Out of bounds stake

[thematt]

Hoolio and I had this discussion driving up to play Renfrew on the weekend:

Lets' say that there is a metal stake marking an out of bounds line next to a body of water. The metal stake is bent halfway up, facing back towards the fairway.

You hit your drive, and it hits the section of the stake that is bent in towards the fairway (technically inside where the marker lays the out of bounds) and proceeds to richochet into the water, not hitting anything else.

What is the penalty and where do you play the next shot?

I would think that the stake itself, whether bent or not, is all considered out of bounds, and as such, hitting the stake anywhere and going out of bounds from there would still mean that the ball went directly OB, but I am not sure.

[Kilroy]

Is the pond (where the ball ended up) on the OB side of the marker?

If so, it is OB. Penalty is stroke and distance - go back and replay the shot.

[hoolio]

The discussion was a result of a shot which a friend hit at Pakenham the week before. It was on the island green (not sure of the number), and his tee shot crossed the pond sand struck a lateral hazard marker which was bent toward the green. In this case the ball didn't actually bounce back into the water.

The question I had was Where does the hazard boundary extend to? I made the assumption that if the stake was put into the ground at a certain point then it was determined that the point where the base of the stake makes contact with the ground is the hazard boundary. If a ball crosses over the boundary and strikes a stake incorrectly aligned, and then goes backwards into the hazard, has it crossed the hazard?

Of course everyone would have to be in agreement that the stake was bent that way prior to the ball striking it, and that the ball did in fact strike the stake.

I can use my awesome MS Paint skillz to draw a little diagram if it helps.

[Kilroy]

That`s a completely different question.

I made the assumption that if the stake was put into the ground at a certain point then it was determined that the point where the base of the stake makes contact with the ground is the hazard boundary.

Right.

When the margin of a water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards.

OK so your thinking, since the stake is bent over away from the hazard, the ball was outside the hazard when it hit the stake and bounced back into the hazard, making the point where it crossed the margin of the hazard close to the stake.

On the other hand,

When the margin of a water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards.

The stakes are in the hazard so the place where it last crossed would not be near the stake, but back where it first crossed over the margin of the hazard.

[justsomeguy]

On the other hand,

When the margin of a water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards.

The stakes are in the hazard so the place where it last crossed would not be near the stake, but back where it first crossed over the margin of the hazard.

The stakes are IN the hazard only because the margin is defined by the nearest OUTSIDE points of the stakes at ground level. Therefore, if the stake is bent away from the hazard, then the place where it last crossed would still be near the stake.

[Kilroy]

I could be wrong. I can't find a decision that covers this exact scenario, but it reads to me like the stakes are considered to be in the hazard.

[justsomeguy]

I could be wrong. I can't find a decision that covers this exact scenario, but it reads to me like the stakes are considered to be in the hazard.

They are. If the OUTSIDE points (i.e., the corners of the stake AWAY from the hazard) are the margin, then the stake itself is inside the hazard. The tricky part of this scenario is that the reference point is ground level and the margin extends VERTICALLY upward, while this particular stake is leaning AWAY from the hazard.

[justsomeguy]

Hoolio and I had this discussion driving up to play Renfrew on the weekend:

Lets' say that there is a metal stake marking an out of bounds line next to a body of water. The metal stake is bent halfway up, facing back towards the fairway.

You hit your drive, and it hits the section of the stake that is bent in towards the fairway (technically inside where the marker lays the out of bounds) and proceeds to richochet into the water, not hitting anything else.

What is the penalty and where do you play the next shot?

I would think that the stake itself, whether bent or not, is all considered out of bounds, and as such, hitting the stake anywhere and going out of bounds from there would still mean that the ball went directly OB, but I am not sure.

As Dan pointed out, all that matters with regard to OB is where the ball ends up - not how it got there. If the balls end up OB you proceed under the OB rule, and if it ends up in the water hazard then you proceed under the water hazard rule.

I'm assuming that this is a LATERAL water hazard (red stakes). If so, then this decision may shed some light on how to proceed:

26-1/8 Ball Moved into Bounds by Flow of Water in Lateral Water Hazard

Q. With regard to the illustration above, a player’s ball lands in a river out of bounds at Point A and the flow of the water carries the ball into bounds to Point B. That part of the river which is in bounds is defined as a lateral water hazard. May the player invoke Rule 26-1?
A. Yes. The ball lies on the course in a lateral water hazard and it last crossed the margin of the hazard at Point C. Therefore, in taking relief in accordance with the Rule 26-1b or 26-1c, Point C is the reference point. As it is not possible to proceed under Rules 26-1b and 26-1c(i), it is likely that the player will proceed under Rule 26-1c(ii) by dropping a ball within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than Point D.
Alternatively, the player may proceed under Rule 26-1a or play the ball as it lies in the river.

[Kilroy]

They are. If the OUTSIDE points (i.e., the corners of the stake AWAY from the hazard) are the margin, then the stake itself is inside the hazard. The tricky part of this scenario is that the reference point is ground level and the margin extends VERTICALLY upward, while this particular stake is leaning AWAY from the hazard.

Yes that's all correct.

My take is, the Definition states that the stakes are in the hazard. Taken literally that would mean that the angle of the stake would be irrelevant, so the ball hit the stake in the hazard.

[LobWedge]

The main question when a ball lies in a hazard, is where did the ball last cross the margin of the hazard? Once that is determined, you take your relief based on that point.