Standing on Tee Marker for Aiding a Swing

[Phil McGleno]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

The tee marker isn't a "device" nor is it equipment.

You can't stand on the tee marker to hit a tee shot-Just the same as you can't stand under an umbrella to make a putt.

[Rulesman]

6 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The tee marker isn't a "device" nor is it equipment.

Device: Noun - a thing or object made for a particular purpose

[bkuehn1952]

7 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

Just the same as you can't stand under an umbrella to make a putt.

If one is holding the umbrella, it is okay.  One can't have another person (e.g. a caddie) assist them.

[Fourputt]

The player is not using equipment in an unusual manner since the  tee marker is not equipment - it is nothing more than an obstruction which is deemed to be fixed (i.e. immovable) when playing his first stroke from the teeing ground of the hole being played.  After that they are movable obstructions.  

There is no prohibition about standing on an obstruction, immovable or movable, with one or both feet, when making a stroke as long as nothing is done that would constitute building a stance.

As far as being a device, the all encompassing dictionary definition goes well beyond the meaning of the term as it is applied in the Rules of Golf.  A device is an obstruction, and it may be equipment if it meets that definition, but not all obstructions are equipment or devices.

This is simply a case of trying to read into the rules something that isn't there.  If it isn't prohibited, then it is permitted.  I see nothing that would lead me to rule against putting one foot on or against a tee marker, provided that the tee marker doesn't move during the process.

[Rulesman]

 

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

he all encompassing dictionary definition goes well beyond the meaning of the term as it is applied in the Rules of Golf.

Where do the RoG define or modify the standard dictionary definition of 'device'?

[David in FL]

Tee markers are not clearly defined as a device, but as previously mentioned, they are defined as immovable (while teeing off) obstructions.  I can't think of (or find) any prohibition of taking a stance with a foot on any other immovable obstruction, a sprinkler or a drain grate as examples.  If a tee marker would somehow be considered a device, it stands to reason that a sprinkler head or a drain would be too.  I tend to agree with @Fourputt.  Weird as it might be, I just can't see why it would be prohibited.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

 

Where do the RoG define or modify the standard dictionary definition of 'device'?

Where do you see that such use as the OP suggests would be prohibited?  You are splitting hairs over a definition that is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand.

[Phil McGleno]

22 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Where do you see that such use as the OP suggests would be prohibited?  You are splitting hairs over a definition that is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand.

You seem awfully sure of yourself-Do you consider that you are wrong?

I would penalize the player under 1-4.-You should not use a tee marker to assist you in making a stroke.

And a tee marker can be a device too, and standing on it to swing better is using it in an unusual way.

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I would penalize the player under 1-4.-You should not use a tee marker to assist you in making a stroke.

I've read the rules and decisions, and similarly can't find anything that specifically addresses the question.  I'm not sure that the markers are "defined as immovable obstructions" prior to teeing off, they're defined as "fixed", and as movable obstructions after teeing off.  I don't think the definition of any kind of obstruction is really valid until the ball is in play.  Neither are they specifically an integral part of the golf course prior to teeing off.   To me, a "device" would be something that is not fixed in position, so I don't think that particular rule applies either.  Certainly none of the devices discussed in the Decisions are fixed in place.  That takes us to issues not covered by the rules, and Rule 1-4, and this becomes a matter of personal opinion and interpretation of the intent of the rules.  I'd probably lean towards agreeing with @Phil McGleno, but I can't say that its crystal clear in my mind.  Would this penalty also apply if the tee marker was a flat disk, like they use at the Old Course?  If not, at what point would it become a penalty, would that be based on the height of the tee marker?

[Fourputt]

Until someone gives a ruling from the USGA, I'm sticking with the standard ruling that if something isn't prohibited, then it's allowed.  Nothing it the rules says that you can't stand on a obstruction that is already in place to play a stroke.  A tee marker is nothing more than an obstruction with a specific attribute attached to it which applies only for a finite space of time.  That additional attribute has nothing to do with such a prohibition.  This is taking 1-4 beyond it's scope.  

I also dispute that such an act could ever truly assist anyone in making a better stroke.  Very few tee markers I've ever seen would provide any kind of a stable surface.  It's hard enough to swing with good balance on a firm level surface.  I think if the OP tried this once, he'd quickly give it up.

[DaveP043]

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Until someone gives a ruling from the USGA, I'm sticking with the standard ruling that if something isn't prohibited, then it's allowed.  Nothing it the rules says that you can't stand on a obstruction that is already in place to play a stroke.  A tee marker is nothing more than an obstruction with a specific attribute attached to it which applies only for a finite space of time.  That additional attribute has nothing to do with such a prohibition.  This is taking 1-4 beyond it's scope.  

I also dispute that such an act could ever truly assist anyone in making a better stroke.  Very few tee markers I've ever seen would provide any kind of a stable surface.  It's hard enough to swing with good balance on a firm level surface.  I think if the OP tried this once, he'd quickly give it up.

I think 1-4 applies, since it seems that most (not all) of us agree that its not specifically covered elsewhere in the rules.  As far as the right decision based on equity, I don't think that's at all clear.  I'm afraid that 1-4 could be used to justify whatever initial opinion a person held, before he started to really look for an answer in the R&D.  

And I specifically agree with the last bold bit, this is a discussion about a completely impractical possibility.

[Martyn W]

I'm with @Fourputt on this one. I see no prohibition and as for 1-4 I believe it IS covered by the Rules making 1-4 inapplicable. Even if we were to stretch the point to apply 1-4 i.e. to do what is fair, I can't see where it would be unfair to allow the player to stand on a tee marker.

[Rulesman]

37 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

I'm with @Fourputt on this one. I see no prohibition and as for 1-4 I believe it IS covered by the Rules making 1-4 inapplicable. Even if we were to stretch the point to apply 1-4 i.e. to do what is fair, I can't see where it would be unfair to allow the player to stand on a tee marker.

Why do you not think it is a device used for a golfing purpose for which it was not designed? eg a bottle water as a spirit level

[Rulesman]

However, the ruling given by the RBs that, when Preferred Lies are in operation, a player may place his ball on a stray tee already in the ground, may suggest that he make take advantage of the tee marker.  A tee being defined as a device. But a tee is designed for the specific purpose of raising the ball off the ground. The tee marker is not designed to provide a footstand.

[Martyn W]

13 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Why do you not think it is a device used for a golfing purpose for which it was not designed? eg a bottle water as a spirit level

 I'm not convinced that a tee marker is a 'device'. Is everything man-made a device, by your definition?  If a player purposely dropped the ball (for an unplayable lie, for example) in such a way as to have one foot on the kerb of a carpath or a sprinkler head would he be in breach of 14-3? 

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

 I'm not convinced that a tee marker is a 'device'. Is everything man-made a device, by your definition?  

My definition is the dictionary definition. The RoG doesn't have one.

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

If a player purposely dropped the ball (for an unplayable lie, for example) in such a way as to have one foot on the kerb of a carpath or a sprinkler head would he be in breach of 14-3? 

In the light of the ruling I mentioned above, I must admit I am not sure.

If the kerb or sprinkler head is incidentally where his foot would be, then of course, he may may not choose to take relief. But if he is making a special effort to utilize it, then that is where I have my doubt. 

[Fourputt]

43 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

My definition is the dictionary definition. The RoG doesn't have one.

In the light of the ruling I mentioned above, I must admit I am not sure.

If the kerb or sprinkler head is incidentally where his foot would be, then of course, he may may not choose to take relief. But if he is making a special effort to utilize it, then that is where I have my doubt. 

Since it has nothing to do with the relief from the unplayable lie, it can't possibly be in breach of any rule.  The player is allowed (in fact he must if it is the only place that meets the dropping requirements)  to drop on a cart path when taking such relief, or when taking relief from a water hazard or from a different obstruction, but is not required to subsequently take relief from the cart path.  Therefore, I can see no justification for your doubt.  

As such I see no reason to rule against using a tee marker in such a manner either, as unlikely as such an act might be.

[iacas]

Would anyone here saying there's no penalty say the same if a player wanted to sit in a chair to play his tee shot?

What if the chair was already there and the player didn't move it? What if they did move it?