OB Stake- another logically inconsistent rule

[GolfSpy MPR]

Just going to step in here to remind everyone that no one needs to post anything that questions another member's intelligence, etc. Debate issues. Personal attacks are never acceptable here in this Forum.

[cnosil]

2 hours ago, stuka44 said:

I'm serious, if anyone can point me to a document, which explains why they are treated differently, other than "The Committee" said OB markers are different, and why the distinction that one marks the boundary of the course and why this is an important distinction, and why other than we say they are different, one is granted relief for obstructing the play of a ball legally in bounds and one isn't I would love to read it. 

 

It comes down to a definition of something on or off a golf course.   OB is a course boundary and anything indicating this boundary is considered a boundary object.   The USGA and R&A created a definition for a boundary object using their thoughts and logic (which you may or may not consider a correct thought or logical).   A boundary object is not considered to be an obstruction or integral object so it has its set of procedures.    

Boundary Object

Artificial objects defining or showing out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, from which free relief is not allowed.

This includes any base and post of a boundary fence, but does not include:

• Angled supports or guy wires that are attached to a wall or fence, or

• Any steps, bridge or similar construction used for getting over the wall or fence.

Boundary objects are treated as immovable even if they are movable or any part of them is movable (see Rule 8.1a).

Boundary objects are not obstructions or integral objects.

 

The USGA and R&A do make provisions for the course/tournament committee to create a local rule to treat the states as movable obstructions and provide the verbiage they recommend using.

A-5 Stakes Identifying Out of Bounds

Purpose. When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, a trench or in another way that might not be visible from a distance, the Committee may place stakes along the boundary to allow players to see where the boundary edge is from a distance.

Boundary objects are not permitted to be moved and free relief is generally not given, but the Committee may provide for relief from these stakes through the following Model Local Rule, which should also clarify the status of these stakes.

It is recommended that such stakes be marked differently than other boundary stakes on the course, for example, white stakes with black tops may be used for this purpose.

Model Local Rule A-5

“Where a boundary is defined by [identify boundary, for example, a white line painted on the ground], white stakes with black tops have been placed for visibility. These stakes [describe any special marking] are [immovable /movable ] obstructions.”

 

These are from the USGA rule set and golf like any other game has a set of rules that you make like or dislike, follow or not follow.   I would suggest that if you have questions on the history or detailed logic behind the inability to move an boundary object you would best be served by contacting the USGA directly.  Or you can read up on the rules changes through the years:  http://www.ruleshistory.com/index.html

 

 

[Stuka44]

Ok. This has never been about, what/how the rules, say things are. Is the rule fair, equitable, and the best it can be. 

We have just fallen to earth from another planet, somehow we intrinsically know how to hit golf balls, with these funny sticks we found. We know no rules, NOTHING, we find a badly burned rule book. We can make out ONLY 2 things, Play the ball as it lies, and an explanation of getting a drop, if a man made, object interferes with out stance and swing. We are both right handed. We know what "manmade" is. We've liberally taken relief from, toilets, cart paths etc.  On the last hole, both our drives come to rest exactly 3 ' from the solid brick wall. Mine comes to rest inside a corner of the main wall.  The wall prevents me from making a backswing,  and my follow through will also contact the wall. Your ball is 3 feet, from an angled, support.  You can't follow through.

You get it in your head, for whatever reason, that you should get relief, and I should not.  My question has always been, for fairness, WITHOUT quoting a rule, or definition of golf, what would your reasons be for demanding relief, and denying it to me. 

 

[cnosil]

2 hours ago, stuka44 said:

Ok. This has never been about, what/how the rules, say things are. Is the rule fair, equitable, and the best it can be. 

We have just fallen to earth from another planet, somehow we intrinsically know how to hit golf balls, with these funny sticks we found. We know no rules, NOTHING, we find a badly burned rule book. We can make out ONLY 2 things, Play the ball as it lies, and an explanation of getting a drop, if a man made, object interferes with out stance and swing. We are both right handed. We know what "manmade" is. We've liberally taken relief from, toilets, cart paths etc.  On the last hole, both our drives come to rest exactly 3 ' from the solid brick wall. Mine comes to rest inside a corner of the main wall.  The wall prevents me from making a backswing,  and my follow through will also contact the wall. Your ball is 3 feet, from an angled, support.  You can't follow through.

You get it in your head, for whatever reason, that you should get relief, and I should not.  My question has always been, for fairness, WITHOUT quoting a rule, or definition of golf, what would your reasons be for demanding relief, and denying it to me. 

 

 How do you play any game?   You apply the rules as written.   In your scenario,  everyone gets a free drop because we don't know the rules and there isn't anything to say any different.   In any game there are different scenarios and applicable rules that get applied.  Golf is no different.   Fairness is applying the defined rules in the same manner for everyone.   No one gets a drop or the ability to pull an OB stake;  it is fair because that applies to everyone.  Your not liking how the rule is written or defined doesn't make it unfair or illogical.   As for "best they can be", who defines best?  What is the best car?  TV Show?  Movie?   game?   driver?    In golf the USGA and R&A continually evaluate the rules and they determine if they are the best they can be.   You can have an opinion just as I can have an opinion.  In my opinion the rules for OB stakes is fair and equitable and don't really need to change.  Giving me the ability to pull an OB stake doesn't make the game better or improve pace of play.   In yours they are not and should change.   

 

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

As I've read through this and I know I've stated my opinion or view on this. I do keep coming back to how often does this actually happen? I know in my time golfing it totals zero, both playing and for those I've played with. 

I have also recently noticed since the new rules a lot of courses have simply just changed to red stakes (again I think I've stated that before).

I appreciate that there are different views and opinions on matters, but somehow these discussions often to take turns towards just arguments and not debates which we encourage. Of course stronger opinions will be louder then those of a neutral manner, which could very well play a part of this. 

I truly don't mind the fact that the rules are what they are because certain people made them (or governing bodies) this is like any sport. They make the rules to be played by in competition because that is their job. I am fairly confident that they don't just make a rule because hey this will annoy X amount of ppl. To me it is layed out pretty clear, it makes sense and I don't see reason for it to change. However that is just me and how I feel. Again in my 500 or so rounds in the last 7ish years where I have played in competitions, league and casual rounds I have never come across a time where a OB stake or object as been in the way to have to apply this rule. 

As MPR mentioned hopefully a sensible debate can happen moving forward.  We enjoy having members with constructive debates that help grow knowledge within the game and make all of us better golfers because of it. 

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

Sorry had to do it. Have not been on this specific thread in a bit and dang.....Maybe its just me being simple but if something is in the way and is movable.....I am moving it. I am no professional and if I am going to damage a club, or worse me I am going to take some sort of relief.

Rules are there for a reason I get it, If I get on tour I will worry about it then, but until then going to play the game the best I can. If you think it should be changed study and get on the board to get'r done.

For anyone that doesn't know the meme....enjoy 

 

[bens197]

21 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

Sorry had to do it. Have not been on this specific thread in a bit and dang.....Maybe its just me being simple but if something is in the way and is movable.....I am moving it. I am no professional and if I am going to damage a club, or worse me I am going to take some sort of relief.

Rules are there for a reason I get it, If I get on tour I will worry about it then, but until then going to play the game the best I can. If you think it should be changed study and get on the board to get'r done.

For anyone that doesn't know the meme....enjoy 

 

Add me to this logic. If my ball or a playing partner’s ball lands in a precarious spot, move it.  Nobody remembers what you shot yesterday.  Live in the moment, have fun and don’t hurt yourself. 
 

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

8 minutes ago, bens197 said:

Add me to this logic. If my ball or a playing partner’s ball lands in a precarious spot, move it.  Nobody remembers what you shot yesterday.  Live in the moment, have fun and don’t hurt yourself. 
 

And don’t get me wrong, non-abuse is key. Bad lies all that jazz, if it’s in a divot Whatever I’ll hit it. really is more for objects. But seriously let’s just enjoy the game folks! And if that’s arguing the rules then Godspeed

[bens197]

6 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Totally agree. In everyday, for fun play, my friends and I always allow free relief if you might get hurt or break an expensive club. Most courses that we play are not well marked on a day to day basis, so we also agree on ground under repair, out of bounds or in, and a number of other things that are basically take a guess due to the poor markings. It's only in competitive and tournament play that you are basically forced to play the rules to the letter. You accept that going in and go by the book... Or don't get in those situations.

Same brain  

I played competitive golf in college and spent 3 years playing SE Florida chapter events. 
 

Now that those events are out of my system I am perfectly content to abide by the rules of the group. If it’s an Invitational, I’m all in. For the 95% of the rounds I play casually with friends, low key without going full on Patrick Reed is my speed. 

[DaveP043]

On 4/30/2022 at 12:42 PM, stuka44 said:

And contrary to what you may think, even though I probably won't abide by it, I like to understand things.  I ask WHY, not to whine, but to educate myself,  even about things as inconsequential  to me as the rules of golf. 

I don't think the answer to this specific question is contained in it, but if you're interested in getting a greater understanding of the Rules of Golf, I highly recommend reading "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf".  It was written by Richard Tufts back in about 1960, but the bulk of it still applies today.  You can get it for next to nothing at:

https://www.usgapublications.com/collections/rules-of-golf-2019/products/principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf-paperback-2016-edition?variant=25702107654

Back to this question, it gets down to principles and decisions that really define the game.  Out of Bounds has long been considered on of the worst places you can put your golf ball.  You're given 100+ acres on which to play the game, and you've missed it.  Having decided that, it seems a logical extension to decide that you don't deserve free relief for things that are themselves Out of Bounds.  Why are the stakes themselves defined as OB?  Well, since you are not allowed to play a ball that is OB, you don't want someone to move one of those stakes and not replace it, that might change the boundary for the next player who hits it there.  The logical choice, then, is to define those stakes as being OB, and we don't get relief from anything that is OB, we don't get to move those stakes either.  It IS logical, but you could logically define it differently.  I'm fine the way it is, I don't believe that changing the rule would make the game better.  It would make it a tiny bit easier, but I don't think easier is necessarily better.

Every sport has rules that are not in themselves logical.  Why is a touchdown 6 points, and a safety only 2?  The goal of the game is to get the ball into your opponents defensive end zone, you can say its logical that it should be the same score no matter how it happens.  Why is is an extra point just 1 point, but a field goal is 3?  Its the same action, and a field goal might even be made from closer range than a standard extra point.  Logic doesn't say any of those valuations is specifically correct, you could make arguments that a different system would be as logical, or more.  

Basketball, why does a few inches make a shot worth 50% more than a very slightly shorter shot?  Because they drew a line.  Why isn't that line 2 feet further back, or 2 feet closer?  Because.  Sometimes, because is good enough.

[LICC]

19 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

you don't want someone to move one of those stakes and not replace it, that might change the boundary for the next player who hits it there

The same thing applies to a penalty area stake. Someone may not replace it correctly and change the penalty area location for the next player. 
 

I don’t know why the rule defenders here can’t respect others’ opinions that a rule that no one can provide a rationale is flawed and inconsistent and could be improved. 

[cnosil]

14 minutes ago, LICC said:

I don’t know why the rule defenders here can’t respect others’ opinions that a rule that no one can provide a rationale is flawed and inconsistent and could be improved. 

I guess I don’t get what you intend to accomplish with these threads.  We didn’t write the rules; we provide you with our interpretation and you continue to say it is illogical, flawed, and/or inconsistent and could be improved.  We respect you opinion,  we simply disagree;  how do you think we should be responding to these posts?  It’s like you don’t respect our opinion.  Again if you want details on the history of the rules contacting the USGA and/or the R&A might be a better option.

[DaveP043]

 

1 hour ago, LICC said:

The same thing applies to a penalty area stake. Someone may not replace it correctly and change the penalty area location for the next player. 

Do not ignore the first part of that paragraph, its a significant decision under the rules to treat OB as a bad place, worse than any other place.  Consequently, the boundary to that bad place has greater implications than other boundaries.  If a PA stake is mis-located, you can still play out of the Penalty Area, you may not play from OB.  Therefore, those stakes have greater importance.

1 hour ago, LICC said:

I don’t know why the rule defenders here can’t respect others’ opinions that a rule that no one can provide a rationale is flawed and inconsistent and could be improved. 

I have done my best to respect you, I have explained the logic in many cases, and have accepted that it is not the only logical way to do things, and you have consistently called ME the illogical one.  You have consistently claimed that YOUR version of logic is the ONLY version of logic.  Changing a rule does not mean its improved, only that its changed.  And I find it astounding that someone who doesn't know the Relief Area limits thinks that he somehow has the expertise to tell the USGA and R&A what they've done wrong.

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

Think we have run our course on this one. Everyone has said their piece and looks like we will be circling around again on the same things over again. Time to move on and discuss other matters for the time being.