Staked Trees (or not)

[oltimer]

When does a staked tree not become a staked tree ?

I maintain that if there is a stake fixed "next" to a tree it is a staked tree and relief applies,
others believe that unless the stake and tree are actually fastened together they cease to become staked trees,
which is correct -
if the elements or vandalism has caused the fastening to break surely this does not alter its status, maybe the tree has grown and no longer needs the support of a stake which has never been removed is this still staked?

 

[rosecott]

It may be my failing memory, but I've always believed that the relief is from the stake rather than the tree. If the stake is no longer attached to the tree you would still get relief from the stake.

 

[oltimer]

Thanks - relief from the tree would include from overhanging branches which would give more relief than from just the stake,
also the ball could be in a position whereby the stake was not interfering but such branches could be, my query is really does the fact that the binding may have broken leaving the stake not fastened to the tree stop it being a staked tree?

 

[Duckster]

Pretty much nicked this from Barry Rhodes site:

A Local Rule requires mandatory relief from staked trees, so you must take relief if any part of the tree interferes with the lie of your ball, stance or the area of their intended swing.
If there is no Local Rule regarding staked trees then you won't get relief from the tree, however any stake that supports, or did support the tree is an immovable obstruction, from which relief is available under Rule 24-2.
Occasionally, there may be a Local Rule that says that there is no relief from staked trees and that any stakes supporting them are integral to the course and therefore no relief is available from either the tree or the stake.

 

[rulefan]

When does a staked tree not become a staked tree ?

I maintain that if there is a stake fixed "next" to a tree it is a staked tree and relief applies,
others believe that unless the stake and tree are actually fastened together they cease to become staked trees,
which is correct -
if the elements or vandalism has caused the fastening to break surely this does not alter its status, maybe the tree has grown and no longer needs the support of a stake which has never been removed is this still staked?

Of course, the club has a responsibility to ensure their wording matches the situation on the course. But that doesn't answer your question if they don't.

Although a referee on the spot should legitimately deny relief, I wouldn't get excited if a player 'imagines' a tie.

 

[Foxholer]

When does a staked tree not become a staked tree ?
...

Pretty much nicked this from Barry Rhodes site:

A Local Rule requires mandatory relief from staked trees, so you must take relief if any part of the tree interferes with the lie of your ball, stance or the area of their intended swing.
If there is no Local Rule regarding staked trees then you won't get relief from the tree, however any stake that supports, or did support the tree is an immovable obstruction, from which relief is available under Rule 24-2.
Occasionally, there may be a Local Rule that says that there is no relief from staked trees and that any stakes supporting them are integral to the course and therefore no relief is available from either the tree or the stake.

Firstly, somewhat pedantically but it seems appropriate when asking for rulings! Presumably, it's 'becomes not a staked tree'!

And Duckster's lift from Barry Rhodes's site seems perfect (at least if there's an 'If' added as the first word!). What it didn't do was handle the 'vandalism' case, where a stake has been removed. I believe relief using the LR disappears if that's the case (unless other wording, such as 'young' that would provide for relief is included in the LR).
I know a club that has a Local Rule that uses height as opposed to whether staked. That has advantages (and maybe disadvantages - like not being certain of borderline cases) over the staked/not staked state.

 

[rulefan]

I know a club that has a Local Rule that uses height as opposed to whether staked.

I know the R&A are not happy about the height qualification as the LS is specifically "to prevent damage to young trees" and height is often not relevant to that qualification

 

[Duckster]

Of course, the club has a responsibility to ensure their wording matches the situation on the course. But that doesn't answer your question if they don't.

Although a referee on the spot should legitimately deny relief, I wouldn't get excited if a player 'imagines' a tie.

This is the big part of it. As the R&A leaves it up as a local rule, it really depends on what the course states is a staked tree. I think unless it specifically says so that the stake is just used as a marker for the tree, so it doesn't need to be attached.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

This is the big part of it. As the R&A leaves it up as a local rule, it really depends on what the course states is a staked tree. I think unless it specifically says so that the stake is just used as a marker for the tree, so it doesn't need to be attached.

The basic principle is to protect young tress from damage. Some clubs use a wrap to identify such trees rather than a stake and some a tube but either way the intention is clear.

I accept you have to follow the rules as defined but causing damage to young trees if a stake or tie is missing makes no sense.

 

[rulie]

This is the big part of it. As the R&A leaves it up as a local rule, it really depends on what the course states is a staked tree. I think unless it specifically says so that the stake is just used as a marker for the tree, so it doesn't need to be attached.

Some courses have "marked" their trees with surveryor's tape. Quite effective (provided it's removed at the appropriate time!)

 

[oltimer]

Local Rule on Score card only lists various items - "course furniture, artificial paths, staked trees etc to be treated as Immovable Obstructions and Rule 24-2 applies."
eg -3 trees all planted as saplings, all tied to stakes, all same height, all in the same area, two are still attached to the Stakes the third is no longer attached to the stake which remains in situ, the binding has come adrift, maybe the weather, maybe cut by someone, are we saying two you get relief from, the third no relief ? who decides why the stake is no longer attached which it clearly should be if the other two still require stakes. surely if there is a stake next to a tree relief applies.

 

[jim8flog]

One of the problems is when does a tree that does have a stake not fulfil the requirement under the allowable Local Rule.

Ie At what time in it's life is a tree no longer a young tree.

I have played at many a course including my own where the stake is the only thing that is used as a reference for the local rule. I also admit to not realising that the wording for the allowable local rule has changed.

 

[Duckster]

The basic principle is to protect young tress from damage. Some clubs use a wrap to identify such trees rather than a stake and some a tube but either way the intention is clear.

I accept you have to follow the rules as defined but causing damage to young trees if a stake or tie is missing makes no sense.

I was more trying to just say that the stake doesn’t have to be attached with a binding for it to be a staked tree.

Nothing about damaging the trees.

 

[rulefan]

1)I was more trying to just say that the stake doesn’t have to be attached with a binding for it to be a staked tree.

2)Nothing about damaging the trees.

1) What is the definition of 'staked tree'? Where is a such definition?
The committee should specify exactly how a tree is identified if it is intended to protect it from damage.
If a stake is being used it should say "attached or adjacent to a wooden/metal/red stake ..."

2) "When it is desired to prevent damage to young trees ......."

 

[Duckster]

1) What is the definition of 'staked tree'? Where is a such definition?
The committee should specify exactly how a tree is identified if it is intended to protect it from damage.
If a stake is being used it should say "attached or adjacent to a wooden/metal/red stake ..."

2) "When it is desired to prevent damage to young trees ......."

So it doesn’t have to attached by a binding then? Like I’ve just said.

And I’ve previously highlighted your post which states about the wording the committee uses on the local rule.

We are on the same page here.

 

[oltimer]

1) What is the definition of 'staked tree'? Where is a such definition?
The committee should specify exactly how a tree is identified if it is intended to protect it from damage.
If a stake is being used it should say "attached or adjacent to a wooden/metal/red stake ..."

2) "When it is desired to prevent damage to young trees ......."

Thanks for that, Guess we should post a better worded local rule,