Happy Christmas - is the big bok correct?

[Alan Clifford]

I not sure either bok is correct as only small animals seem to be loose impediments and references to movable obstructions seem to indicate they are artificial objects. But the definition is "... An obstruction that can be moved with reasonable effort and without damaging the obstruction or the course ..." so maybe the bigger bok is correct.

Anyway, Merry Christmas

 

[salfordlad]

The left two are off with the fairies. They are outside influences only unless dead, for example, cooked for Xmas lunch, which would convert them into a loose impediment.

 

[backwoodsman]

Have the definitions changed? It used to be (?) that stuff that had been 'processed' was not 'natural' and so was an obstruction (?). Ergo, a dead springbok would be a loose impediment but a cooked springbok would be an obstruction?

 

[rulefan]

Have the definitions changed? It used to be (?) that stuff that had been 'processed' was not 'natural' and so was an obstruction (?). Ergo, a dead springbok would be a loose impediment but a cooked springbok would be an obstruction?

A novel idea but it wouldn't have been very funny even if the definition had ever included 'processed'. But as it has been 'artificial' for about 75 years, it's even less funny. My vote

 

[backwoodsman]

I think I was trying to paraphrase - which I realise is never a good idea in rules discussion..

But did not the definition, or meaning, of 'artificial' used to have something to do with an object being the result of an manufacturing or artificial process of some kind? Eg a rock, was just a rock and would have been a loose impediment. But if the same rock had been artificially altered - say, chipped about a bit, or peened - to become part of a wall (ie, to use my phrase, to have been 'processed') then it is an artificial object & so would be an obstruction?

Was there not something of that ilk in the old rules/definitions/decisions?

 

[Colin L]

Oh deer. It took me ages to get past trying to make sense of bok in the title as a misprint of book.

We have some roe deer on our course. They are more gentle and more graceful outside influences than most of the players.

 

[rulefan]

I think I was trying to paraphrase - which I realise is never a good idea in rules discussion..

But did not the definition, or meaning, of 'artificial' used to have something to do with an object being the result of an manufacturing or artificial process of some kind? Eg a rock, was just a rock and would have been a loose impediment. But if the same rock had been artificially altered - say, chipped about a bit, or peened - to become part of a wall (ie, to use my phrase, to have been 'processed') then it is an artificial object & so would be an obstruction?

Was there not something of that ilk in the old rules/definitions/decisions?

I do see your point but I find it difficult to imagine anyone finding a cooked shoulder of mutton on the golf course. But you are right, it would satisfy the definition of obstruction. But it really wasn't very funny. Sorry.

 

[salfordlad]

Have the definitions changed? It used to be (?) that stuff that had been 'processed' was not 'natural' and so was an obstruction (?). Ergo, a dead springbok would be a loose impediment but a cooked springbok would be an obstruction?

A cooked springbok is still a dead animal. So it clearly does not cease being a loose impediment.
You are correct that the rules present examples where a natural object, when processed, can become an obstruction. That fallen tree, processed into a tee marker or chair becomes an obstruction. But until I see a cooked springbok on the course being used, for example, as a tee marker or chair, I don't see it qualifying as an obstruction. In short, processing does not always produce an obstruction and nothing in the rules suggests that is the case. Other examples: when clippings from the course are processed and used as mulch they have not become an obstruction. Processed pine straw, much favoured on US courses, is not an obstruction.

 

[backwoodsman]

Thanks all.

(Rulefan: am content you didn't find it humorous - I think I was trying to be pedantic rather than funny. 

 

[rulefan]

Thanks all.

(Rulefan: am content you didn't find it humorous - I think I was trying to be pedantic rather than funny. 

 

[Alan Clifford]

Given that the loose impediment definition has

• Dead animals and animal waste,
• Worms, insects and similar animals

and the springbok are neither dead nor similar to an insect

and the definition of a movable obstruction is

• An obstruction that can be moved

and the definition of obstruction is

• Any artificial object
  

I'm not sure what a Springbok is in golfing terms.

How would I deal with it? Is there rule that allows me to chase it away? Or must I wait until it wanders off on its own accord?

 

[backwoodsman]

It's an outside agency.

And yes, you can encourage it to go away

 

[Alan Clifford]

It's an outside agency.

And yes, you can encourage it to go away

That's what I've always assumed. But, having looked at the rules, there is stuff about when your ball hits an outside influence but I cannot find anything about removing an outside inflluence before you hit your shot.

 

[backwoodsman]

Oops - used the incorrect phrase. It's now an outside influence.

Happy to be corrected by the experts, but an outside agency is not part of the game of Golf. So you can do what you like with it so long as the action has no direct consequence on the rules.

 

[salfordlad]

Oops - used the incorrect phrase. It's now an outside influence.

Happy to be corrected by the experts, but an outside agency is not part of the game of Golf. So you can do what you like with it so long as the action has no direct consequence on the rules.

That's a pretty good answer - if the object only meets the definition of outside influence and not anything else defined for the purposes of the rules of golf - and that is the case with the bok here - the rules do not constrain the player in any effort to persuade it away.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Oops - used the incorrect phrase. It's now an outside influence.

Happy to be corrected by the experts, but an outside agency is not part of the game of Golf. So you can do what you like with it so long as the action has no direct consequence on the rules.

That seems logical and I think I can now happily argue the case for shooing away the boks (two types on this course, springboks and bonteboks).

 

[rulefan]

Whether an outside influence or not, I wouldn't be too inclined to shoo these springboks away if they didn't want to go.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I think I'm getting the hang of this. I can move a bontebok but if I move a grain of sand, I get a penalty. Unless said grain of sand has been put there by a worm.

 

[rulefan]

I think I'm getting the hang of this. I can move a bontebok but if I move a grain of sand, I get a penalty. Unless said grain of sand has been put there by a worm.

Just why would you want to move a grain of sand?
If you have a thing about sand you can always move a grain or two from the putting green.

 

[salfordlad]

I think I'm getting the hang of this. I can move a bontebok but if I move a grain of sand, I get a penalty. Unless said grain of sand has been put there by a worm.

Sorry, but things are not that simple. Actions like moving a grain of sand do not attract a penalty unless it improves the conditions affecting the stroke (Rule 8) or you are in breach of part of Rule 12 (Bunkers). So worm's role is not critical.