Jump to content

OB Stake- another logically inconsistent rule


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

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.

They aren’t inconsistent because they are two different situations. Just like the teeing area is different from the rest of the course. 
 

  • Like 3

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LICC said:

It's a bad rule partially due to the inconsistency and partially for being overly harsh.

Write to the USGA, urge them to change it.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

They aren’t inconsistent because they are two different situations. Just like the teeing area is different from the rest of the course. 
 

What is the relevant difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Write to the USGA, urge them to change it.  

Good idea. And if they did, you would say that the new rule makes sense and is a good rule because, the USGA thought about it, or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

You're choosing to focus on stakes. Let's focus instead on out of bounds markers. On many courses in my area, out of bounds is defined by fences or walls. No relief is allowed from these. So allowing relief from one type of out of bounds marker, but not another, would be where the inconsistency would lie.

I don't know why you are so tied up in trying to find these logical inconsistencies. Don't like the rules? Don't play by them. Or don't play at all. It's your call. But some guy on a forum, who doesn't even know the rules very well, complaining about them is certainly not going to get anyone to consider changing them.

I said I would be for free relief from any man made obstruction that interferes with a swing, for any ball in play. That is consistent.

Who says I don't know the rules very well?

Edited by LICC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

Who says I don't know the rules very well?

You have demonstrated that pretty regularly.  Just go back about a month in this thread, one clublength v. two.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LICC said:

Good idea. And if they did, you would say that the new rule makes sense and is a good rule because, the USGA thought about it, or something.

I am not going to hold my breath, that rule has been the same for at least 50 years, boundary objects will not be treated as obstructions in my lifetime.

  • Like 2

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, here we go again.  They are only "different" things, because someone  arbitrarily determined that they "were, or should" be looked at differently.  You defenders of the rules, and I really do appreciate your zeal,  continually make the same circular argument.  "   A  rule  exists, stating that these two things should be looked at differently, and therefore they MUST BE looked at differently.   And any suggestion that fairness, or equity in the play of the game may be, being impeded by  a rule or two, and suggesting that the game may be fairer, and more consistent by changing a rule "Renders us unworthy to play the game, or even suggest that the game can be improved!" 

 I go back to what LICC said.

MAN MADE OBJECTS: ON OR OFF COURSE, ERECTED BY THIS  COURSE OR OUTSIDE AGENCY:

Any player whose otherwise legally struck, and played ball has come to rest in bounds, on this course whose ball has come to rest in such close proximity to ANY MAN MADE OBJECT REGARDLESS OF WHO PLACED IT,  shall be granted free relief from said object if his balls proximity to it renders his natural stance unattainable, or the balls proximity to said man made object, renders injury possible, by contacting this man made object or any part of it, or other man made object  during the subsequent swing.

 

I'm not sure how a rule like this couldn't be implemented  with a few clarifying remarks, on procecure for taking relief, which would then ensure that in the end someone isn't penalized because they are left or right handed, and because their ball came to rest 1 foot next to a brick wall. 

The fact that one is a snack bar between two holes, and one is a brick wall marking a boundary edge of the course( regardless of who erected it) should make no difference, IF THE PLAYERS BALL HAS COME TO REST IN BOUNDS.  And any rule which in any way justifies, supports, or results in  a players handedness determining if he is penalized,  is a bad rule.

 

 

Edited by stuka44
  • Like 1

Driver: Cobra King Speedzone

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

And any rule which justifies a players handedness determining if he is penalized is a bad rule.

There's no penalty based on handedness, it simply becomes a more difficult shot.

But I keep going back to the idea of minimizing exceptions to one of the primary principles in golf:  Play your ball as it lies.  There are exceptions made to that principle, allowing for relief from man-made objects on the course.  I would prefer not to see the exception extended to allow relief from objects which are not on the course.  Adding exceptions to the primary principles is not desirable, in my mind.  

  • Like 2

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LICC said:

What is the relevant difference?

Hazards also knows as penalty areas are part of the course 

OB is not part of the course. 

  • Like 1

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Hazards also knows as penalty areas are part of the course 

OB is not part of the course. 

Why is that relevant to treatment of a man made object obstructing the swing for a ball in play on the course?

Edited by LICC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LICC said:

Why is that relevant to treatment of a man made object obstructing the swing for a ball in play on the course?

Because the ruling bodies decided that on the course rules will be different for rules applying to not on the course. 
 

Another example of not understanding the rules and how and why they are applied and why they aren’t inconsistent. But rather you and others not wanting to suffer the consequences for a mistake on the course.

 

  • Haha 1

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

There's no penalty based on handedness, it simply becomes a more difficult shot.

But I keep going back to the idea of minimizing exceptions to one of the primary principles in golf:  Play your ball as it lies.  There are exceptions made to that principle, allowing for relief from man-made objects on the course.  I would prefer not to see the exception extended to allow relief from objects which are not on the course.  Adding exceptions to the primary principles is not desirable, in my mind.  

The goal should be to fairly apply exceptions consistently, for what would make a better experience for golfers. Now you have a dichotomy of when the exception applies and when it doesn't, and for no good reason. Make it simple and consistent- apply it to all man made obstructions.

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Because the ruling bodies decided that on the course rules will be different for rules applying to not on the course. 
 

Another example of not understanding the rules and how and why they are applied and why they aren’t inconsistent. But rather you and others not wanting to suffer the consequences for a mistake on the course.

 

Or another example of a circular argument with no rational underpinning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

There's no penalty based on handedness, it simply becomes a more difficult shot.

I get it not technically, but no relief implementation results in what is "realistically" a one stroke penalty. a ball one foot from a brick wall(ob marker) off the left side of the fairway, as you look from the tee, unostructed by anything else means a left handed golfer can take his stance, and hit his 4 iron to the green 240 yards away.  The right handed player,who can not take a stance, is forced to in essence "take" a penalty stroke by "half-assedly" hitting it with the back of a club, or taking an unplayable.

Driver: Cobra King Speedzone

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...  Using my one foot from the brick wall(ob) example, hell lets make it 6 inches.   OTHER THAN THE RULING BODIES DECIDED, AND ITS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE RULING BODIES DECIDED,  are the fairness, equity, and just reasonings for implementing this rule as it is?  Also other than play the ball as it lies, because we already know that creating exceptions to this rule is no problem, because there are a lot of them already to ensure that one player is not benefitted or penalized, by being next to a  port o pottie, in play.

Driver: Cobra King Speedzone

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Anyone who doesn't know it's one clublength, not two, from a cartpath, clearly is not very well versed in the rules. This is one of the most common and most used rules in golf, and you've presumably been doing it wrong for how long?

If that is what you base your conclusions on, I can see why you get a lot of things wrong here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

A player's ball comes to rest in a hole on the right edge of a cartpath. There is a large bush starting three feet to the right of the cartpath just forward of the ball. A right handed player's drop will place him directly behind the bush, forcing him to punch out to the fairway. A left handed player, whose nearest relief is much closer to the path, drops and has a clear swing and path to the green. So should the right hander be allowed to drop on the opposite side of the path so he too has a clear swing and path to the green? Of course not!

Rules play out differently for right  and left handed players. Get over it and stop whining. If it really bothers you, carry a lefty club or two and learn to hit them.

That is an incredibly unlikely hypothetical. That you resort to something like that shows you don't have a good justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Seriously? In 25 years of golf coaching I saw situations like this at least 100 times, where a player taking a drop would have been totally clear, or totally blocked, depending on handedness.

Again, you are really very poorly informed. If my knowledge and experience were as bad as yours, I would stick to using this forum to get people to explain things to me, not to argue logical consistency with experts who have been overseeing the game for hundreds of years.

You having seen this situation at least 100 times is just as likely as you having been overseeing the game for "hundreds of years." You should stick to just parroting the rulebook and not try to delve into complex analysis, which is what you need to understand the flaws and inconsistencies of certain rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Riverboat said:

A player's ball comes to rest in a hole on the right edge of a cartpath. There is a large bush starting three feet to the right of the cartpath just forward of the ball. A right handed player's drop will place him directly behind the bush, forcing him to punch out to the fairway. A left handed player, whose nearest relief is much closer to the path, drops and has a clear swing and path to the green. So should the right hander be allowed to drop on the opposite side of the path so he too has a clear swing and path to the green? Of course not!

Rules play out differently for right  and left handed players. Get over it and stop whining. If it really bothers you, carry a lefty club or two and learn to hit them.

THIS IS IT FOR ME, ON THIS:

Well provided example.  It again misses the main point.  I have never said that relief should always come in an area free of Natural obstructions, to the next shot.  Oh and why does it depend on how the boundary fence is constructed.  Why can one get relief from the supports of a boundary fence.  If the fence is such an integral part of playing  the course, then why does it matter, what manner of fence was constructed.  Every part of it no matter how intrusive should render no relief.

And I take  offense the elitist attitude, that because I am willing to ask for an explanation of something, beyond "because someone, said so" as whining, and being told "get over it"!  And who are you to summarily dismiss my reasons or anyone elses for discussing this matter or anything else, with a comment like "if it really bothers you". That comment conveys a level of arrogance, that implies that I couldn't possibly have any reason, and that there could never be a reason, that would warrant consideration,  for  this rule to be changed, or ammended.

Maybe I suffered irreperable damage to my elbow trying to strike a ball which was next to a boundary wall to help my college team win a tournament.  Maybe I would like to see the rule changed to keep this from happening to anyone else. (OK IT didn't, but what if it had.) 

And why is it taken as a "personal attack", by most people who want to defend the rules of golf. Like we are accusing you of being personally responsible, for the inequities we believe exist.  Why does the mere suggestion that a rule of the game may be inconsistent, inqeuitable, unfair, or whatever other description one would use, the defense of it almost immediately, digresses to an accusation of the questioner, being unworthy to play the game, and a suggestion that the person should quit, because "The Sacred Game: Golf" is being damaged at its core, by the mere suggestion that the rules are not perfect. 

I am glad, even though someone had come up with a rule about it, that Rosa Parks didn't listen when someone likely told her to "stop whining, and get over it" its just the way it is, if you don't like it move out of Alabama.  The ENTIRE PLANET is a better place becasue she asked, "WHY", and said it doesn't have to be this way. 

Golf and its rules, comparatively, don't  register on any scale of importance, for human existence.  It's a game, nothing more, nothing less. Playing the game by the letter of the rules, doesn't make you a better or superior person.  It just means you follow the rules, nothing more... nothing less. Agreeing with rules for anything, doesn't necessarily make them good, or just rules, it only means that you agree with them.

So all I would ask is  reign in comments which imply, that someone is unworthy to have an opinion about the game of golf, or its rules.

THE END!

 

 

 

Driver: Cobra King Speedzone

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I am sorry you feel personally attacked. No matter what we are talking about.

 

18 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Bickering about the rules of a game is, in my opinion, whining and a waste of time.

I'm really not, and I speak(type ) in extremes to try and illustrate my point, that these rules of golf " are not really a sacred text" .    And I might have missed it in these 4 pages, but I still didn't see a reason listed here, other than, some likely unknown, long dead person decided they needed to be handled differently.  I tried to find listed in the rules of golf, or on google, any reference to the rationale, or reasoning behind these situations being treated differently, and I couldn't find any listed.

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. 

And I really do appreciate your defense of the rules of the game.  I don't understand it, but I do appreciate it..  And I'm not really offended over anything on this site.  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.  And  as with most things in life, I don't like to if I can help it, answer people's questions of me with because (and I'm not saying you did this). 

Edited by stuka44
  • Like 1

Driver: Cobra King Speedzone

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...