowling and playing a musical instrument. If I want to understand something it's up to me to learn and practice, and golf is no different.
Click to expand...
You are describing non-golfers who go hack around a course. I’m referring to any avid golfer who does not compete in official competitions. Which is most of the millions who play golf.
 
LICC said:
You are describing non-golfers who go hack around a course. I’m referring to any avid golfer who does not compete in official competitions. Which is most of the millions who play golf.
Click to expand...

You are the first person I've ever heard (or read) from that the difference between the penalties for OB and hazard relief is "illogical"
As I've written in previous replies to this thread, the logic behind why the respective relief options are what they are can be found by understanding the perspective of the course architect, course owner/operator, a player's line of play shot selection criteria , player's risk/reward shot tolerance etc... and more.
 
DG_1234 said:
You are the first person I've ever heard (or read) from that the difference between the penalties for OB and hazard relief is "illogical"
As I've written in previous replies to this thread, the logic behind why the respective relief options are what they are can be found by understanding the perspective of the course architect, course owner/operator, a player's line of play shot selection criteria , player's risk/reward shot tolerance etc... and more.
Click to expand...
Please give me examples where an architect designed holes differently because some were on the OB line of the property and others had lateral water hazards.
 
DG_1234 said:
You are the first person I've ever heard (or read) from that the difference between the penalties for OB and hazard relief is "illogical"
As I've written in previous replies to this thread, the logic behind why the respective relief options are what they are can be found by understanding the perspective of the course architect, course owner/operator, a player's line of play shot selection criteria , player's risk/reward shot tolerance etc... and more.
Click to expand...
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."
 
DG_1234 said:
You are the first person I've ever heard (or read) from that the difference between the penalties for OB and hazard relief is "illogical"
As I've written in previous replies to this thread, the logic behind why the respective relief options are what they are can be found by understanding the perspective of the course architect, course owner/operator, a player's line of play shot selection criteria , player's risk/reward shot tolerance etc... and more.
Click to expand...
Past President of the American Society of Golf Course Architects Rick Robbins:

“If I am on the tee and there is a lateral hazard running along the left side and housing along the right side, why should I receive a far greater penalty for hitting my shot out-of-bounds to the right than I would for hitting it into the lateral hazard to the left? In the one case, I must replay another shot from the tee where I will then be hitting my third shot (assuming I declare the shot a provisional ball) but had I pulled the same shot to the left and it crossed the hazard 200 yards toward the green, I would also be playing my third shot but at 200 yards closer to the hole. Is one shot a worse offence than the other?

This is so illogical to the general golfing public that it has become a rule that is probably ignored more often than it is enforced in average weekend golf groups.”
 
LICC said:
Please give me examples where an architect designed holes differently because some were on the OB line of the property and others had lateral water hazards.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question here. I am not a course architect and have never designed a golf course. I know that here in Nor Cal most of the courses built during the past 50 years were done so to sell real estate home sites. That is, a developer purchased the property, constructed a golf course, built some model homes for potential buyers to view, , and proceeded to spend the next few years selling home lots/constructing homes, along the golf fairways of the golf course. Obviously, golf balls flying into peoples roofs, siding, windows, or back yards is not good for anyone, so the course boundaries are marked by OB stakes. The OB stakes (and potential penalty) should discourage players from choosing lines of play and, or, clubs that might send their ball out of bounds.
Architects choose to use water hazards for several reasons including incorporating the course site's existing lake , river, steam, creek, bay ,ocean etc.... ,or an architect may design/construct a man made pond or lake to create the shape of a hole, provide a visual site line for tee shots, create a hazard which makes the hole more challenging, add value to the image of the course etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top