removal of (red) stakes

May I remove a stake marking a penalty area if it is in my intended line of play?

note:

It is NOT interfering with my stance or swing.

I would do so for safety reasons and of course I don't want to hit it to prevent my ball to be deflected deeper into the woods/penalty area.

a) My ball lies in a penalty area.

b) My ball lies outside of the penalty area.

c) The stakes are defined integral objects by local rule. My ball lies in a penalty area.

d) The stakes are defined integral objects by local rule. My ball lies outside of the penalty area.

My suggested answers:

a) yes, because...

> 15.2 Movable Obstructions

> a. Relief from Movable Obstruction

>

> Removal of Movable Obstruction. You may remove a movable obstruction without penalty anywhere on or off the course and may do so in any way.

b) yes, see above

c) & d) no, bad luck

Are you suggesting there are "integral," unmovable red stakes on courses somewhere -- or that a local rule could be made so that you can't remove one? Never seen one that couldn't be removed and put back after you play your shot.

To be honest - I have seen both in the past

a) immovable stakes marking a water hazard that were embedded deeply into the ground and couldn't be moved easily

b) stakes that could have been moved easily but were defined integral parts of the course (however that was pre 2019 - so before the rules update and I don't know it this local rule would still be the same, the definitions still list the term _integral part_:

>Integral objects are treated as immovable (see Rule 8.1a). But if part of an integral object (such as a gate or door or part of an attached cable) meets the definition of movable >obstruction, that part is treated as a movable obstruction.

> @Deepy said:

> May I remove a stake marking a penalty area if it is in my intended line of play?

> note:

> It is NOT interfering with my stance or swing.

> I would do so for safety reasons and of course I don't want to hit it to prevent my ball to be deflected deeper into the woods/penalty area.

>

> a) My ball lies in a penalty area.

> b) My ball lies outside of the penalty area.

> c) The stakes are defined integral objects by local rule. My ball lies in a penalty area.

> d) The stakes are defined integral objects by local rule. My ball lies outside of the penalty area.

>

> My suggested answers:

> a) yes, because...

> > 15.2 Movable Obstructions

> > a. Relief from Movable Obstruction

> >

> > Removal of Movable Obstruction. You may remove a movable obstruction without penalty anywhere on or off the course and may do so in any way.

> b) yes, see above

> c) & d) no, bad luck

You've got this right, but I'll add that it is possible that a red stake does not meet the definition of "movable obstruction" even if it's not declared "integral." For instance, if it's cemented in place.

Movable Obstruction:

"An obstruction that can be moved with reasonable effort and without damaging the obstruction or the course."

I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> @"Colin L" said:

> I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

>

And not getting relief?

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

>

So you define a stake as an immovable obstruction so that a player is not allowed to move it . You further define it as an integral object so that a player is not allowed to move it. What have you gained? The only difference you have made is to deny players relief from an obstruction. Why do that?

Besides, making stakes integral objects isn't anything near the recommendations made by the R&A regarding deciding on integral objects.

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> > For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

> >

>

> So you define a stake as an immovable obstruction so that a player is not allowed to move it . You further define it as an integral object so that a player is not allowed to move it. What have you gained? The only difference you have made is to deny players relief from an obstruction. Why do that?

>

> Besides, making stakes integral objects isn't anything near the recommendations made by the R&A regarding deciding on integral objects.

Are you saying you can "define" a movable obstruction as being an immovable obstruction? I'm unclear as to what you mean by the first two sentences, but defining an otherwise movable stake as an IO achieves this, and meets the definition of IO in that the stake is an artificial object.

Around half my local courses declare penalty area stakes to be immovable obstructions. So you get relief from interference if your ball lies outside the penalty area but not if the ball is in the PA. Making them integral objects makes no sense, a player not in the PA is denied relief from an artificial course marking instrument in that case.

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> > > For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

> > >

> >

> > So you define a stake as an immovable obstruction so that a player is not allowed to move it . You further define it as an integral object so that a player is not allowed to move it. What have you gained? The only difference you have made is to deny players relief from an obstruction. Why do that?

> >

> > Besides, making stakes integral objects isn't anything near the recommendations made by the R&A regarding deciding on integral objects.

>

> Are you saying you can "define" a movable obstruction as being an immovable obstruction? I'm unclear as to what you mean by the first two sentences, but defining an otherwise movable stake as an IO achieves this, and meets the definition of IO in that the stake is an artificial object.

I bet the second sentence was supposed to be "You further define it as an integral object so that a player is not allowed a relief. " or close.

You were comparing integral part/object to IO as being equal, when they are not. Unless you abbreviate both same way...

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> > > For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

> > >

> >

> > So you define a stake as an immovable obstruction so that a player is not allowed to move it . You further define it as an integral object so that a player is not allowed to move it. What have you gained? The only difference you have made is to deny players relief from an obstruction. Why do that?

> >

> > Besides, making stakes integral objects isn't anything near the recommendations made by the R&A regarding deciding on integral objects.

>

> ......... I'm unclear as to what you mean by the first two sentences,.......

Me too.

The main point is that I can't see any reason for denying players relief from interference by a stake marking a penalty area.

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > I can see the point of making stakes immovable obstructions to prevent players taking them out and not bothering to put them back, but I can't think why you would make them integral objects.

> > > For the very same reason you stated, but saving some concrete in the process?

> > >

> >

> > So you define a stake as an immovable obstruction so that a player is not allowed to move it . You further define it as an integral object so that a player is not allowed to move it. What have you gained? The only difference you have made is to deny players relief from an obstruction. Why do that?

> >

> > Besides, making stakes integral objects isn't anything near the recommendations made by the R&A regarding deciding on integral objects.

>

> Are you saying you can "define" a movable obstruction as being an immovable obstruction?

Absolutely. Isn't that what you were saying yourself earlier?

1st, I will try not to use IO as an abbreviation anymore, as after careful study I note that "Integral Object" and "Immovable Obstruction" seem to use some of the same letters!

2nd, I rarely feel that any Obstruction, immovable or otherwise, should be declared an Integral Object. They're rarely "integral" to the design of the course, and beyond those legitimate situations, I'd really rather generally see a player get relief.

3rd, I agree that declaring a moveable stake to be an immovable obstruction is a superior choice vis a vis calling it an integral object, though calling it an integral object is another rules-abiding way to facilitate keeping stakes in place if that's your overriding goal.

4th, I am now clear on what Colin meant, and somewhat regret having even asked.

That's all the numbers I wish to use right now.