Out of bounds question

[greg_b_4]

First of all I'm the course designer and builder of the course in the following example and I play it as follows. Hole 10 at Glenwood Park in Princeton WV is a short water carry hole. The basket sits 15 feet from waters edge with some trees to each side with limbs that overhang the water. Red tee is on the immediate other side of the water 100 ft, white (which is the primary tee) is 175 ft, blue tee is 225. What is the call when a tee shot hits the trees on the other side and then falls directly in the water? I have always claimed that since it did not establish contact with land that it is played from the drop area (the red tee is also played as the drop area). Others argue that since the tree grows out of the ground that it did establish contact and that the drop should be on the basket side of the water. Also if the shot goes in the tree, comes down on the ground then rolls into the water I allow the drop on the basket side with the meter relief.

 

[Captain Bad]

It depends where on the tree the disc made contact, but first let's get a couple things out of the way.

1.) There's no requirement for the disc to make physical contact with anything in-bounds for it to be considered IB; it simply has to pass over an IB area, even by the slightest margin. Consider an island green surrounded by OB water. The disc could sail directly over the green and land in the water on the other side of the island, but since it flew over IB territory, the disc was considered IB at that time. The new lie would be established on the island at the point it crossed into OB territory where it was last considered IB.

2.) Where the tree originates is irrelevant. It only matters where the disc makes contact with the tree, whether that contact point is IB or OB, and whether the disc enters an IB area after making contact.

So, if the disc hit on a part of the tree that was in-bounds, say the base of the trunk or a limb hanging over the green, then the disc was IB at that point and the new lie should be established on the green where the disc was last in-bounds.

If the disc hit a branch that hangs over OB water, and the disc immediately fell into OB - meaning it didn't ricochet into IB territory ever - then it would be OB and you'd play either from the DZ, the previous lie, or the area on the far bank where the disc first passed over the water (since that was it's last IB position).

 

[scarpfish]

Kind of like a touchdown in football, its all about breaking the plane, not whether any object on any side of the plane was contacted.

Its generally best in such situations to use drop zones to prevent any ambiguities. You end up OB, no matter how you got there, you go to the same spot.

 

[greg_b_4]

Gotcha, I didn't even think about that but yes that makes sense. Just like a disc stuck in a tree takes its lie directly below (providing there is no 3 meter rule). But in these cases without a spotter its almost impossible to tell if a disc was over land when it hits the tree. In casual play would you just give the player the benefit of the doubt?

 

[greg_b_4]

Scarpfish I think I will take that advice and just call it a drop zone throw regardless of how it came into OB. It sucks for those players hitting cage on the tee shot and ricocheting back into the water though lol

 

[JoakimBL]

You are rigt that it sucks Greg. It would suck regardless og the dropzone. Consider if the basket is maybe too close to OB.

 

[krupicka]

Of course there are some campaigning that course rules like that (go to DZ regardless if it broke IB plane) should be outlawed. I am not one of them. I think that using a required drop zone in this case is the appropriate thing to do.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The main reason the option to specify a drop zone when a disc ends up OB was for situations like yours where it can be unclear when a disc touched or passed over inbounds.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

You are rigt that it sucks Greg. It would suck regardless og the dropzone. Consider if the basket is maybe too close to OB.

Sounds like it. Specially if tree branches are blocking a landing... They will grow'

 

[JC17393]

I'd be in favor of requiring drop zone options for ALL OB areas, not just ones like the OP's example. Do away with both previous lie (though it would still be available via optional re-throw) and last in-bounds as OB options. Force designers and TDs to put more thought into what they declare as OB. I think one of the end results would be less OB in general, but better design overall.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I agree. I also think OB should be used only in extreme cases not to shape a hole fairway. Drop zones often take away from the challenge of playing disc where it lies. Ive had a few drops that were easier vs any shot out of the ob marked rough.

 

[krupicka]

I'd be in favor of requiring drop zone options for ALL OB areas, not just ones like the OP's example. Do away with both previous lie (though it would still be available via optional re-throw) and last in-bounds as OB options. Force designers and TDs to put more thought into what they declare as OB. I think one of the end results would be less OB in general, but better design overall.

I am in favor of giving TDs the discretion. There are some holes where a DZ is the best option (like OP). But there are others where using last place in bounds is superior. Consider a hole where the tee is on the out of bounds path and the basket is 380
out on a slope uphill 20 ft from the OB line. On over path to right is OB. Right of OB is marsh area that you really don't want to have to fetch your disc from in the Spring. (Hole 20 at Channy for Illinois locals). You have a couple things going on here that point to last place in bounds as being the best option from a design point of view.

First, there is a decision from the tee on whether to take the hyzer route going over OB the entire time where there is a chance the disc does not make it back inbounds or by going over IB territory for the first part of the flight. The OB route is the easier throw but if you don't execute is penalized more. The IB route is a tougher line due to the trees, you may get knocked down early but you will have progressed somewhat down the fairway. Golf should be a thinking man's game and each player is confronted with this choice. A mandatory DZ says just huck it and who cares.

Second. The OB comes into play a lot on approach shots. Having a single DZ would not fairly handle OB throws both from the tee and those later throws. Even between approaches and putts, should the same DZ be used? You are then stuck with some sort of progressive series of DZs to be used which then gets back to why not just use last place in bounds.

 

[biscoe]

I am in favor of giving TDs the discretion. There are some holes where a DZ is the best option (like OP). But there are others where using last place in bounds is superior.

Yes, this.

 

[JC17393]

To be clear, I like that the TD/designer has the options. ALL the options. Without the need for Big Brother's approval. Let them design what works best for the courses and terrains they have to work with. There shouldn't really be a universal one-size-fits-all mandate.

However, I've always felt from a rule application perspective that last in-bounds is the worst of the three OB options. It's entirely subjective and amounts to guesswork every time. The game would be much simpler to officiate without that guesswork element. All the group should have to determine is whether the disc is OB or not...a black and white decision that is 100% evidenced by the location of the disc rather than a vague memory of a one second snippet of time. From there, the next lie should be pre-determined, not dependent on the whim of the group.

 

[Steve West]

...All the group should have to determine is whether the disc is OB or not...a black and white decision that is 100% evidenced by the location of the disc rather than a vague memory of a one second snippet of time. From there, the next lie should be pre-determined, not dependent on the whim of the group.

Where is this pre-determined next lie? With no DZ?

 

[jjpitt29]

I agree. I also think OB should be used only in extreme cases not to shape a hole fairway. Drop zones often take away from the challenge of playing disc where it lies. Ive had a few drops that were easier vs any shot out of the ob marked rough.

agreed... OB is way way over used.

 

[JC17393]

Where is this pre-determined next lie? With no DZ?

What I'm advocating for is doing away with last in-bounds as an option and increasing the installation and use of drop zones. In the absence of drop zones, you'd use the previous lie. Not unlike the current mandatory and lost disc rules.

 

[Steve West]

What I'm advocating for is doing away with last in-bounds as an option and increasing the installation and use of drop zones. In the absence of drop zones, you'd use the previous lie. Not unlike the current mandatory and lost disc rules.

What about a fourth option, where the player gets to play from somewhere in bounds based on where the disc landed?

 

[JC17393]

What about a fourth option, where the player gets to play from somewhere in bounds based on where the disc landed?

You mean something like using line of play relief from the disc's location? I could see that working for some situations, but not as universally as the previous lie or a drop zone.

 

[krupicka]

In one of my discussions with Chuck, he tossed out the idea of using the nearest point in bounds from where a disc ended up OB as the next lie. But this just ends up undoing the whole point of the OB line is OB itself change from a few years ago. For those not familiar with the history, the line used to be inbounds and players would bomb a shot over OB, hit the fence denoting the OB line and mark there as the last place in bounds since the fence itself was in bounds. This is the reason that the OB line is OB.