In or Out?

[Deleted member 15344]

Does anybody else want to tell me what the rules say?

Well you seemed to be struggling as you appeared to be in the belief that ball B was not OOB in your little diagram which was clearly not the case ?‍

 

[bobmac]

How has this thread got to 69 posts????

make that 70 lol

It's just a shame there weren't that many posts in the picture

 

[Orikoru]

I think that was tongue in cheek mate!

However, your quote stood out to me for the absence of the word "straight" before "line", so I looked up the rules and found this on the R and A website:

A-5
Stakes Identifying Out of Bounds
Purpose. When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, a trench or in another way that might not be visible from a distance, the Committee may place stakes along the boundary to allow players to see where the boundary edge is from a distance.
Boundary objects are not permitted to be moved and free relief is generally not given, but the Committee may provide for relief from these stakes through the following Model Local Rule, which should also clarify the status of these stakes.
It is recommended that such stakes be marked differently than other boundary stakes on the course, for example, white stakes with black tops may be used for this purpose.

Now, given the absence of the word "straight" and given the inclusion of the phrase "...any other way that might not be visible from a distance..." can somebody please explain/quote the actual wording of the rule that suggests that the long grass area is not the OOB line? (Assuming, of course, that all other white posts are in the same position as the one in the pic, i.e. defining the difference between those two areas of grass.)

This is a brilliant spot. Reading that, and looking at the photo with the clear grass line going around the edge, you could very easily rule the ball in bounds.

 

[Swango1980]

That's not what I said, and I think you know that's not what I said. I said it's my firm belief that this ball is IN bounds and the fact the club did a shoddy job with the white posts doesn't change that. I never said that I think it's out of bounds but I'd play it anyway did I? That would be cheating.

So, to clarify, under the Rules of Golf, you are telling us that ball is In Bounds. If a leading referee from the PGA Tour had to make a ruling on that photo, they would say it was in bounds based on the information in that photo? Despite what others have answered, who have actually been referees?

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks, but I'm now genuinely confused by the certainty of some that it's OOB. What is the wording of the rule that says it's a straight line? A line is not always a straight line? And this line is clearly defined by the mowing of the grass?

"When defined by stakes or a fence, the boundary edge is defined by the line between the course-side points of the stakes or fence posts at ground level (excluding angled supports), and those stakes or fence posts are out of bounds."

So, is the argument now that the Rules of Golf may permit a wobbly line between the stakes, or do you think the Rules of Golf intend that the line is straight between the posts?

 

[phillarrow]

So, to clarify, under the Rules of Golf, you are telling us that ball is In Bounds. If a leading referee from the PGA Tour had to make a ruling on that photo, they would say it was in bounds based on the information in that photo? Despite what others have answered, who have actually been referees?

I'm saying yes, they would, based on the actual wording of the rules of golf, as I have posted in post #71.

I am genuinely asking the question by the way, not just trying to be argumentative, where is the rule that says the line is a straight line? Where is the rule that proves rule A5 to not apply in this case?

 

[bobmac]

Well you seemed to be struggling as you appeared to be in the belief that ball B was not OOB in your little diagram which was clearly not the case ?‍

Ok, you may have missed it so just to be clear again......
I wrote this in post no.40

''Just to avoid any confusion....I know the rule, I just think it's wrong. ''

 

[phillarrow]

"When defined by stakes or a fence, the boundary edge is defined by the line between the course-side points of the stakes or fence posts at ground level (excluding angled supports), and those stakes or fence posts are out of bounds."

So, is the argument now that the Rules of Golf may permit a wobbly line between the stakes, or do you think the Rules of Golf intend that the line is straight between the posts?

See above, you are ignoring A5. In this case, there IS something else defining the area.

I can see your point about wobbly lines, and where there is no other marking of any kind, we should apply common sense (see what I did there?!) and use a straight line. However, in this example there IS something else defining it and that something else is not in a straight line. Therefore, I am saying that those declaring this as definitely OOB are wrong according to the rules of golf. Not my view, or opinion, or take on those rules, the actual wording of them.

 

[Orikoru]

So, to clarify, under the Rules of Golf, you are telling us that ball is In Bounds. If a leading referee from the PGA Tour had to make a ruling on that photo, they would say it was in bounds based on the information in that photo? Despite what others have answered, who have actually been referees?

Why would a leading ref from the PGA Tour make a ruling on OP's weekly medal? I'm saying it's in bounds based on what the club's intended boundary line is. And based on the wording @phillarrow highlighted it can be taken that the line of the grass that follows around from post to post is the boundary line. That is the most sensible assumption and hence the one I would go with.

 

[IanM]

In the absence of any local rules, definitions, words, signs etc ... the ball is OB. But I bet that isn't the intention!

I'd be in the Office straight after asking for some repairs!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Ok, you may have missed it so just to be clear again......
I wrote this in post no.40

''Just to avoid any confusion....I know the rule, I just think it's wrong. ''

maybe worth adjusting your post that states this then

“But anyone who thinks Ball A is in bounds and ball B is out of bounds is wrong IMO”

It’s a rule of golf - irrelevant if you think it’s wrong or not , the rule is not the issue

The boundary marking , posts and potential lack of clarification is the issue not the rule

Every golf course has the same rule and it’s then up to the golf course to clarify the boundaries for its members - just as we do on our scorecard and with OOB posts on the course

 

[Foxholer]

I think that was tongue in cheek mate!

However, your quote stood out to me for the absence of the word "straight" before "line", so I looked up the rules and found this on the R and A website:

A-5
Stakes Identifying Out of Bounds
Purpose. When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, a trench or in another way that might not be visible from a distance, the Committee may place stakes along the boundary to allow players to see where the boundary edge is from a distance.
Boundary objects are not permitted to be moved and free relief is generally not given, but the Committee may provide for relief from these stakes through the following Model Local Rule, which should also clarify the status of these stakes.
It is recommended that such stakes be marked differently than other boundary stakes on the course, for example, white stakes with black tops may be used for this purpose.

Now, given the absence of the word "straight" and given the inclusion of the phrase "...any other way that might not be visible from a distance..." can somebody please explain/quote the actual wording of the rule that suggests that the long grass area is not the OOB line? (Assuming, of course, that all other white posts are in the same position as the one in the pic, i.e. defining the difference between those two areas of grass.)

This is a brilliant spot. Reading that, and looking at the photo with the clear grass line going around the edge, you could very easily rule the ball in bounds.

That quote of A-5 comes from the Committee Procedures section of The Rules, not from the Rules itself.
It is actually irrelevant to this discussion as it's about assisting players with visibility of OOB area that they might not otherwise be aware of.

This is a brilliant spot. Reading that, and looking at the photo with the clear grass line going around the edge, you could very easily rule the ball in bounds.

No you couldn't! Or rather, You could, but you'd be wrong - as the White stakes define OOB!

 

[Swango1980]

Why would a leading ref from the PGA Tour make a ruling on OP's weekly medal? I'm saying it's in bounds based on what the club's intended boundary line is. And based on the wording @phillarrow highlighted it can be taken that the line of the grass that follows around from post to post is the boundary line. That is the most sensible assumption and hence the one I would go with.

Firstly, I clearly didn't say a leading referee would come to a clubs weekly medal. I used that as a way of saying what would such a person say, who is clearly more qualified to make a ruling on the Rules of Golf than you or I.

Secondly, where does it say a line of grass is the boundary line!? At no point in this thread does it indicate the Committee have explicitly said the line of long grass is the boundary line. Their intent does not matter, they'd need to actually state this. Otherwise you could just have a golfer picking any line that may help them out. Maybe a first, second or 3rd cut of rough. A line of conveniently placed daisies.

 

[Foxholer]

That's not what I said, and I think you know that's not what I said. I said it's my firm belief that this ball is IN bounds and the fact the club did a shoddy job with the white posts doesn't change that. I never said that I think it's out of bounds but I'd play it anyway did I? That would be cheating.

You certainly stated that you'd play it anyway - if your PPs agreed (or were convinced) - in Post 50.
So you'd still be consciously ignoring a rule - unless you opted to play 2 balls.
I'd be interested to see how you differentiate between 'consciously ignoring a rule' and cheating!
Playing 2 balls is the only valid way to handle the situation where there's doubt imo.

 

[sweaty sock]

I'll remember all this nonsense next time i have a bad lie in a bunker. Its the intention of the committee that its raked - especially if theyve made no reference to the contrary. So I'll just prefer my lie to suit.... common sense after all.

Similarly, I can claim that the intention of the committee is that the hole placement on the third was 8 feet to the right, so common sense says I had a hole in one!

My common sense handicap is going to be about +8!

 

[Foxholer]

Why would a leading ref from the PGA Tour make a ruling on OP's weekly medal? I'm saying it's in bounds based on what the club's intended boundary line is. And based on the wording @phillarrow highlighted it can be taken that the line of the grass that follows around from post to post is the boundary line. That is the most sensible assumption and hence the one I would go with.

Firstly, I clearly didn't say a leading referee would come to a clubs weekly medal. I used that as a way of saying what would such a person say, who is clearly more qualified to make a ruling on the Rules of Golf than you or I.

Secondly, where does it say a line of grass is the boundary line!? At no point in this thread does it indicate the Committee have explicitly said the line of long grass is the boundary line. Their intent does not matter, they'd need to actually state this. Otherwise you could just have a golfer picking any line that may help them out. Maybe a first, second or 3rd cut of rough. A line of conveniently placed daisies.

Well @Colin L IS a Referee and has posted his 'ruling' in post 51
And I've already shown the irrelevance of the reference you/Phil quoted (Post 92)!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Why would a leading ref from the PGA Tour make a ruling on OP's weekly medal? I'm saying it's in bounds based on what the club's intended boundary line is. And based on the wording @phillarrow highlighted it can be taken that the line of the grass that follows around from post to post is the boundary line. That is the most sensible assumption and hence the one I would go with.

TBH I don't think any one player or group can make a unilateral and definitive decision on this scenario where it is possible - or indeed likely - that any other players or groups with the same scenario decide differently. Maybe doesn't much matter in casual play or a friendly competition within the group playing - but where there is a wider competition then the player and group have a duty of care to all other competitors to ensure fairness - and in this scenario it would seem to me to play out two balls - one on assumption the ball is in bounds; one assuming it is out of bounds.

For what it's worth I'd call the ball out based upon a straight line drawn between the posts...but I can see that the posts could well be there simply to identify the cut/rough edge as the course boundary. If it mattered I'd play two balls. If it didn't I'd declare it OOB.

 

[Orikoru]

You certainly stated that you'd play it anyway - if your PPs agreed (or were convinced) - in Post 50.
So you'd still be consciously ignoring a rule - unless you opted to play 2 balls.
I'd be interested to see how you differentiate between 'consciously ignoring a rule' and cheating!
Playing 2 balls is the only valid way to handle the situation where there's doubt imo.

No I wouldn't be ignoring a rule. That would be our interpretation of the rule and what we believe was the correct way to proceed. ??‍ They're not going to put white stakes every 6 inches along the boundary line, so I look at that and see the boundary line is the clear line between the mown grass and the crap. Every white stake is on that mown-in line so that's the line. Sorry if you disagree but that's what I believe.

To point at Bob's post from earlier again - if you think it's right that ball B is out of bounds here then that's stupid in my opinion. It goes against common sense, logic, fairness, and it just plainly isn't out of bounds. As @phillarrow said the rule doesn't say 'straight perpendicular lines' between posts, so it's for our interpretation. Once again - sorry if you disagree but that's what I believe is correct here.

 

[Foxholer]

I'll remember all this nonsense next time i have a bad lie in a bunker. Its the intention of the committee that its raked - especially if theyve made no reference to the contrary. So I'll just prefer my lie to suit.... common sense after all.

Similarly, I can claim that the intention of the committee is that the hole placement on the third was 8 feet to the right, so common sense says I had a hole in one!

My common sense handicap is going to be about +8!

Just what the discussion needed! Too much 'common sense'!

 

[Jimaroid]

No I wouldn't be ignoring a rule. That would be our interpretation of the rule and what we believe was the correct way to proceed. ??‍ They're not going to put white stakes every 6 inches along the boundary line, so I look at that and see the boundary line is the clear line between the mown grass and the crap. Every white stake is on that mown-in line so that's the line. Sorry if you disagree but that's what I believe.

Your belief is wrong.