Out of bounds stakes /rules question

[archie_struthers]

 

For all you rules mavens looking for clarification / opinions >  could go to my Philly golf rules guru Tom Carpus but figured we'd argue it out first.

Here's the question

ball resting under a fence/ ob marker .... fence posts are wider than ball is totally under fence...one competitor opined that you measure from the inside edge of the fence and the ball is out of bounds ...counter said if any part of ball is under fence it is in..

Question appears to be ...what side of the fence ido you measure from in lieu of a local rule .....what say you

[Tom Yost]

"Out of Bounds
"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."

Does this help?

[Garland Bayley]

Where the fence posts are is key. Last night I hit a ball up against a boundary fence. When I saw it, I thought, "Oh, no, I'm OB." But when I reached the ball I found the fence "fabric" was inside the posts, so I was in bounds. Every other place on the course that I had previously known about had the fabric on the outside of the posts so that a ball resting against the fabric would be OB since the ball diameter is less than the post diameter.

Now my question. Last night the ball came to rest on some of the fabric that was folded in to the course at ground level. I assumed that I could take relief, and did so. Was I correct?

[Chris Shaida]

I'm pretty sure you do NOT get relief from an object defining or marking out of bounds.  I think the logic there is that since the inside edge of said object marks the boundary then the object itself is out of bounds and you only get relief from things that are inbounds (or something). 

Now in your case I guess the twist would be whether or not the 'fabric' stretched between the fence posts is considered part of the 'fence' marking out of bounds or not.  That is, if the only out of bounds markers are the fence posts and if the fabric is not considered part of the fence and since the fabric is inside the fence posts then the fabric would be in bounds and you'd get relief from it.  However, that seems highly unlikely.

Now perhaps an actual rules junkie rather than a wannabe rules junkie like me will chime in and set the record straight...

[Jon Wiggett]

Garland,

if I understand you correctly the fabric is also part of the boundary fence so you do not get relief. Also if your is between the posts it is still in bounds .

Jon

[JohnV]

Chain link fences that are built with the fence on the outside of the posts relative to the course are one of my pet peeves.  Unfortunately most of them are built this way. A ball which is against the fence such that the entire ball is outside the inside edge of the post at ground level is out of bounds. 

The only solution I've ever come up with is to paint a white line outside the fence, declare it as the OB line and then declare the fence to be an integral part of the course so that the player still doesn't get free relief from it.

There is no relief from anything which marks OB so if you ball is in bounds, but you have interference from the fence or the post, your only option is to take an unplayable.

[archie_struthers]

 

Garland , bingo....can honestly say that for years I interpreted the rule incorrectly and assumed the outside line would be the determinant ....lucky I never won a major LOL

interesting aside ...does this also hold true for red stakes, which define lateral hazards......

[Pete_Pittock]

Garland , bingo....can honestly say that for years I interpreted the rule incorrectly and assumed the outside line would be the determinant ....lucky I never won a major LOL

interesting aside ...does this also hold true for red stakes, which define lateral hazards......

Archie,
The definitions clearly spell this out. All of a hazard line is within the hazard. Any part of the ball touching or above the line and the entire ball is deemed within the hazard

[Garland Bayley]

Chain link fences that are built with the fence on the outside of the posts relative to the course are one of my pet peeves.  Unfortunately most of them are built this way. A ball which is against the fence such that the entire ball is outside the inside edge of the post at ground level is out of bounds. 

The only solution I've ever come up with is to paint a white line outside the fence, declare it as the OB line and then declare the fence to be an integral part of the course so that the player still doesn't get free relief from it.

There is no relief from anything which marks OB so if you ball is in bounds, but you have interference from the fence or the post, your only option is to take an unplayable.

Ok, I did wrong by taking a club length and no penalty.

Sounds like I should have taken two club lengths and a penalty.

[Mickey Boland]

In a similar vein, this situation occurred in my group a few weeks ago.  Long line of white stakes defining OB.  Where three consecutive stakes are labled (for instance) A, B & C, what happens when stake B is laying down?  Do you measure from stake A to stake C, or do you go A, B, C wherever stake B lies?  In this case, stake B was laying pointing away from the course such that it was less penal.  Again, do you go from the inside edge of stake A to stake C, or do you go from stake A, to the bottom of where stake B lies, and then to stake C?  Hope that is somewhat clear.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mickey,

33-2a/19 should answer your question, with 33-2a/20 providing a follow-up.

[JohnV]

Mickey,

Here are the links to the two decisions Jim mentioned:

http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14319#33-2a/19

http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14319#33-2a/20

One thing that causes confusion is the entire ball has to be out of bounds before it is out, but only a portion of the ball has to be in the water hazard before it is considered to be in it.   If you flip the logic it is easier to understand:  If a portion of the ball is in bounds, it is in and if a portiion of the ball is in the hazard, it is iin.

[Garland Bayley]

In a similar vein, this situation occurred in my group a few weeks ago.  Long line of white stakes defining OB.  Where three consecutive stakes are labled (for instance) A, B & C, what happens when stake B is laying down?  Do you measure from stake A to stake C, or do you go A, B, C wherever stake B lies?  In this case, stake B was laying pointing away from the course such that it was less penal.  Again, do you go from the inside edge of stake A to stake C, or do you go from stake A, to the bottom of where stake B lies, and then to stake C?  Hope that is somewhat clear.

I asked this question a few years back. You must go from where stake B is supposed to be. If you are familiar with the course, you can make that determination yourself. Otherwise, as I remember I was told to consult "the committee".

[archie_struthers]

 


If the lateral stake is totally in the hazard, from outside edge , wouldn't it stand to reason that the entire white stake is in in bounds?


Understand the rule is what it is, but it seems illogical.

[Ronald Montesano]

I want to know in which direction you took your unplayable lie drop.

[JohnV]

If the lateral stake is totally in the hazard, from outside edge , wouldn't it stand to reason that the entire white stake is in in bounds?


Understand the rule is what it is, but it seems illogical.

Think of it as NO part of the Hazard Stake or the OB stake is Through The Green.

[Brent Hutto]

Think of it as NO part of the Hazard Stake or the OB stake is Through The Green.

I like that formulation. Finally a rule I can remember!

[archie_struthers]

 

I understand the rule , but don't agree with logic , which is not uncommon for me lol!

[Garland Bayley]

I want to know in which direction you took your unplayable lie drop.

I assume this was directed at me. I went sideways, which within a club length of the balls original location gave me hardly any clearance from the fence, so I only moved the ball maybe 15ft with my next stroke. Unfortunately, the ball went a bit sideways too into a bunker, but fortunately I almost holed the bunker shot.

[Chris Shaida]

If the lateral stake is totally in the hazard, from outside edge , wouldn't it stand to reason that the entire white stake is in in bounds?


Understand the rule is what it is, but it seems illogical.

Think of it as NO part of the Hazard Stake or the OB stake is Through The Green.

As a corollary to get the 'ins' (or 'outs') lined up to seem more logical,

'if any part of the ball is in bounds then the ball is in bounds, and if any part of the ball is in the hazard then the ball is in the hazard' 

or 'the entire ball needs to be out of bounds for the ball to be out of bounds and the entire ball needs to be out of the hazard for the ball to be out of the hazard'

[Peter Flory]

I'm using this thread to ask a different variation of the original question.

Rules situation:

Dogleg left par 4. 
On the left, there are out of bounds stakes that go from near the tee out to about equal to where the dogleg starts. 
Then the stakes just end- i.e. there isn't another one way off near the green or anything. 

So, what happens in you hit your tee shot past the last OB stake and to the left of it?  (say past a line that would be perpendicular to the line formed by the last 2 OB stakes and to the left of an extended line from the last 2 OB stakes)? Would you consider this area to be unmarked and in bounds? 

If you extend the line made by the last 2 OB stakes, then the 2nd half of the hole would all be out of bounds. 

A friend of mine recently ran into this situation and my thinking was that it was in bounds, but wanted to see if anyone could point to how it would be analyzed by a rules official. 

[Pete_Pittock]

an out-of-bounds line that ends should be marked by two stakes, not one stake, to clarify the finality.  If I was still doing rules I would call this in to the Committee for finality. If I had a vote in the decision I would say that any ball had a lie past the last stake it would be in bounds, regardless of it position left or right of an "extension" of the existing OB line.

[Sean_A]

Wow, I never knew two stakes together indicated the end of OOB!

Has the rule been made consistent between hazards and OOB? It seems to me that in either situation the same should apply. It seems the easiest way to determine if a ball is OOB or in a hazard is if part of the ball is "on the line". Why wouldn't the line be treated the same in either case?

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Wow, I never knew two stakes together indicated the end of OOB!

Why wouldn't the line be treated the same in either case?

Ciao

Because OOB and hazards are fundamentally different Sean though you would be correct that it could be done in certain situations.

[Sean_A]

Wow, I never knew two stakes together indicated the end of OOB!

Why wouldn't the line be treated the same in either case?

Ciao

Because OOB and hazards are fundamentally different Sean though you would be correct that it could be done in certain situations.

Sure, a hazard and OOB are different, but does that mean the demarcation line can't be treated the same in either case?  Why not keep the rules consistent and therefore easier to remember?

Ciao