I was asked tonight about a rule.

There is a creek running up along the right side of the fairway. Due to some bushes you can't see the entire OB/IB line. A big hyper goes out over the creek and it lands in a blind spot right next to the bank. The question was since nobody could see if the disc ever crossed back into IB where is the lie? Up by the disc or back much closer to the tee.

I told him the rule was to play it as OB unless someone saw it hit IB. The lie would be back by the tee. I told him I would look up which rule it is and let him know.

The problem is I just looked thru the rulebook, the competition manual, and the Q and As but can't see where that is actually defined anywhere. I certainly have believed the disc needs to have been seen to make the IB to play it IB but can't find the rule.

Can someone please point out to me where I am missing it.

thanks

It sounds like you are talking about a lost disc. If so, then the lost disc rule trumps the OB rule, and you throw from the previous lie.

Pete, a little more info would help, which you may or may not know.

Why is there a question? I"m assuming it's NOT a lost disc, but was found laying OB. Where was it relative to the OB? Is it likely that it could have crossed then gone back OB, like, is there a tree IB that it could have hit? It could come down to the angle of the disc laying there...

The closest thing I could find is from the Q&A, but it refers to Lost Disc vs OB.
First it talks about "reasonable evidence". Implied ruling: If there's no reasonable evidence that it ever came back IB, it's OB from near the tee.

Then, there's this bit I'll quote here, and I've added a little emphasis for humor as much as anything, and snipped it a little bit to try and avoid complicating it any more.

For comparison, here is the explanation of "reasonable evidence" as defined by Decision 26-1/1 in the 2006-2007 USGA Book of Decisions on the Rules of Golf:

The term reasonable evidence in Rule 26-1 is purposely and necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. As applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost (IB?) in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard. The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard(IB?). Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1. Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep rough in the area. [/snip]. It would depend on all the circumstances.
Ultimately, it is of course a group decision. If the group is unable to settle the matter and an official is available, you can present the evidence to the official for a ruling.

Conclusion: In general, it is good practice in course design to avoid holes with blind OB, or with thickets bordering OB. Such holes in tournament play should have spotters.



Well, the conclusion here, by the PDGA Rules Committee, seems a bit silly, thickets are sometimes the whole reason for an OB in the first place.

And, the first emphasis, about the rule being intentionally broad, I like. Off the point, it shows that even the almighty USGA says some things need to be at the decision of an official or the card, not everything can be legislated.

The situation would have to be extremely convincing to me to say it could have been IB near the spot where the disc was found. I agree with your call, even if there isn't any rule that specifically says so.

How about this?

On a hole the basket is across a pond. Tje edge of the pond has some bushes that block sight of the far bank below the basket.

To reach the basket I need to clear the pond and stay up on the elevated green.

My drive appears to clear the bushes. We then lose sight of it behind the bushes. When the group arrives at the green my disc is OB in the water 6 inches from the bank running down from the basket.

One of 2 things has happened. I either hit the green side bank and rolled back down into the water OR I came up just short of the bank. The lie would be different for each thing.

The bushes blocked our view of whether it hit or not. Leaving out the comments about poor course design, the need for a local rule, etc.

Where is the lie for my next shot and under which rule? While my shot might have hit the bank on the far side before rolling back down into the water it alo might have come up just short.

I pull out my rulebook and point to what rule to determine the next lie?

Thanks

Hi Pete!

It seems like we need to know where the bush is in relation to the OB. Are the branches growing up from the pond (from in the water)? Is the bush growing up from dry land? Does any of the bush grow up above IB? After a closer examination, can it be determined that there are no clear signs of the disc hitting IB and rolling (maybe a divot in the grass/mud, or possibly a roller trail leading into the mud/pond)?

On first read of the situation, I would be leaning towards OB simply because there was no proof of hitting IB. Answers to these other Q's may sway my opinion.

Sorry, I forgot about what rule to show. I don't have my RB/CM open but it seems like it would come under the rule about last place known to be IB.

Hi John,

Let me try again. No bushes just a grassy fairway. The basket is across a pond. The terrain is such there is a part of the far bank you cant see. The disc disappears from sight and ends up in the water. The disc either 1)hit the far bank and fell into the pond or 2)came up just short of the bank. But that couldn't be seen from where the group was standing.

The next lie is either 1) on the far bank or 2) on the near bank.
That determination needs to be made.

I have always believed if the disc wasn't seen to have hit the far bank you have to play it as if it was short. I tried to find that in the rules but so far I have failed. I did find this in 803.09 as an option on what to do next if your disc is OB..

(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the
lie closer to the hole;

I read this to mean it doesn't necessarily have to be seen to have hit the far bank but it instead is a group decision.

The marking the lie section of the rules says to go to the out of bounds rule.

Can anyone find anything that disputes that the determination of which bank to play from is entirely a group (or official) decision and is not based entirely on visual evidence?

Can anyone find anything that disputes that the determination of which bank to play from is entirely a group (or official) decision and is not based entirely on visual evidence?
Nothing that disputes it because it is the group or official's decision regardless of what visual evidence there may or may not be. I think it's reasonable to think that if no one in the group saw the end of the disc's flight, they can't come to a decision that it passed over or hit inbounds on the basket side of the pond. Therefore, they have to decide that the next mark comes on the tee side of the pond where the disc first started to cross the water.

This is a perfect example of why the use of drop zones or re-throws from the previous lie are better, more fair, and far more easily applied options for an out-of-bounds shot than the last-in-bounds. Even with visual evidence, the last-in-bounds spot is still largely a guess by the group or official. The other options take all guesswork out of the equation...either the disc is in or out, and that's the only determination necessary.

I agree. On holes where the disc can cross OB blind, a drop zone should be required.

Point of order: barring some local rule to the contrary, the disc does not have to hit fair ground to take the lie on the far side of the pond. The disc must simply fly over fair ground on the far side and then come back and land in the water.

Agreed Rhett.

Seems to me the rules say if I can convince the majority of the group that based on the trajectory, the speed, the height, that the disc probably hit the bank and trickled down the bank into the pond I can play it from the far side even if no one saw it.

Hmmm. That is different from what I thought the rule was. Doesn't seem like that would lead to consistent calls but I agree the drop zone idea would make it more consistent.

I agree. On holes where the disc can cross OB blind, a drop zone should be required.

That's an awful lot of drop zones. I can think of hundreds of holes where it's possible to cross OB blind.

In my mind there are certainly holes that should have drop zones, but I'd limit their use to those places.

*

For the thread topic, it seems to come down to what the players saw. Not what they surmise, but what they actually saw. Even where sports have officials, they're generally limited to calling what they see, not what they think happened.

On the throwing-over-water example, players saw the disc thrown over water. They didn't see it hit inbounds on the far shore. I'd go for the lie being on the near shore.

Any "rule" which even insinuates there is a possibility that someone could "convince" the proverbial majority one way or another is simply a **** poor rule. In a nut shell, that situation comes down to a popularity contest...which, in sports, taints the sport severely.

If you must, have ANY disc ending up in OB be played from definitive, predetermined spot (i.e. tee, drop zone, etc.).

Or better yet, have no OB!

Karl

Oops, didn't realize that that word would be bleeped out :o !

For the thread topic, it seems to come down to what the players saw. Not what they surmise, but what they actually saw. Even where sports have officials, they're generally limited to calling what they see, not what they think happened.

On the throwing-over-water example, players saw the disc thrown over water. They didn't see it hit inbounds on the far shore. I'd go for the lie being on the near shore.

I disagree. The disc was high enough, and had the flat flying trajectory, and was thrown hard enough I think it hit the bank and rolled back down into the water. That seems like it could be a perfectly sound opinion by a player in the group. I think making the call on what I think happened is the only way to decide. Visual evidence makes it easy to determine what I think happened but I can also infer what I think happened out of sight.

As I stated up thread, and have said for years, eliminating "last-in-bounds" as an option on OB shots would go a long way toward making the game more fair and less about guesswork. Another side-effect it might have, and you might appreciate this Karl, is that it might give designers and TDs more pause when they are designing holes and determining OBs.

Like David suggests, using drop zones for all OB areas that may involve blind shots could results in a lot of drop zones on the course. If that becomes the case, perhaps we'd see less of the sometimes frivolous/extraneous out of bounds areas that have become more and more the norm in the last decade. It might not eliminate so-called "rope" OB altogether, but it might lessen the frequency at which it is used, especially in cases where it's a tournament-only addition to a course (think USDGC). It might mean the end of blanket "any pavement" or "any water" or "any stone wall" is an OB area/line...each possible OB location on the course would have to be evaluated for need of a drop zone.

Anything that would result in more intelligent course and hole design, and that forces more thought and planning by the player (you know, beyond see the target and throw as hard as you can toward it approach) is A-OK by me.

To my personal taste, that's a cure that's worse than the disease.

I'm one who enjoys the challenge provided by most of the O.B. I've encountered---and the courses I play most, have LOTS of O.B.

In my experience, major issues determining where a disc went O.B., and thus where the next lie is, have been very rare.

Other systems I've seen suggested (Snapching, throw & distance, universally-used drop zones, abolishment of O.B. except where absolutely necessary) have always struck me as less appealing than the current structure. Even if, on rare occasions, they produce a more certain ruling than the current rule.

That's just me, of course. Your mileage may vary.

I'll sidebar my distaste for drop zones.

If you have a hole that's 400' with O.B. running along one side, where's the drop zone? If it's near the tee and you go O.B. near the basket, you have to haul all the way back to the drop zone. If it's close to the basket, and you throw O.B. early, you've a bit of a reward. Multiple drop zones, depending on where you went O.B.? That's back to the initial problem.

Moreover, I've played some holes with drop zones where going O.B. was likely, and thus you play the same drop zone often. Or, at least, I do. Unless it's placed creatively, it tends to get boring having the same 35' putt, or 150' upshot, or whatever.

Which isn't to say they're not useful....we have a couple at Stoney Hill. But you've got to be careful with them.

Again......just my personal taste. No argument as to what makes a more perfect sport.

If this is a frequent problem at any given hole, send someone to spot. You really shouldn't be throwing around blind corners too much anyway, you might hit someone.