OB Stake- another logically inconsistent rule

[DaveP043]

38 minutes ago, LICC said:

There are plenty. If the ball is on a cart path is one. I can list others but you can look them up. 

Please quote the Rule that allows two clublengths relief for a ball on a cart path.  As I suggested previously, you really do need to learn the Rules better.

Edited March 21, 2022 by DaveP043

[GolfSpy_APH]

Just in case nobody checked the link @RickyBobby_PRposted here is a screenshot
 

I don't know why I get sucked into these topics. I really don't care that much. Courses I play (now) don't even have any OB its all red staked. I guess it helps in some sense that I learn something? However they always seem to take a turn that is questionable at best and something that I have to pay attention to within my role here on the forum.

[LICC]

16 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Wrong. These are all one club length. Basically, if it's a free drop, it's one clublength. If there is a penalty it's two. Again, you need to learn the rules before arguing and wanting to change them.

 

19 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Please quote the Rule that allows two clublengths relief for a ball on a cart path.  As I suggested previously, you really do need to learn the Rules better.

Ok, go with one club length. This doesn't the change the point that both of you are avoiding. You can't provide a rational explanation why you get free relief if an immovable Penalty Area stake interferes with your swing, but you don't get free relief if an immovable OB stake interferes with your swing. The best try I'm getting is that OB is different. Which isn't a reason in itself, but also doesn't matter because we are talking about a ball that is in play on the golf course.

It shouldn't be so difficult to say that among the many rules of golf, some are rationally flawed and could be improved.

[GolfSpy_APH]

I think the definition of Out of Bounds is enough. In the end they are two different areas with different rules. I don't think much further explanation is needed (personally) There are harsher penalties for OB as it is again Out of Bounds... do not go there, avoid there, play anywhere to the other side of the course! If you do end up going close to the OB stakes it is the rub of the green if you have a swing or not. Just like if you hit up next to a tree or right on the edge of a pond or lake, you may have a swing or you may not. The fact it is an OB stake is irrelevant. If you don't have a swing at all then you take an unplayable and go from there.

Thats my feelings on it at least. If I know there is OB on a course I make an effort to play away from it as I know the penalties are much harsher there. I don't see any reason to give free relief because I got myself into a bad situation by hitting the ball into an area I know carries steeper penalties. 

I am sure there are some flawed rules, but I don't see this or really most any OB vs PA rule being among them.   

[ChitownM2]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

 

Ok, go with one club length. This doesn't the change the point that both of you are avoiding. You can't provide a rational explanation why you get free relief if an immovable Penalty Area stake interferes with your swing, but you don't get free relief if an immovable OB stake interferes with your swing. The best try I'm getting is that OB is different. Which isn't a reason in itself, but also doesn't matter because we are talking about a ball that is in play on the golf course.

It shouldn't be so difficult to say that among the many rules of golf, some are rationally flawed and could be improved.

The difference is that one of those items is a necessary item to define a specific area WITHIN the golf course.  The OB stake is NOT part of the course.  If you hit it behind a PA stake you are entitled to relief, if you hit it behind an immovable object that isn't on the golf course you do not get relief.  

If you had a big dogleg on the edge of the property, should you get relief because someone's house is in the way when you try to cut the corner?  They are both immovable objects that are not on the course and treated the same.

[DaveP043]

7 hours ago, LICC said:

 

Ok, go with one club length. This doesn't the change the point that both of you are avoiding. You can't provide a rational explanation why you get free relief if an immovable Penalty Area stake interferes with your swing, but you don't get free relief if an immovable OB stake interferes with your swing. The best try I'm getting is that OB is different. Which isn't a reason in itself, but also doesn't matter because we are talking about a ball that is in play on the golf course.

It shouldn't be so difficult to say that among the many rules of golf, some are rationally flawed and could be improved.

To me, this rule is absolutely logical, for exactly the reason you reject.  But you should have noticed that I accept that most rules require drawing a "line" of some kind, and the exact location of that line is going to be arbitrary.  I said that to allow those stakes to be moved wouldn't necessarily be "wrong", but I don't believe changing it is justified.  I haven't looked much deeper, but many rules are interrelated, and changing this one rule might require adjustments to other rules too.  I don't think its worthwhile making the change.

Now I'll respond to the last bit, it shouldn't be difficult to accept that if you were to gain greater knowledge of the rules of golf, and how they relate to one another and to the guiding principles, you might begin to see logic where you currently see none.  I know for sure that it has worked that way for me.

[Imp]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:07 AM, LICC said:

 

Ok, go with one club length. This doesn't the change the point that both of you are avoiding. You can't provide a rational explanation why you get free relief if an immovable Penalty Area stake interferes with your swing, but you don't get free relief if an immovable OB stake interferes with your swing. The best try I'm getting is that OB is different. Which isn't a reason in itself, but also doesn't matter because we are talking about a ball that is in play on the golf course.

It shouldn't be so difficult to say that among the many rules of golf, some are rationally flawed and could be improved.

Football, Tennis. Baseball. Soccer. Volleyball. All played on properties/stadiums that have areas within the confines of the greater stadium/property that are designated "OB" once a ball touches the ground, but are still "part of the property" right? (Can only catch/kick a ball outside of them if the ball is still in the air...). 

In golf, the ball is always on the ground when you get to it, you'll never have the chance to hit it while it's still in the air when you arrive to it. Same rules as these other sports apply with the OB markers on a golf course. The markers are placed, and considered OB, even if within the wholly owned stadium/property.

They are all playing by the same rules when you actually think about it. 

Red stake? Same as hitting the foul pole in a baseball stadium, or the end zone pylon in football. Hitting the outside of the net post in tennis, and having it stay in. THOSE are inbounds.

White stake? Hitting the inside of the post in tennis and having the ball stay in/volleyball. On or outside any of the white lines.

Edit: At least in golf, if any part of your ball is outside the extent of the OB markers, it's still in play. But, part of the drawback is the marker, might be in your way, and that's wholly OB and cannot be touched. (Soccer: the corner posts are in the way of the corner kick, have to navigate around them.)

Edited April 25, 2022 by Imp

[Stuka44]

On 4/25/2022 at 7:55 AM, Imp said:

Football, Tennis. Baseball. Soccer. Volleyball. All played on properties/stadiums that have areas within the confines of the greater stadium/property that are designated "OB" once a ball touches the ground, but are still "part of the property" right? (Can only catch/kick a ball outside of them if the ball is still in the air...). 

In golf, the ball is always on the ground when you get to it, you'll never have the chance to hit it while it's still in the air when you arrive to it. Same rules as these other sports apply with the OB markers on a golf course. The markers are placed, and considered OB, even if within the wholly owned stadium/property.

They are all playing by the same rules when you actually think about it. 

Red stake? Same as hitting the foul pole in a baseball stadium, or the end zone pylon in football. Hitting the outside of the net post in tennis, and having it stay in. THOSE are inbounds.

White stake? Hitting the inside of the post in tennis and having the ball stay in/volleyball. On or outside any of the white lines.

Edit: At least in golf, if any part of your ball is outside the extent of the OB markers, it's still in play. But, part of the drawback is the marker, might be in your way, and that's wholly OB and cannot be touched. (Soccer: the corner posts are in the way of the corner kick, have to navigate around them.)

On 3/20/2022 at 10:18 AM, LICC said:

In this case, the ball is not OB but an OB fence (or hypothetically just a stake) is in the way of the swing.

Ok I get that this post is waning, but I just needed to get my two cents in, since I haven't been on in a while.  And I'm not trying re-start  the re-teeing argument penalty from a while ago.  But I wholly agree with LICC on this one.    A player whose ball has come to rest, in bounds should not be prevented from playing the ball, because of a marker placed on the course, or on the border of the course whose sole purpose is to provide visual reference for determining if the ball is resting in play or not.  

 And I dispute the other sport argument.  In baseball a foul ball that barely grazes the outside edge of the foul pole, and if the ball was made of velcro and would stick entirely to the pole suspended entirely out of bounds, but stuck to the foul pole, on that invisible one molecule wide line between  fair ground and foul ground nonetheless, it  benefits the batter and it is a Home Run.  In Soccer the rules officials realized that attempting to have a "corner kick" from the actual corner, where there is a post which can't be moved  was ridiculous.  So they put the ARC in at the corner, in order to not have the corner post actually impede the next action of the corner kick.  And the person performing the kick can implement it from the baseline or the sideline.  They created A required amount of "relief" from the barrier they erected which only serves to help the referee determine if a ball goes out of play over the baseline or the sideline if it is very near the corner, but realized that this post should not prevent the next required action, an unimpeded corner kick.  And they realized that it shouldn't matter what foot a player kicks with, which is why it can be done from baseline or sideline.

The same should apply in golf.  An artificially erected visual refernce stake(s)/ or fence, whose sole purpose is to determine if the ball is resting in play or out of play, should not penalize a player whose ball has clearly come to rest in play, just because he/she  is left or right handed, and can't take a stance because of that.

[LICC]

On 4/25/2022 at 7:55 AM, Imp said:

Football, Tennis. Baseball. Soccer. Volleyball. All played on properties/stadiums that have areas within the confines of the greater stadium/property that are designated "OB" once a ball touches the ground, but are still "part of the property" right? (Can only catch/kick a ball outside of them if the ball is still in the air...). 

In golf, the ball is always on the ground when you get to it, you'll never have the chance to hit it while it's still in the air when you arrive to it. Same rules as these other sports apply with the OB markers on a golf course. The markers are placed, and considered OB, even if within the wholly owned stadium/property.

They are all playing by the same rules when you actually think about it. 

Red stake? Same as hitting the foul pole in a baseball stadium, or the end zone pylon in football. Hitting the outside of the net post in tennis, and having it stay in. THOSE are inbounds.

White stake? Hitting the inside of the post in tennis and having the ball stay in/volleyball. On or outside any of the white lines.

Edit: At least in golf, if any part of your ball is outside the extent of the OB markers, it's still in play. But, part of the drawback is the marker, might be in your way, and that's wholly OB and cannot be touched. (Soccer: the corner posts are in the way of the corner kick, have to navigate around them.)

Why is the end zone pylon in football like a red stake to you? It is outside the edge of the in-bounds section of the field, but if a player touches it with the ball, it is a touchdown. That goes against your argument. Baseball is different because what the call the foul line is actually in play. The ball has to land outside of the line and not touch it to be a foul ball (out of bounds). But this example is not about a golf ball being OB. The ball is in bounds but the OB stake is interfering with either the line or the swing. A player should get free relief to move the ball in those cases.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

The same should apply in golf.  An artificially erected visual refernce stake(s)/ or fence, whose sole purpose is to determine if the ball is resting in play or out of play, should not penalize a player whose ball has clearly come to rest in play, just because he/she  is left or right handed, and can't take a stance because of that.

You stated it much better than I did, thank you.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

An artificially erected visual refernce stake(s)/ or fence, whose sole purpose is to determine if the ball is resting in play or out of play, should not penalize a player whose ball has clearly come to rest in play, just because he/she  is left or right handed, and can't take a stance because of that.

What about other immovable things located OB?  A fence erected by an adjacent landowner, erected to keep golfers out of his property, which also delineates the OB limit?  A retaining wall erected to keep an adjacent hillside stable?  Does the purpose matter, or just that it interferes with your swing?  To be consistent, you'd have to allow relief for ALL of those artificial things, even if they're not on the golf course.  Right now the Rule is absolutely consistent, no relief for Boundary Objects or any other immoveable stuff located off the golf course.  A Boundary fence or wall or railing is treated the same as boundary stakes.  Sure, it could be defined or limited differently, I've said repeatedly that this is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, but the current limitations are reasonable and logical.  If you have a problem with it, hit it further from the course boundary.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

What about other immovable things located OB?  A fence erected by an adjacent landowner, erected to keep golfers out of his property, which also delineates the OB limit?  A retaining wall erected to keep an adjacent hillside stable?  Does the purpose matter, or just that it interferes with your swing?  To be consistent, you'd have to allow relief for ALL of those artificial things, even if they're not on the golf course.  Right now the Rule is absolutely consistent, no relief for Boundary Objects or any other immoveable stuff located off the golf course.  A Boundary fence or wall or railing is treated the same as boundary stakes.  Sure, it could be defined or limited differently, I've said repeatedly that this is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, but the current limitations are reasonable and logical.  If you have a problem with it, hit it further from the course boundary.

You defend the USGA Rules every time no matter what, and you deny inconsistencies where they clearly exist.

This is not "absolutely consistent, ... reasonable [or] logical." An OB stake by necessity has to be on the property of the golf course. That it is deemed OB is an artificial construct. It is a stake on the property of the golf course, that is treated differently than another stake on the golf course, the penalty area stake. A homeowner's fence is not on the golf course property unlike an OB stake. If you really were consistent, you would not be for allowing free relief from a penalty area stake either. But that would be an arbitrary decision to make things more difficult for no good reason.

[DaveP043]

55 minutes ago, LICC said:

You defend the USGA Rules every time no matter what, and you deny inconsistencies where they clearly exist.

This is not "absolutely consistent, ... reasonable [or] logical." An OB stake by necessity has to be on the property of the golf course. That it is deemed OB is an artificial construct. It is a stake on the property of the golf course, that is treated differently than another stake on the golf course, the penalty area stake. A homeowner's fence is not on the golf course property unlike an OB stake. If you really were consistent, you would not be for allowing free relief from a penalty area stake either. But that would be an arbitrary decision to make things more difficult for no good reason.

The parking lot is on golf course property, the maintenance shed, the grill room, all on golf course property, yet all may be defined as OB, and in every case stakes may be used to define the boundary. Or a fence may be used, owned by the course, and on the property.  And in every case, the Boundary Object is treated as immoveable, with no relief under the rules.  

I have agreed, this is to some extent an arbitrary line, but any line is somewhat arbitrary.  You want the line drawn differently, that doesn't make it right or wrong, simply a different choice.

[LICC]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The parking lot is on golf course property, the maintenance shed, the grill room, all on golf course property, yet all may be defined as OB, and in every case stakes may be used to define the boundary. Or a fence may be used, owned by the course, and on the property.  And in every case, the Boundary Object is treated as immoveable, with no relief under the rules.  

I have agreed, this is to some extent an arbitrary line, but any line is somewhat arbitrary.  You want the line drawn differently, that doesn't make it right or wrong, simply a different choice.

True, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but one way is consistent and logical, and the other isn't. I wouldn't mind if any man made object, whether OB or not, that interferes with a swing on a ball that is in play, allows the player free relief. That would be consistent and logical. 

[DaveP043]

13 hours ago, LICC said:

True, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but one way is consistent and logical, and the other isn't. I wouldn't mind if any man made object, whether OB or not, that interferes with a swing on a ball that is in play, allows the player free relief. That would be consistent and logical. 

Here is where I (once again) refer you to the actual Rules of Golf, Rule 1.  The overriding principles are:

Play your ball as it lies

Play the course as you find it

All the rest of the Rules concerning relief are exceptions to those principles, and the Ruling Bodies have done their best to make as few exceptions while trying to be  reasonably fair.  More exceptions introduce more inconsistency.  It is absolutely reasonable to allow relief for things on the course, and to not allow relief for things not on the course.  The Committee is authorized to define the limits of the course, bearing in mind the impact of their delineations on how the course plays. 

All of this arose initially because some whiny PGA Tour player wanted relief from a fence which defines the OB.  He hit a bad shot, and didn't want to accept the consequences.  What seemed odd at the time, Thomas is reputed to be one of the more knowledgeable players concerning the Rules.  He probably knew this rule, and was trying to browbeat an Official into giving him a wrong ruling.  My solution for him, and for all the rest, hit better shots, you won't need to beg for relief.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

57 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

All of this arose initially because some whiny PGA Tour player wanted relief from a fence which defines the OB.  He hit a bad shot, and didn't want to accept the consequences.

Seems to be what many on here who complain about the rules also don’t want to accept. 

[Stuka44]

16 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I have agreed, this is to some extent an arbitrary line, but any line is somewhat arbitrary.  You want the line drawn differently, that doesn't make it right or wrong, simply a different choice.

 

16 hours ago, LICC said:

True, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but one way is consistent and logical, and the other isn't. I wouldn't mind if any man made object, whether OB or not, that interferes with a swing on a ball that is in play, allows the player free relief. That would be consistent and logical. 

I agree that correctness where the rules of golf are concerned is truly in the eye of the beholder.  I would just say that anytime the argument comes down to "just hit it farther from the boundary" is a red flag to me.  That is using "20/20 Hindsight" to justify a rule. A player should play "knowing" whats going to happen before it does.  Huh..What!.  Again nobody is saying that "ALL" random outcomes should be "forgiven, and given relief".  But again to try and justify a rule that an "artificial object erected, by the course, because its a boundary(ob) fence, and not any other man made on course object,  so that  weather or not someone is penalized, comes down,  to the players  "handedness" , because at some point in history, someone decided there is an arbitrary difference in these two objects,(both erected by the course in this situation),  is just a dumb rule.   

    Because take note that the  arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules,  are by definition. 

1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice.  When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan

b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard

Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.

Edited April 28, 2022 by stuka44

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

Because take note that the  arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules,  are by definition. 

1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice.  When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan

b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard

Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.

Looking at 1a, that definition doesn't apply, this choice is definitely not random, it is specifically thought out and chosen.  Off the golf course is just that, therefore no relief is justified during play ON the golf course.  Looking at 1b, the choice is based on the preference of people who truly understand the implications.  I'd say that's valid, in defining that an OB line is itself OB, that OB stakes (when no line is present) are OB, and that all Boundary Objects (as defined under the Rules) are NOT considered to be Immoveable Obstructions (as defined in the RoG), all of those definitions are to some extent arbitrary.  

But any other choice would also be arbitrary.  You could define the edge of the OB as the side of the paint line furthest from the course, or the "back side" of the stakes.  But then we have inconsistency between fences or walls on an adjacent property but serving as a Boundary Object (clearly off the property, so OB) as compared to an OB stake, which would be defined as in play.  That doesn't seem to make things simpler to me, its simpler to treat all Boundary Objects the same.  

How is allowing relief for objects that are not on the golf course any less arbitrary than not allowing such relief?  And is such a choice more consistent, or less, with the two basic principles of golf, as presented in Rule 1?  To me it is still arbitrary, but extends an exception to those principles in yet another area.  More exceptions to basic principles aren't the way to go, in my opinion.  

Edited April 28, 2022 by DaveP043

[LICC]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

 

I agree that correctness where the rules of golf are concerned is truly in the eye of the beholder.  I would just say that anytime the argument comes down to "just hit it farther from the boundary" is a red flag to me.  That is using "20/20 Hindsight" to justify a rule. A player should play "knowing" whats going to happen before it does.  Huh..What!.  Again nobody is saying that "ALL" random outcomes should be "forgiven, and given relief".  But again to try and justify a rule that an "artificial object erected, by the course, because its a boundary(ob) fence, and not any other man made on course object,  so that  weather or not someone is penalized, comes down,  to the players  "handedness" , because at some point in history, someone decided there is an arbitrary difference in these two objects,(both erected by the course in this situation),  is just a dumb rule.   

    Because take note that the  arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules,  are by definition. 

1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice.  When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan

b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard

Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.

Excellent point. Also, someone can say the same thing about a penalty area stake, from which you do get relief. Just don't hit it so close to the penalty area and you won't have a problem. It is just inconsistent. The response is that OB is just different without any rationale as to why that matters.

[LICC]

22 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Looking at 1a, that definition doesn't apply, this choice is definitely not random, it is specifically thought out and chosen.  Off the golf course is just that, therefore no relief is justified during play ON the golf course.  Looking at 1b, the choice is based on the preference of people who truly understand the implications.  I'd say that's valid, in defining that an OB line is itself OB, that OB stakes (when no line is present) are OB, and that all Boundary Objects (as defined under the Rules) are NOT considered to be Immoveable Obstructions (as defined in the RoG), all of those definitions are to some extent arbitrary.  

But any other choice would also be arbitrary.  You could define the edge of the OB as the side of the paint line furthest from the course, or the "back side" of the stakes.  But then we have inconsistency between fences or walls on an adjacent property but serving as a Boundary Object (clearly off the property, so OB) as compared to an OB stake, which would be defined as in play.  That doesn't seem to make things simpler to me, its simpler to treat all Boundary Objects the same.  

How is allowing relief for objects that are not on the golf course any less arbitrary than not allowing such relief?  And is such a choice more consistent, or less, with the two basic principles of golf, as presented in Rule 1?  To me it is still arbitrary, but extends an exception to those principles in yet another area.  More exceptions to basic principles aren't the way to go, in my opinion.  

There is arbitrary and there is consistency. Two different things. Not granting relief for an OB stake but granting it for a penalty area stake is inconsistent. Granting relief for neither or granting relief for both would be just arbitrary. You can't come up with a reasonable rationale for the inconsistency. It's a bad rule partially due to the inconsistency and partially for being overly harsh.