Changes to OB Terminology

[rhatton1]

Following on from discussion in this thread https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141487 (Pgs 6 - 8)

Should Out of Bounds terminology be updated in a future rules update? If so how and why?

I believe we have an issue with OB and Course boundaries. IMO course boundaries should be different to design feature penalties and their use in course design should be strongly discouraged for the benefit of the game. I believe changing terminology can help with this and also give course designers more tools to work with.

I would push for keeping all current OB rules the same so old teesigns are not made obsolete but push for new terminology as follows:

1. OB (current rules maintained) - However PDGA, course designers and hopefully videoed events push for this to be restricted to course boundaries and absolute no play areas which are unlikely to come into play - in other words true Out Of Bounds areas. Basically we would see a large reduction in OB and it would become obvious to clubs/new designers that designing on course boundaries is generally a bad idea.

Added to the terminology under 806 Regulated areas

2. Penalty Areas

- Lie Relocation areas - Relocation and Stroke. A penalty area where a disc is relocated out from with penalty but a player can take a stance if required. Rules are basically the same as current OB rules.

- Hazard areas - stroke penalty and play as it lies. - as per current hazard rules

- Distance penalty areas, relocation no stroke - BunCR as per the original 2008/9 definition. (I kinda liked these back in the day and used sparingly in certain situations could create interesting design features.)

Anything else you would like to see added? What are the reasons not to do this?

 

[DavidSauls]

It would be an improvement.

Though we might give some thought to the names. In particular, I'd rather "hazard" be applied to the relocation/penalty areas -- it sounds like a better description of a lake, creek, roadway, or footpath -- than a spot where there's no danger or risk, other than the penalty stroke.

The relocation/no penalty area might be subdivided into mandatory and optional areas. I'd leave the "distance" out, because sometimes the relocation is no further, but just to a safer (or less damaging to the property) drop zone.

As inaccurate as the current "O.B." term is, it has the virtue of being succinct. Were we to revise the terms from these prohibited lies, I'd hope we'd come up with terminology that's equally concise.

 

[biscoe]

I agree with David. "Hazard" should be the vast majority of what we now call "OB" (same as golf). What we now call "hazard" could just be "penalty area".

 

[ToddL]

1. OB (current rules maintained) - However PDGA, course designers and hopefully videoed events push for this to be restricted to course boundaries and absolute no play areas which are unlikely to come into play - in other words true Out Of Bounds areas. Basically we would see a large reduction in OB and it would become obvious to clubs/new designers that designing on course boundaries is generally a bad idea.

Added to the terminology under 806 Regulated areas

2. Penalty Areas

- Lie Relocation areas - Relocation and Stroke. A penalty area where a disc is relocated out from with penalty but a player can take a stance if required. Rules are basically the same as current OB rules.

Bounds can refer to two things: the bounds of the course or the bounds of the hole.

While you're playing a specific hole, does it matter to the player whether your disc has landed outside of the boundary of the course versus outside of the boundary for the hole? Seems to me like it's adding complexity for no benefit. How is the player supposed to know the difference between a property-line OB and an internal OB?

I can't tell what you're proposing with your first two points:
1 - Property-line OB: Rules remain unchanged
2 - Internal OB: Rules remain almost unchanged, except you can have a supporting point in the OB area when you release

So, for the absolutely minuscule change of getting to put your off-foot across the line, we now have to get TDs to mark different OBs in a different style or otherwise differentiate them in the caddie book, and get players to pay attention to the difference, and get players to play the difference, and make it palatable for the viewing public? "See, Jim, he's on the left side of the fairway. Over there you can't have a foot OB, because the neighboring property owner takes a pretty hard-line stance on stand-your-ground laws."

 

[DavidSauls]

Bounds can refer to two things: the bounds of the course or the bounds of the hole.

While you're playing a specific hole, does it matter to the player whether your disc has landed outside of the boundary of the course versus outside of the boundary for the hole? Seems to me like it's adding complexity for no benefit. How is the player supposed to know the difference between a property-line OB and an internal OB?

I can't tell what you're proposing with your first two points:
1 - Property-line OB: Rules remain unchanged
2 - Internal OB: Rules remain almost unchanged, except you can have a supporting point in the OB area when you release

So, for the absolutely minuscule change of getting to put your off-foot across the line, we now have to get TDs to mark different OBs in a different style or otherwise differentiate them in the caddie book, and get players to pay attention to the difference, and get players to play the difference, and make it palatable for the viewing public? "See, Jim, he's on the left side of the fairway. Over there you can't have a foot OB, because the neighboring property owner takes a pretty hard-line stance on stand-your-ground laws."

99% of OB in internal OB. So I'd just change the stance rule. For the external OB, often there's a fence, rendering the stance rule invalid anyway. So that just comes to places where the property line isn't fenced, but people shouldn't step across the line (either stance, or to retrieve discs). Hopefully designers won't build many holes where this happens. (Memories of Timmons)

This is an offshoot of my opinion (in another thread) that stance rules shouldn't care whether a supporting point is out-of-bounds; but the concept that a player can play while partially "out of bounds" offends some sensibilities, even though our use of the term sometimes uses it in ways that few if any other sports do -- i.e., an out of bounds inside the field of play. So perhaps if we quit calling it "out of bounds", we could do away with that part of the stance rule.

 

[Steve West]

Bounds can refer to two things: the bounds of the course or the bounds of the hole. ...

Have "the bounds of the course" ever been defined? Either in general or for a specific course?

 

[ToddL]

Have "the bounds of the course" ever been defined? Either in general or for a specific course?

I've used the phrase before when writing caddie books. "Property lines are OB for all holes." And then in the hole notes, I say "Hole 4: Property line to left (marked by flags) is OB." It's a little redundant for that hole specifically, but it provides a line of logic for the case where a throw on hole 5 sails across 4's fairway and crosses the OB property line.
It's the same thing as saying "pond is OB for all holes", but doing a semi-okay job of defining which lines are OB for all holes.

 

[Steve West]

I've used the phrase before when writing caddie books. "Property lines are OB for all holes." And then in the hole notes, I say "Hole 4: Property line to left (marked by flags) is OB." It's a little redundant for that hole specifically, but it provides a line of logic for the case where a throw on hole 5 sails across 4's fairway and crosses the OB property line.
It's the same thing as saying "pond is OB for all holes", but doing a semi-okay job of defining which lines are OB for all holes.

Over a property line is its own thing. Has anyone ever said anything like "that part of the park is off the course."?

 

[biscoe]

Have "the bounds of the course" ever been defined? Either in general or for a specific course?

Sure. Everything outside one field at Hawk Hollow is OB but still on the property in most places. Semantics are "fenceline OB" but the effect is that the bounds of the course are clearly defined. Works that way at at least one more farm course in Virginia as well- I would imagine it is not all that uncommon.

 

[Steve West]

Sure. Everything outside one field at Hawk Hollow is OB but still on the property in most places. Semantics are "fenceline OB" but the effect is that the bounds of the course are clearly defined. Works that way at at least one more farm course in Virginia as well- I would imagine it is not all that uncommon.

The entire course is within one field enclosed by one fence?

 

[coupe]

For the external OB, often there's a fence, rendering the stance rule invalid anyway.

Define "often."

I can't think of more than a couple of courses in public parks that I've played in the last 2-3 years that has the property line with an adjoining property delineated by a fence. Around here, at least, if a property line is marked at all it's by a change in the type of ground cover or a "Private Property" and/or "No Trespassing" sign tacked to a tree.

 

[DavidSauls]

Define "often."

I can't think of more than a couple of courses in public parks that I've played in the last 2-3 years that has the property line with an adjoining property delineated by a fence. Around here, at least, if a property line is marked at all it's by a change in the type of ground cover or a "Private Property" and/or "No Trespassing" sign tacked to a tree.

Fair enough. On the public courses I most often play, in my extremely limited experience, property boundaries are marked by either roads or fenced yards.

Surely I'm allowed to extrapolate from 0.0003% of courses, that my experience is universal, right?

 

[biscoe]

The entire course is within one field enclosed by one fence?

Yep. Same for Timber Ridge outside Bedford. Field at HH is probably 80 or so acres.