In the absence of another stake to deflect the straight line it’s out.
Orikoru suggested he would cheat. Clearly he wouldn't use that word, however despite it being definitively explained how the out of bounds margin is defined, he would still class the ball in bounds. When told the ball was out of bounds on a picture posted, he replied "I don't believe it is and would never rule it that way in a million years".
You've got the cart before the horse!
In thinking the ball was in play I'm not twisting things - and I never try and find away round or ignore any rule, but as explained in my previous post my instinct would have been that the ball was not OOB. I may have subsequently discovered that I was wrong, but if so I would have been mistaken and not a cheat.
I do not disagree with you at all on this...however...You are actually getting into semantics not grammar. Where there are differing usages of a word like we normally take the right meaning from its context. Possible contexts include the words around the one in question, sensory clues like seeing and hearing, the situation in which the word is being used, the purpose to which the word is being put. Sometimes of course we get it wrong because we misunderstand the context. The line between boundary posts on a golf course is not to be taken to be a washing line or the mooring rope of a ship which are likely to be curved, or a line of people which without the efforts of a drill sergeant is likely to be indeterminate, or a line drawn on a bit of paper which might be straight. curved, zig-zagged or squiggly or a railway line on a bend. The particular usage of line in the Definition is contextualised by its regulatory purpose and by words around it: it is a line between two stakes defining a margin. That kind of line for that purpose isn't curved or squiggly or wholly elastic depending on where the mower has gone. It has to be a straight, one-dimensional line.
I've never thought twice about boundary lines, the Definition being so clear ...........until someone came up with the daft notion that cutting some grass could relocate a boundary that was already clearly marked by white stakes. An interesting intellectual exercise to go through this thread, but in the end utterly pointless.
I do not disagree with you at all on this...however...
Your post in itself can be read ambiguously when you state that '...a boundary that was already clearly marked by white states'. Yes I know that it is being pedantic but 'marked' is not the same as 'defined'. Indeed 'marked' is closer to 'identified' than 'defined'. And so in the OP scenario it is that which might distract me or at least add uncertainty or confusion in my mind,
But now of course this discussion has sensitised my thinking when considering whether or not a ball is OOB...
As it happens we have an OOB behind one green that appears to be defined by a low (12-18" high) gently curving ridge, but which is in fact defined by a series of white posts located a few metres apart all along the top of the ridge to avoid confusion.
Actually, he made a brief appearance in Post 128
This is only true if you imagine that every different point is shouted angrily at the previous poster.
This is what I was saying! The last two pages about straight and curved lines has descended into farce to be honest. But if any and all visible white stakes were on the line between grass and rubbish (and the one stake one can see in the picture is situated there) it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that they are indicating that line of cut grass to be the boundary. To assume a straight line between posts that cuts off a large portion of perfectly playable mown grass to me seems illogical, but apparently that is what we're supposed to interpret from the rules, and put our bad luck down to unsatisfactory work by the greenkeepers/committee of the club.
1. We were talking about a hypothetical ball from bobmac's mocked image when I said that, not the actual ball in the photo.
