Moving an OB stake.

[Augster]

Looking through 8.1, it seems moving an OB stake is only a general penalty if the movement of the stake improves the “conditions affecting the stroke”. 
 

In the definition of “boundary object”: “boundary objects are treated as immovable even if they are movable”. Like white stakes. 
 

A couple of questions please: 
 

1. If an OB stake is interfereing with the area of a players intended swing, and he removes the stake and plays the ball, it’s obviously a 2-stroke penalty. I think that’s correct. 
 

2. Same as above, but after removing the stake, but before he plays the shot, he is told he can’t remove it and replaces the stake. Then plays the shot with the stake interfering. Any penalty?

 

3. The OB stake does not interfere with the intended swing of the player. He just doesn’t like the look of it out of the corner of his eye and removes it and plays the shot. Then replaces the stake. Any penalty?

 

4. Lastly, as above, no interference, removes the stake and is told he can’t remove the stake as it’s a boundary object. Replaces the stake and hits the shot. Any penalty?

 

Thanks for any help. It was a weird 18th hole in a club match fourball. 

[nsxguy]

53 minutes ago, Augster said:

Looking through 8.1, it seems moving an OB stake is only a general penalty if the movement of the stake improves the “conditions affecting the stroke”. 
 

In the definition of “boundary object”: “boundary objects are treated as immovable even if they are movable”. Like white stakes. 
 

A couple of questions please: 
 

1. If an OB stake is interfereing with the area of a players intended swing, and he removes the stake and plays the ball, it’s obviously a 2-stroke penalty. I think that’s correct. 
 

2. Same as above, but after removing the stake, but before he plays the shot, he is told he can’t remove it and replaces the stake. Then plays the shot with the stake interfering. Any penalty?

 

3. The OB stake does not interfere with the intended swing of the player. He just doesn’t like the look of it out of the corner of his eye and removes it and plays the shot. Then replaces the stake. Any penalty?

 

4. Lastly, as above, no interference, removes the stake and is told he can’t remove the stake as it’s a boundary object. Replaces the stake and hits the shot. Any penalty?

 

Thanks for any help. It was a weird 18th hole in a club match fourball. 

 

My understanding(s)

 

1. Yes, general penalty.

 

2. See 8.1a(c)(1) (Restore condition) "Replacing a boundary object (such as a boundary stake) that had been removed or moving the boundary object back into its original position after it had been pushed to a different angle"

 

3. Since 8.1(a)(1), "Actions not allowed" specifically says moving a boundary object is NOT allowed "if it affects Conditions Affecting the Stroke", I would think, since "sight", "view", whatever, is NOT a CATS, it would be permitted.

4. Since 2 appears to be OK, I would think 4 must be as well

 

 

Then again, as you already know, I am not a Rules Official. 

[Augster]

Thanks for the help!

 

It was a weird finish. I couldn’t tell if one of our opponents swing was inhibited or not. Father son duo. When he pulled the stake his dad said, “you can’t do that, put it back”. Assuming he put it in the same spot, his swing wasn’t inhibited. 
 

Since it was match play, we just ignored whether there was an infraction or not, and also, his dad was already on the green putting for birdie. So only the son would be taking the penalties, if there were any. 

[antip]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

My understanding(s)

 

1. Yes, general penalty.

 

2. See 8.1a(c)(1) (Restore condition) "Replacing a boundary object (such as a boundary stake) that had been removed or moving the boundary object back into its original position after it had been pushed to a different angle"

 

3. Since 8.1(a)(1), "Actions not allowed" specifically says moving a boundary object is NOT allowed "if it affects Conditions Affecting the Stroke", I would think, since "sight", "view", whatever, is NOT a CATS, it would be permitted.

4. Since 2 appears to be OK, I would think 4 must be as well

 

 

Then again, as you already know, I am not a Rules Official. 

On 3, I agree technically, but there is a caution - the definition of Line of Play includes a reasonable distance on either side of the line. I think it mostly unlikely (never say never) that an object not within reasonable distance on either side of the line would still provide a visual distraction. Perhaps the Augster is an unusually visually-sensitive person?

[Mr. Bean]

Let us put in the 5th one:

 

No interference, removes the stake for no apparent reason and is told he can’t remove the stake as it’s a boundary object. Does not put it back. No penalty, right?

 

It is worth acknowledging that if 150 meter distance pole is declared immovable in Local Rules one gets a gerenal penalty no matter what would be the reason for moving it.

 

I liked the former Rule. Removing a "fixed" object was always a penalty. No room for discussions.

[limegreengent]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Let us put in the 5th one:

 

No interference, removes the stake for no apparent reason and is told he can’t remove the stake as it’s a boundary object. Does not put it back. No penalty, right?

 "CORRECT '". but may fall foul of 1.2a if warranted?

-------

It is worth acknowledging that if 150 meter distance pole is declared immovable in Local Rules one gets a gerenal penalty no matter what would be the reason for moving it.

 

"TO BE CLEAR '. -only a penalty if 8.1 breached and not replaced before stroke.

--------

 

I liked the former Rule. Removing a "fixed" object was always a penalty. No room for discussions.I

 

"INCORRECT" if referring to the rules immediately prior to 2019 .Only a penalty if 8.1 breached when " fixed  ' object removed.( N.B .The opportunity to restore conditions via 8.1c was not available prior to2019.)

 

 

Just to make matters clearer I have made added further information.

 

Edited June 6, 2024 by limegreengent

[Mr. Bean]

Removing 150 m pole in our LR (on my home course) is an Immovable Obstruction and moving it for any reason is a penalty. There is no distinction between CATS or no CATS.

 

Afa white stakes are concerned I probably reminiss an old Local Rule dictating that there is a penalty for moving anything fixed.

 

I do not think 1.2a with DQ could come into picture for a single infringement but for a repeated one yes. A Code of Condact could come into picture if such is drafted for the competition.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Removing 150 m pole in our LR (on my home course) is an Immovable Obstruction and moving it for any reason is a penalty. There is no distinction between CATS or no CATS.

 

Afa white stakes are concerned I probably reminiss an old Local Rule dictating that there is a penalty for moving anything fixed.

 

I do not think 1.2a with DQ could come into picture for a single infringement but for a repeated one yes. A Code of Condact could come into picture if such is drafted for the competition.

 

 

That 150m one seems to be an unapproved local rule. Was it run through the national body or covered through a Code of Conduct?

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, antip said:

That 150m one seems to be an unapproved local rule. Was it run through the national body or covered through a Code of Conduct?

 

I doubt it. My home club management does not really bother to get any hints from people who know...

[antip]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I doubt it. My home club management does not really bother to get any hints from people who know...

They are not alone.

[golfortennis]

22 hours ago, Augster said:

Looking through 8.1, it seems moving an OB stake is only a general penalty if the movement of the stake improves the “conditions affecting the stroke”. 
 

In the definition of “boundary object”: “boundary objects are treated as immovable even if they are movable”. Like white stakes. 
 

A couple of questions please: 
 

1. If an OB stake is interfereing with the area of a players intended swing, and he removes the stake and plays the ball, it’s obviously a 2-stroke penalty. I think that’s correct. 
 

2. Same as above, but after removing the stake, but before he plays the shot, he is told he can’t remove it and replaces the stake. Then plays the shot with the stake interfering. Any penalty?

 

3. The OB stake does not interfere with the intended swing of the player. He just doesn’t like the look of it out of the corner of his eye and removes it and plays the shot. Then replaces the stake. Any penalty?

 

4. Lastly, as above, no interference, removes the stake and is told he can’t remove the stake as it’s a boundary object. Replaces the stake and hits the shot. Any penalty?

 

Thanks for any help. It was a weird 18th hole in a club match fourball. 

 

As per #2, didn't Payne Stewart get nailed for doing exactly that?  The moment he took it out he was nailed.

 

I fully recognize that may have been changed and no longer applies, but that was the first thing I thought of when I read that.

[Augster]

43 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

As per #2, didn't Payne Stewart get nailed for doing exactly that?  The moment he took it out he was nailed.

 

I fully recognize that may have been changed and no longer applies, but that was the first thing I thought of when I read that.

I believe that WAS the Rule back in the day as Mr. Bean mentioned. It used to be so simple with zero nuance. 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I doubt it. My home club management does not really bother to get any hints from people who know...

 

As a Rules Official, didn't you bring it up to management ? 

[rogolf]

On 6/6/2024 at 5:11 PM, nsxguy said:

 

As a Rules Official, didn't you bring it up to management ? 

The manager at my club is similar to what Mr. Bean posted.  Myself and a fellow club member are both nationally certified referees and work provincial, national and professional events each year.  Neither of us are consulted on day-to day Rules situations at the club or at club-run competitions, which we or club members can't figure out.  We both get questions about the messages that are sent out by the manager and always answer them according to the Rules, not what the message may have said.

Somebody once said, "It's hard to help someone who knows it all already."

Edited June 8, 2024 by rogolf

[sui generis]

13 minutes ago, rogolf said:

The manager at my club is similar to what Mr. Bean posted.  Myself and a fellow club member are both nationally certified referees and work provincial, national and professional events each year.  Neither of us are consulted on day-to day Rules situations at the club or at club-run competitions, which we or club members can figure out.  We both get questions about the messages that are sent out by the manager and always answer them according to the Rules, not what the message may have said.

Somebody once said, "It's hard to help someone who knows it all already."

 

I'm a lucky duck. I've been marking our course and authoring the Local Rules for a decade. Each time we welcome a new Head Golf Professional or new Greenskeeper they're greeted with a fully functioning system. 😉

[antip]

49 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

I'm a lucky duck. I've been marking our course and authoring the Local Rules for a decade. Each time we welcome a new Head Golf Professional or new Greenskeeper they're greeted with a fully functioning system. 😉

It's generally that way at my club, I carry the white paint can when playing and update the course marking and LRs as needed. But when I'm away ...

I got back from 6 weeks travel this week to find the preferred lies LR introduced with the quirk that the posted version includes a requirement for the player to mark the ball before lifting. I go to the pro and I say you can't have that, we need to reprint the sheet or cover up the offending bit.
The pro jumps up shocked and says that can't be true, I've never heard that, it just doesn't make sense, players will take take advantage. And then I mention we have been repeating this discussion annually for 5 years now.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

The manager at my club is similar to what Mr. Bean posted.  Myself and a fellow club member are both nationally certified referees and work provincial, national and professional events each year.  Neither of us are consulted on day-to day Rules situations at the club or at club-run competitions, which we or club members can figure out.  We both get questions about the messages that are sent out by the manager and always answer them according to the Rules, not what the message may have said.

Somebody once said, "It's hard to help someone who knows it all already."

 

My question/comment wasn't about them conferring with you (or Mr Bean) about a local rule, but whether or not you 2 protested to the manager, committee, whoever, about making what appears to be an unauthorized local rule.

 

And if you did ask about it, what did they say ? "Thanks for the info but we don't care - we're doing it anyway" ???

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

As a Rules Official, didn't you bring it up to management ? 

 

Read my earlier post...

 

Believe me, I have tried to say lots of things but it is like shouting into the wind.

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

My question/comment wasn't about them conferring with you (or Mr Bean) about a local rule, but whether or not you 2 protested to the manager, committee, whoever, about making what appears to be an unauthorized local rule.

 

And if you did ask about it, what did they say ? "Thanks for the info but we don't care - we're doing it anyway" ???

 

They just don't do anything about it, simple as that.

 

I made my final effort to have it changed in the LRs. I sent them a proposal for the text how it could be to fulfil the requirements of Rules. Let us see if there will be a change.

 

To be honest, IMO the LR as it is today is quite ok. People do not tend to move distance markers without a reason and as it is now forbidden in the LRs those markers remain untouched which is the primary target. Every time one includes additional limiting information to any text some people misunderstand it. A simple "No" is very clear, like in this case "All distance markers are IOs, moving a marker is forbidden". No need for explanations in which situation you get a penalty and in which you do not. Just don't move them.

 

EDIT: I included the possibility to forbid any moving of those markers by declaring it in the Code of Conduct. In LR's there could be a reference to CoC to make it "ruleswise correct".

 

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[Imp]

So you pipe a shot down dead center of the fairway, on a rope, and you're behind a 150 marker which interferes with the flight of the next shot, and your course is saying 'Tough luck'? Yikes.

 

Around here, they are in easy to remove tubes/inserts in the ground... for 2 very good reasons, so you can pull them out to play, and you can pull them out to mow... they are not pounded into the ground like a penalty area/OB stake. I would certainly hope that LR gets fixed there.

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

.......EDIT: I included the possibility to forbid any moving of those markers by declaring it in the Code of Conduct. In LR's there could be a reference to CoC to make it "ruleswise correct".

 

 

I doubt the legitimacy of using a Code of Conduct in this way.   We are not allowed to use a Code of Conduct as a way of imposing penalties for a breach of what would not be authorised as a local rule. 

 

 

The Committee may not use a Code of Conduct to:

• Change existing penalties in the Rules of Golf, such as by increasing the penalty for a player who fails to mark their ball before lifting it on the putting green, from one stroke to two strokes.
• Introduce new penalties for actions unrelated to player behaviour, for example a Committee may not use a Code of Conduct to introduce an unauthorized Local Rule, such as penalizing a player for hitting a ball over properties located out of bounds, or introducing a penalty for a player who fails to announce to another player that they are going to lift a ball to identify it.

Committee Procedures 5.2b

 

[Mr. Bean]

14 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I doubt the legitimacy of using a Code of Conduct in this way.   We are not allowed to use a Code of Conduct as a way of imposing penalties for a breach of what would not be authorised as a local rule. 

 

 

The Committee may not use a Code of Conduct to:

• Change existing penalties in the Rules of Golf, such as by increasing the penalty for a player who fails to mark their ball before lifting it on the putting green, from one stroke to two strokes.
• Introduce new penalties for actions unrelated to player behaviour, for example a Committee may not use a Code of Conduct to introduce an unauthorized Local Rule, such as penalizing a player for hitting a ball over properties located out of bounds, or introducing a penalty for a player who fails to announce to another player that they are going to lift a ball to identify it.

Committee Procedures 5.2b

 

 

I studied that section and there are a multitude of breaches that are not included in the Local Rules, such as continuous cursing or other misbehaving, as well as not caring for the course. I can easily see removing stakes from their legitimate places being equivalent with not caring for the course.

 

If you have another idea how to forbid players from moving distance markers (or other objects deemed fixed) please let me know.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[antip]

13 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I doubt the legitimacy of using a Code of Conduct in this way.   We are not allowed to use a Code of Conduct as a way of imposing penalties for a breach of what would not be authorised as a local rule. 

 

 

The Committee may not use a Code of Conduct to:

• Change existing penalties in the Rules of Golf, such as by increasing the penalty for a player who fails to mark their ball before lifting it on the putting green, from one stroke to two strokes.
• Introduce new penalties for actions unrelated to player behaviour, for example a Committee may not use a Code of Conduct to introduce an unauthorized Local Rule, such as penalizing a player for hitting a ball over properties located out of bounds, or introducing a penalty for a player who fails to announce to another player that they are going to lift a ball to identify it.

Committee Procedures 5.2b

 

I'm on board with this, the permission to introduce penalties is more about behavioural misdeeds as the Committee defines them than changing the regular rules. For example, my old club has a general penalty for ignoring the guidance not to take carts onto tees or within the marked lines surrounding the greens. Other possible examples in Committee Procedures are the likes of failing to replace divots or rake bunkers.

[Mr. Bean]

42 minutes ago, antip said:

I'm on board with this, the permission to introduce penalties is more about behavioural misdeeds as the Committee defines them than changing the regular rules. For example, my old club has a general penalty for ignoring the guidance not to take carts onto tees or within the marked lines surrounding the greens. Other possible examples in Committee Procedures are the likes of failing to replace divots or rake bunkers.

 

So what would be a correct way to prevent people from moving those distance markers?

 

EDIT: From my pow removing things that are not to be removed sounds very much like a behavioural misdeed.

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[golfortennis]

12 hours ago, Augster said:

I believe that WAS the Rule back in the day as Mr. Bean mentioned. It used to be so simple with zero nuance. 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but didn't the old rule only apply to OB stakes, but not yardage stakes and the likes?  You always could move a yardage stake I thought, just not OB.

[Colin L]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So what would be a correct way to prevent people from moving those distance markers?

 

EDIT: From my pow removing things that are not to be removed sounds very much like a behavioural misdeed.

 

That's a somewhat circular argument: it's only a misdeed if you say it is not allowed.  Where the Rules don't allow it it's a misdeed covered by a golfing penalty because the player is potentially gaining an advantage in his play  But  where the player's action has no effect, actual or potential, on his play, imposing a golfing penalty via a Code of Conduct is unjustifiable.  The Rules deal with how we play the game; a Code of Conduct deals with how we comport ourselves during play.  

 

 I do wonder how often any of your members remove a boundary stake when it doesn't affect CATS?  Why would they? Maybe it is so seldom that it's not worth trying to legislate against it.

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So what would be a correct way to prevent people from moving those distance markers?

 

EDIT: From my pow removing things that are not to be removed sounds very much like a behavioural misdeed.

 

If I understand correctly, these are vertical poles in the ground off to the side of the fairway? They used to be common around here but they are all gone now, often replaced with some discs in the middle of the fairway and, commonly, lasered distance measurements on the sprinkler heads.

Moving IOs gets a golfing penalty under specific conditions (improves CATS), so extending via Local Rule to other conditions is changing a golf rule, not penalising some etiquette style misbehaviour that is not penalised under the rules.
Why would anyone want to move them if they don't interfere with LOP, stance, swing, lie and so on?
But the simplest thing for clubs to do is concrete them in so no-one is going to move them. That was what happened here before everyone concluded there are better ways to convey the distance info without creating obstacles that folk can run into.

[bcjim]

3 hours ago, Imp said:

So you pipe a shot down dead center of the fairway, on a rope, and you're behind a 150 marker which interferes with the flight of the next shot, and your course is saying 'Tough luck'? Yikes.

 

Around here, they are in easy to remove tubes/inserts in the ground... for 2 very good reasons, so you can pull them out to play, and you can pull them out to mow... they are not pounded into the ground like a penalty area/OB stake. I would certainly hope that LR gets fixed there.

Growing up, my course had 2 bushes on the fairway edges at 150 and scorecard said free drop.  Not so many places have even the poles anymore but those that do, are as you describe, in a sleeve and everyone lays it aside as needed when it interferes.

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, Imp said:

So you pipe a shot down dead center of the fairway, on a rope, and you're behind a 150 marker which interferes with the flight of the next shot, and your course is saying 'Tough luck'? Yikes.

 

Around here, they are in easy to remove tubes/inserts in the ground... for 2 very good reasons, so you can pull them out to play, and you can pull them out to mow... they are not pounded into the ground like a penalty area/OB stake. I would certainly hope that LR gets fixed there.

 

On my home courses the poles stand in a hole in a concrete base and they can be removed and put back. But when it was allowed people forgot (or were too lazy and inconciderate) to replace them they could no longer be seen from distance and lawnmowers tended to run over them. That is why they are now deemed to be Immovable Obstructions.

 

Btw, those poles are not on the fairway but in the rough. So if your ball lands on the fairway there is a very slim chance that any of those poles would be on your line of play.

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

52 minutes ago, antip said:

1) Why would anyone want to move them if they don't interfere with LOP, stance, swing, lie and so on?

 

2) But the simplest thing for clubs to do is concrete them in so no-one is going to move them. That was what happened here before everyone concluded there are better ways to convey the distance info without creating obstacles that folk can run into.

 

1) I doubt many would but as I wrote before a simple "no" is way better than a "no, but...". If something is totally forbidden under all circumstances it is easiest to understand and obey.

 

2) Today most people around here have various digital devices for giving the yardages so I could easily live with no distance markers at all. However, if those markers are supposed to be of help I cannot envisage that plates on the ground would be nearly as easily detected as a vertical pole. Most if not all courses in my country use both and I have not heard people having run into those poles. Maybe we tend to look forward when we drive, or is it the left-handed traffic that causes problems there down under..? 😁

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Mr. Bean