Stakes Identifying Out of Bounds?

[Coop33]

Ok, here's my situation. At the course I'm a member, we have many out of bound areas. They are marked by white stakes. No lines at the moment. Is the out of bounds line from "stake to stake" or does it follow the curves of what is out of bounds? The stake might be hundreds of feet apart, which if from stake to stake what might seem to be out of bounds will be inbounds and mowed grass will be out of bounds.  We have the same problem with hazards too. Might only be three or four stakes for a pond. What is the ruling on this?

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, Coop33 said:

Ok, here's my situation. At the course I'm a member, we have many out of bound areas. They are marked by white stakes. No lines at the moment. Is the out of bounds line from "stake to stake" or does it follow the curves of what is out of bounds? The stake might be hundreds of feet apart, which if from stake to stake what might seem to be out of bounds will be inbounds and mowed grass will be out of bounds.  We have the same problem with hazards too. Might only be three or four stakes for a pond. What is the ruling on this?

Quote

Check the Local Rules on the score card to identify the boundaries of the
course. These are normally defined by fences, walls, white stakes or white lines.
If your ball is lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds you must play
another ball from the spot where the last shot was played, under penalty of
one stroke, i.e., stroke and distance.

Normally, I go stake to stake, but it depends upon local rules. It also sounds like there is a defined boundary that follows some kind of contour? I would guess that is the intended OB boundary.

[DaveP043]

If there are no lines, the inside (course-side) edge of the stakes define the OB, and you do indeed go stake to stake.  The same would apply to water hazards if there are no lines.  Again, a Local Rule might clarify those limits, especially if it references property lines, neighboring fences, that kind of thing.  If the boundary really should be curved, the course (the Committee) really should use enough stakes and/or paint to define it accurately, but that doesn't always happen.  If its me, in casual play, I'd base things on natural contours and obvious property limits.  For tournament play, I'd go by the letter of the law, and that would mean stake-to-stake unless they painted the boundaries. 

[Groucho Valentine]

This situation happened to me at a tournament once. I was unsure about where the OB was between two far placed stakes. You look at it from one direction along the stakes, the ball looked in - turned around looked front the other direction and it looked out.  I played two balls two balls through that hole and asked for a ruling when i got in. When I'm in doubt about a rule, i always do that. Either tournament or rec play. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Groucho Valentine

[Martyn W]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

If there are no lines, the inside (course-side) edge of the stakes define the OB, and you do indeed go stake to stake.  The same would apply to water hazards if there are no lines.  Again, a Local Rule might clarify those limits, especially if it references property lines, neighboring fences, that kind of thing.  If the boundary really should be curved, the course (the Committee) really should use enough stakes and/or paint to define it accurately, but that doesn't always happen.  If its me, in casual play, I'd base things on natural contours and obvious property limits.  For tournament play, I'd go by the letter of the law, and that would mean stake-to-stake unless they painted the boundaries. 

Dave, you are correct about the stakes defining OB in the absence of paint. The same does NOT apply to WH's however; stakes identify, lines define. 

26/2

 

Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin

Q.Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player's ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?

A.No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player's ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.

[DaveP043]

20 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Dave, you are correct about the stakes defining OB in the absence of paint. The same does NOT apply to WH's however; stakes identify, lines define. 

Obviously you're right, I looked at the definition and not the decisions.  Yet another lesson to me, and perhaps to others.  First check the rules, then definitely check the decisions too.