OB stake question

[Augster]

Played 9 rounds in 5 days in Florida. This was the only rule thing that I didn’t know instantly.

 

Singles match play. I’m on my way to an 8 on the hole after going OB, water, drop, then on the green. My opponent hits his drive, and then his second shot runs up against a boundary OB stake. I was searching for his ball and found it. It’s the only reason I was over there.

 

He walks up, sees it’s going to be in his stance, and starts to pull the stake. I say “WHOA!” But he has already lifted it about an inch, but the stake hadn’t come out of it’s hole.

 

Does this satisfy the definition of “moving” in the context of Rule 13-2?

 

He pushed the stake back in. By the definition of “moved” in “ball at rest moved” the stake was back in place I.e came to rest in it’s original position. He played his shot with the stake back in.

 

In match play, if he is deemed to have “moved” the stake, he loses the hole. There isn’t any way I can ignore that breach because I was telling him he can’t move the stake.

 

We have to post the scores. If he has already moved the stake, and taken the 2-stroke penalty, for stroke play posting purposes, shouldn’t he pull the stake all the way out and play the shot cleanly? He’s already taken the 2 strokes. Match play he already lost the hole, but even with the 2 stroke penalty, he’s not up to his ESC of 7.

 

Thanks for any help with the undefined definition of “moving”.

[Sawgrass]

Played 9 rounds in 5 days in Florida. This was the only rule thing that I didn't know instantly.

 

Singles match play. I'm on my way to an 8 on the hole after going OB, water, drop, then on the green. My opponent hits his drive, and then his second shot runs up against a boundary OB stake. I was searching for his ball and found it. It's the only reason I was over there.

 

He walks up, sees it's going to be in his stance, and starts to pull the stake. I say "WHOA!" But he has already lifted it about an inch, but the stake hadn't come out of it's hole.

 

Does this satisfy the definition of "moving" in the context of Rule 13-2?

 

He pushed the stake back in. By the definition of "moved" in "ball at rest moved" the stake was back in place I.e came to rest in it's original position. He played his shot with the stake back in.

 

In match play, if he is deemed to have "moved" the stake, he loses the hole. There isn't any way I can ignore that breach because I was telling him he can't move the stake.

 

We have to post the scores. If he has already moved the stake, and taken the 2-stroke penalty, for stroke play posting purposes, shouldn't he pull the stake all the way out and play the shot cleanly? He's already taken the 2 strokes. Match play he already lost the hole, but even with the 2 stroke penalty, he's not up to his ESC of 7.

 

Thanks for any help with the undefined definition of "moving".

I'd say your opponent violated R13-2 since he moved the stake while not in the process of fairly taking his stance.

 

The Definitions' section on "move or moved" describes only the movement of a ball, not a stake. IMO if you move a stake an inch and immediately replace it you have moved it. D 13-2/25 seems to be the closest to this situation. Note that 13-2/1.1 would have freed him from liability if the stake had moved while fairly taking his stance.

 

13-2/25

 

Player Removes Boundary Post on Line of Play But Replaces It Before Playing

 

Q.A player removed a post defining out of bounds and, as a result, improved his line of play. He realized he had made a mistake and replaced it before making his next stroke. What is the ruling?

 

A.The player was in breach of Rule 13-2 the moment he moved the post and there was nothing he could do to avoid the penalty. The replacement of the post before the next stroke was irrelevant. (Revised)

 

13-2/1.1

 

Player Attempts to Take Stance Fairly But Improves Line of Play by Moving Interfering Growing Object

 

Q.A player's ball lies under the branch of a tree. In attempting to take his stance fairly, the player improves his line of play by moving the branch with his body. Before playing, he realizes he could have taken his stance without moving the branch. He abandons his stance and the branch returns to its original position or is returned to its original position by the player. The player then approaches the ball from a different direction, takes his stance without disturbing the branch and makes his stroke. What is the ruling?

 

A.There is no penalty. When fairly taking his stance the player is required to take his stance in the least intrusive manner that results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. However, as the branch moved as a result of the player's attempt to take his stance fairly and was returned to its original position before the stroke was made, there is no penalty. Any doubt as to whether the branch returned to its original position should be resolved against the player.

 

The same principle would apply to fixed artificial objects (e.g., a boundary stake) if the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play is improved as a result of the player's attempt to take his stance fairly but the object is returned to its original position before the player makes a stroke.

[Augster]

Thanks Sawgrass!

 

I figured he was in breach. He felt he wasn’t as he didn’t fully REMOVE the stake. I told him in 13-2 they only use “moving”. He had to admit he did move it, but didn’t remove it. I told him he could make a claim.

 

Good find on the fact that a stake can move if you’re taking your stance and no penalty if you move it back.

[dormie1360]

I agree. He did an "oops". You can not take back "oopes" unless specifically allowed under the rules or decisions.

[WHC888]

does this only apply to OB stake or ALL stakes (white, yellow or red)??

[Sawgrass]

does this only apply to OB stake or ALL stakes (white, yellow or red)??

It applies to OB stakes, which by definition are not obstructions. Most every other stake you come across will be a movable obstruction, which you may remove if you'd like. (Some might be fixed in place, and therefore immovable obstructions providing a different relief option -- but relief is not granted if your ball is in a water hazard. It's also possible (but very unlikely) for a Committee to declare a stake an integral part of a course from which no free relief is granted.

[LeoLeo99]

If after Auguster exclaimed "WHOA" and the opponent replaced the stake and realized he was due a 2-stroke penalty, would there be any additional penalty if he pulled the stake out and tossed it aside to improve his stance? Might as well get his money's worth for his 2-stroke penalty.

[sui generis]

If after Auguster exclaimed "WHOA" and the opponent replaced the stake and realized he was due a 2-stroke penalty, would there be any additional penalty if he pulled the stake out and tossed it aside to improve his stance? Might as well get his money's worth for his 2-stroke penalty.

 

It was match play. A breach of any of the "relief" Rules 23 through 28 is loss of hole.

[LeoLeo99]

If after Auguster exclaimed "WHOA" and the opponent replaced the stake and realized he was due a 2-stroke penalty, would there be any additional penalty if he pulled the stake out and tossed it aside to improve his stance? Might as well get his money's worth for his 2-stroke penalty.

 

It was match play. A breach of any of the "relief" Rules 23 through 28 is loss of hole.

 

Auguster already asked the same question as me. Sorry, I didn't see it the first time I read the OP. Could the FC pull the stake all the way out and still have the same 2 stroke penalty if it was stroke play?

[sui generis]

If after Auguster exclaimed "WHOA" and the opponent replaced the stake and realized he was due a 2-stroke penalty, would there be any additional penalty if he pulled the stake out and tossed it aside to improve his stance? Might as well get his money's worth for his 2-stroke penalty.

 

It was match play. A breach of any of the "relief" Rules 23 through 28 is loss of hole.

 

Auguster already asked the same question as me. Sorry, I didn't see it the first time I read the OP. Could the FC pull the stake all the way out and still have the same 2 stroke penalty if it was stroke play?

 

The answer, depending on how convoluted the problem is framed, is likely to be found somewhere in the following Decisions:

 

1-4/12 Player Breaches Rules More Than Once Prior to Stroke; Whether Multiple Penalties Should Be Applied

1-4/13 Player Advised of Breach of Rule; Player Breaches Same Rule Prior to Stroke

1-4/14 Player Breaches Same Rule Before and After Stroke

1-4/15 Player Breaches Two Rules with Different Penalties; More Severe Penalty Applied

[WHC888]

Also OB white stakes related question.

Playing partner's second shot ended up just left of cart path (red dot represent golf ball) in between 2 OB stakes. He argues that his ball is not out of bound because if you draw a straight line (thin white line between two white stakes) the ball would be "in bound". I argue that since there is no white spray paint alongside the cart path, common sense would suggest that everything left of cart path from the first white stake to the last white stake is OB based on the way OB stakes are placed.

OB or not OB??

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

Also OB white stakes related question.

Playing partner's second shot ended up just left of cart path (red dot represent golf ball) in between 2 OB stakes. He argues that his ball is not out of bound because if you draw a straight line (thin white line between two white stakes) the ball would be "in bound". I argue that since there is no white spray paint alongside the cart path, common sense would suggest that everything left of cart path from the first white stake to the last white stake is OB based on the way OB stakes are placed.

OB or not OB??

 

 

I'm not a rules guru, but here's my understanding of it: Not OB.

OB is the (imaginary) line drawn from stake to stake. As there's no white spray, you go by the stakes.

 

From the Definitions (relevant text bolded):

“Out of bounds’’ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports). When both stakes and lines are used to indicate out of bounds, the stakes identify out of bounds and the lines define out of bounds.

When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is out of bounds. The out of bounds line extends vertically upwards and downwards.

A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds. A player may stand out of bounds to play a ball lying within bounds.

Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

Note 1: Stakes or lines used to define out of bounds should be white.

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to obstructions.

[criley_4way]

Also OB white stakes related question.

Playing partner's second shot ended up just left of cart path (red dot represent golf ball) in between 2 OB stakes. He argues that his ball is not out of bound because if you draw a straight line (thin white line between two white stakes) the ball would be "in bound". I argue that since there is no white spray paint alongside the cart path, common sense would suggest that everything left of cart path from the first white stake to the last white stake is OB based on the way OB stakes are placed.

OB or not OB??

 

 

I'm not a rules guru, but here's my understanding of it: Not OB.

OB is the (imaginary) line drawn from stake to stake. As there's no white spray, you go by the stakes.

 

From the Definitions (relevant text bolded):

“Out of bounds’’ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports). When both stakes and lines are used to indicate out of bounds, the stakes identify out of bounds and the lines define out of bounds.

When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is out of bounds. The out of bounds line extends vertically upwards and downwards.

A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds. A player may stand out of bounds to play a ball lying within bounds.

Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

Note 1: Stakes or lines used to define out of bounds should be white.

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to obstructions.

Absolutely not OB. In the absence of a painted line or fence OB is defined by a straight line running between the 2 posts.

[QEight]

If after Auguster exclaimed "WHOA" and the opponent replaced the stake and realized he was due a 2-stroke penalty, would there be any additional penalty if he pulled the stake out and tossed it aside to improve his stance? Might as well get his money's worth for his 2-stroke penalty.

 

It was match play. A breach of any of the "relief" Rules 23 through 28 is loss of hole.

 

Auguster already asked the same question as me. Sorry, I didn't see it the first time I read the OP. Could the FC pull the stake all the way out and still have the same 2 stroke penalty if it was stroke play?

Yes. If while pulling the stake the player realises he is being penalized for pulling the OB stake he might as well take it out. In stroke play. But if you move, replace and then move it again I'd say two separate penalties.

[Colin L]

Come on guys, give the player a break. The stake didn't move, it simply oscillated. :)

[NDS55]

Also OB white stakes related question.

Playing partner's second shot ended up just left of cart path (red dot represent golf ball) in between 2 OB stakes. He argues that his ball is not out of bound because if you draw a straight line (thin white line between two white stakes) the ball would be "in bound". I argue that since there is no white spray paint alongside the cart path, common sense would suggest that everything left of cart path from the first white stake to the last white stake is OB based on the way OB stakes are placed.

OB or not OB??

 

Unless there is a local rule defining OB as the left edge of the cart path. This should be indicated on the score card.

[Newby]

 

Unless there is a local rule defining OB as the left edge of the cart path. This should be indicated on the score card.

 

And then the white stakes should be given a black top.

[NDS55]

Unless there is a local rule defining OB as the left edge of the cart path. This should be indicated on the score card.

 

And then the white stakes should be given a black top.

 

Is that an R & A thing? I have come across similar situations, but the stakes haven't had black tops. Just curious.

Also, if the stakes are are only to bring attention to OB, and do not actually define the boundary, they should be removable if they interfere with the stroke.

[Swisstrader98]

Also OB white stakes related question.

Playing partner's second shot ended up just left of cart path (red dot represent golf ball) in between 2 OB stakes. He argues that his ball is not out of bound because if you draw a straight line (thin white line between two white stakes) the ball would be "in bound". I argue that since there is no white spray paint alongside the cart path, common sense would suggest that everything left of cart path from the first white stake to the last white stake is OB based on the way OB stakes are placed.

OB or not OB??

 

 

I'm not a rules guru, but here's my understanding of it: Not OB.

OB is the (imaginary) line drawn from stake to stake. As there's no white spray, you go by the stakes.

 

From the Definitions (relevant text bolded):

“Out of bounds’’ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.

When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports). When both stakes and lines are used to indicate out of bounds, the stakes identify out of bounds and the lines define out of bounds.

When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is out of bounds. The out of bounds line extends vertically upwards and downwards.

A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds. A player may stand out of bounds to play a ball lying within bounds.

Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

Note 1: Stakes or lines used to define out of bounds should be white.

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to obstructions.

Absolutely not OB. In the absence of a painted line or fence OB is defined by a straight line running between the 2 posts.

 

Agreed. On my end, I just wish more courses would spray paint the line vs relying on the stake to stake concept. I've been in too many situations where its a relatively subjective call as to whether or not someone is out and a simple white line would solve that problem. I've noticed that some courses do it, some dont and even those that do are not all that consistent about it.

[davep043]

Unless there is a local rule defining OB as the left edge of the cart path. This should be indicated on the score card.

 

And then the white stakes should be given a black top.

 

Is that an R & A thing? I have come across similar situations, but the stakes haven't had black tops. Just curious.

Also, if the stakes are are only to bring attention to OB, and do not actually define the boundary, they should be removable if they interfere with the stroke.

I've never seen a black top on a white stake, and don't see it referenced in the rules, but it could be a local custom. Also, from the definition of Out of Bounds,

Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

 

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to be obstructions.

 

So unless a specific local rule exists, you're not permitted to move a stake identifying OB.

[WHC888]

well, I learned one thing for sure about rules of golf......when it comes to rules of golf, take common sense out of equation and just follow the rule to the letter!

[Halebopp]

Unless there is a local rule defining OB as the left edge of the cart path. This should be indicated on the score card.

 

And then the white stakes should be given a black top.

 

Is that an R & A thing? I have come across similar situations, but the stakes haven't had black tops. Just curious.

Also, if the stakes are are only to bring attention to OB, and do not actually define the boundary, they should be removable if they interfere with the stroke.

I've never seen a black top on a white stake, and don't see it referenced in the rules, but it could be a local custom. Also, from the definition of Out of Bounds,

Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

 

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to be obstructions.

 

So unless a specific local rule exists, you're not permitted to move a stake identifying OB.

 

You can find it here:

 

https://www.randa.org/News/2013/01/Course-Marking-1

[davep043]

 

I've never seen a black top on a white stake, and don't see it referenced in the rules, but it could be a local custom. Also, from the definition of Out of Bounds,

Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

 

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to be obstructions.

 

So unless a specific local rule exists, you're not permitted to move a stake identifying OB.

 

You can find it here:

 

https://www.randa.or...ourse-Marking-1

Interesting that in this instance the black tops are only mentioned in connection with a trench that defines OB, but its certainly a reasonable way of distinguishing stakes that indicate, rather than define. Also, this is phrased as a recommendation, and is not included in the rules themselves, rather than a requirement of the rules. Similarly, the definition of Out of Bounds says that stakes used "should" be white, but this is not a specific requirement.

[Halebopp]

Interesting that in this instance the black tops are only mentioned in connection with a trench that defines OB, but its certainly a reasonable way of distinguishing stakes that indicate, rather than define. Also, this is phrased as a recommendation, and is not included in the rules themselves, rather than a requirement of the rules. Similarly, the definition of Out of Bounds says that stakes used "should" be white, but this is not a specific requirement.

 

Over here plenty of courses have marked all sorts of stakes with a black top to indicate the ending of whatever the stakes are defining, OBs, lateral water hazards etc. It is a bad habit the rules people are trying to do away with.

[Newby]

Unless there is a local rule defining OB as the left edge of the cart path. This should be indicated on the score card.

And then the white stakes should be given a black top.

Is that an R & A thing? I have come across similar situations, but the stakes haven't had black tops. Just curious.

Also, if the stakes are are only to bring attention to OB, and do not actually define the boundary, they should be removable if they interfere with the stroke.

 

It's not a ruling but is in the R&A publication on 'Guidance on Running a Competition'. The USGA has a similar publication.

 

This is the text:

 

"It is not uncommon for the boundary line to be defined by a trench, with a ball being out of bounds if it is

in or beyond the trench. If stakes are used to draw players’ attention to a boundary trench, rather than

define the boundary itself, they should be painted white with black tops."

 

 

Edit:

I was going to add

The definition of Out of Bounds says that stakes used "should" be white not 'must'. But Dave beat me to it

[Newby]

Over here plenty of courses have marked all sorts of stakes with a black top to indicate the ending of whatever the stakes are defining, OBs, lateral water hazards etc. It is a bad habit the rules people are trying to do away with.

 

The R&A's recommendation for such line 'terminations' is -

 

Where there is no natural start/finish point, e.g. the boundary exists in isolation and is not “tied” into other boundaries on

the course, often it is necessary to place two stakes, side-by-side and at a right angle to the first and last stake, to indicate

that the boundary extends indefinitely in that direction.

[Newby]

Interesting that in this instance the black tops are only mentioned in connection with a trench that defines OB, .

 

It is only an example but probably the most common in their back yard. There would be too many to list otherwise. Another would be a WH hidden over a rise.

[Sawgrass]

In Halebops R&A comments it says in part:

 

"If stakes are used to draw players’ attention to a boundary trench, rather than define the boundary itself, they should be painted white with black tops. As such stakes do not define the boundary they will be movable obstructions. This point should be clarified in the Local Rules."

 

I am surprised that the suggestion is to allow a LR defining the stakes as movable, rather than immovable obstructions. The Definition itself doesn't speak to movable vs. immovable:

 

 

Note 2: A Committee may make a Local Rule declaring stakes identifying but not defining out of bounds to be obstructions.

 

 

But I'd think that immovable would be the preferred declaration. Allow immovable relief, but keep player's hands off the stakes as is recommended in Decision 24/5. To me, it's uncharacteristic of the Rules to flip flop on the recommendation for the obstruction status of OOB stakes in this regard.

 

 

24/5

 

Boundary Stakes Having No Significance in Play of Hole Being Played

 

Q.White stakes installed between the 7th and 8th holes define out of bounds during play of the 7th hole, but they have no significance during play of the 8th hole. Are such stakes obstructions during play of the 8th hole?

 

A.No, the Definition of "Out of Bounds" states that such stakes are not obstructions. However, in this case it is recommended that, by Local Rule, the stakes be deemed immovable obstructions during play of the 8th hole.