OB rule and benefit of the doubt...

[Dan Ensor]

Nothing in 802.05 Holing Out says the disc needs to be in bounds.

You don't need to play the disc that's lying in the basket OB. You have completed the hole. Now, that disc has the same status as the ones in your bag.

The OB rule is the reason I don't think you can complete a hole with an OB disc. It seems, to me, to clearly say you must have a next throw from one of the 3 options.

 

[JC17393]

The OB rule is the reason I don't think you can complete a hole with an OB disc. It seems, to me, to clearly say you must have a next throw from one of the 3 options.

A disc holed out in the target is neither in bounds nor out of bounds. It is holed out. You don't mark your next lie under the target. In fact you don't mark it at all since the next lie is the next tee.

 

[Dan Ensor]

A disc holed out in the target is neither in bounds nor out of bounds. It is holed out. You don't mark your next lie under the target. In fact you don't mark it at all since the next lie is the next tee.

I guess I could get down with that ... it's just a bit odd to think of the target as not being in bounds.

 

[Steve West]

A disc holed out in the target is neither in bounds nor out of bounds. It is holed out. You don't mark your next lie under the target. In fact you don't mark it at all since the next lie is the next tee.

That makes sense. As soon as it is holed out, its status changes and it is no longer a disc in play.

 

[geoblime]

Thanks for the discussion. We agreed with the ruling without much argument. I figured it'd be a good discussion though. Couple thoughts:

How can there be no benefit of doubt for the player pertaining to hitting in bounds on the fly but then if there's physical evidence of a mark in the bank there is benefit of the doubt? All the marks could be from a previous round. You can't assume in some instances but you can in others?

Having OB to close to a pin is not a "weak" hole design. Having a basket in OB, that's another story. Creeks with running water should never be casual water. What's the purpose of having any OB then? Nature DOES play a part in every course design. It makes designers take into account numerous aspects of the surroundings. Fairways aren't something we "carve" out, they're something we adapt to within nature. Yes we can place things differently and have a bland hole. I'd much rather be near a creek and have to think about the consequences of a missed putt instead of every green being "safe".

 

[biscoe]

Thanks for the discussion. We agreed with the ruling without much argument. I figured it'd be a good discussion though. Couple thoughts:

How can there be no benefit of doubt for the player pertaining to hitting in bounds on the fly but then if there's physical evidence of a mark in the bank there is benefit of the doubt? All the marks could be from a previous round. You can't assume in some instances but you can in others?

Having OB to close to a pin is not a "weak" hole design. Having a basket in OB, that's another story. Creeks with running water should never be casual water. What's the purpose of having any OB then? Nature DOES play a part in every course design. It makes designers take into account numerous aspects of the surroundings. Fairways aren't something we "carve" out, they're something we adapt to within nature. Yes we can place things differently and have a bland hole. I'd much rather be near a creek and have to think about the consequences of a missed putt instead of every green being "safe".

OB areas should never be 3 feet wide. It becomes what is effectively a random penalty. I have no problem with OB near the basket.

 

[JC17393]

Thanks for the discussion. We agreed with the ruling without much argument. I figured it'd be a good discussion though. Couple thoughts:

How can there be no benefit of doubt for the player pertaining to hitting in bounds on the fly but then if there's physical evidence of a mark in the bank there is benefit of the doubt? All the marks could be from a previous round. You can't assume in some instances but you can in others?

Having OB to close to a pin is not a "weak" hole design. Having a basket in OB, that's another story. Creeks with running water should never be casual water. What's the purpose of having any OB then? Nature DOES play a part in every course design. It makes designers take into account numerous aspects of the surroundings. Fairways aren't something we "carve" out, they're something we adapt to within nature. Yes we can place things differently and have a bland hole. I'd much rather be near a creek and have to think about the consequences of a missed putt instead of every green being "safe".

Regarding the mark in the bank...I think there would at least need to be a corresponding mark on the disc before any benefit of the doubt factors in. With or without a mark on the disc, though, if there are multiple marks in the bank I'd be a lot more hesitant to give benefit of the doubt to the thrower. I might still give it to him, but the location of his lie would be a lot harder to determine without knowing which mark belonged to him.

My feeling is that that OB creek would benefit from either a line at the top of the bank on either side rather than use the water line or a drop zone for all shots that end up OB regardless of how or where they entered. Either option would eliminate the questions brought up by this example.


As to the discussion about OB near targets, the only wrong answer to that is a firm blanket statement of any kind. In other words, you can't say it should never be done nor can you say that it works in all forms and situations. There is a right way to do it and there's a wrong way to do it, but without seeing it in play, there is no way to say for certain. Even a still picture or two like we have in this thread doesn't paint the whole picture enough to judge definitively. There are just some design ideas that can only be judged with the Potter Stewart method: "I know it when I see it".