Need a quick ruling here,

Yesterday my buddy took his second and it ricocheted off the garage on to the fringe. The garage is marked O.B.

My argument was that since the ball cant pass through the wall, it should be a penalty. He was saying it all comes down to where the ball came to rest.

Whats your verdict?

Also, another question came up. Can you pass over O.B. to cut a corner on lets say a dogleg hole?

No penalty. It doesn't matter if the ball hits anything, it's just where it ends up that determines if a ball is ob or not.

And yes, you may hit a ball through an ob area as long as it comes to rest in bounds.

jev wrote:

No penalty. It doesn't matter if the ball hits anything, it's just where it ends up that determines if a ball is ob or not. And yes, you may hit a ball through an ob area as long as it comes to rest in bounds.

I know of two courses, on extreme doglegs, that have signs posted that any ball traveling over the white stakes must be played as OB. The reason behind it is that they do NOT want you cutting the corner. In one case, there are houses that the ball would fly directly over (very tight par 4). And in the other case, you would actually fly over a par three. Are these posted rules acceptable?

I believe it should not be a penalty, unless the course rules specifically state that a ball that hits the garage is a penalty.

House rules supersede USGA rules, but with just a sign that says O.B., I would say the standard rules of golf apply when hitting the garage (i.e, where the ball ended up is what counts)

PS- I witnessed this shot in question, and it wasn't me, so I am not biased...

No penalty on the previous question.

Bryan - i believe they're acceptable as local rules. Local rules are hairy though. As long as it's the same for that hole all the time on whatever shot number i think it's legal.

Although they say otherwise i think there's an illegal local rule here in lancaster. on Four Seasons golf course, there's a long par 4 with a "creek" running through it. (it's actually just a ditch that occasionally has runoff in it). From the tee, if you drive it in the ditch between the bridges, it's a free drop on the tee side of the ditch. If you hit into it on your 2nd shot though, it's considered a hazard. WTF.

birdieXris wrote:

No penalty on the previous question. Bryan - i believe they're acceptable as local rules. Local rules are hairy though. As long as it's the same for that hole all the time on whatever shot number i think it's legal. Although they say otherwise i think there's an illegal local rule here in lancaster. on Four Seasons golf course, there's a long par 4 with a "creek" running through it. (it's actually just a ditch that occasionally has runoff in it). From the tee, if you drive it in the ditch between the bridges, it's a free drop on the tee side of the ditch. If you hit into it on your 2nd shot though, it's considered a hazard. WTF.

That does sound silly. Essentially, they are penalizing people who might need to take three (or more) shots to get to the green. A long hitter who is capable of hitting the green in two only has to worry about the creek on one shot.

Bryan K wrote:

birdieXris wrote: No penalty on the previous question. Bryan - i believe they're acceptable as local rules. Local rules are hairy though. As long as it's the same for that hole all the time on whatever shot number i think it's legal. Although they say otherwise i think there's an illegal local rule here in lancaster. on Four Seasons golf course, there's a long par 4 with a "creek" running through it. (it's actually just a ditch that occasionally has runoff in it). From the tee, if you drive it in the ditch between the bridges, it's a free drop on the tee side of the ditch. If you hit into it on your 2nd shot though, it's considered a hazard. WTF. That does sound silly. Essentially, they are penalizing people who might need to take three (or more) shots to get to the green. A long hitter who is capable of hitting the green in two only has to worry about the creek on one shot.

technically they have to worry on no shots. they can just swing for the fences and try to carry the creek. If they don't it's whatever and they're closest that they can be without hitting into the water. It's bogus.

Totally agree. And that's what I meant.

My game is at the point right now where I really have to think about whether or not to use my driver when I tee up on par 4's and par 5's. This is a rule that would really benefit me if I teed up my driver, and it would really hurt me if I teed up my 5w. So obviously, I'm going to lean towards my driver.

Bryan K wrote:

Are these posted rules acceptable?

No, they are not acceptable. See decision 33-8/38.

jev wrote:

Bryan K wrote: Are these posted rules acceptable? No, they are not acceptable. See decision 33-8/38.

Thank you, Jev.