Jump to content
IGNORED

Relief from Fence


Odogesq
Note: This thread is 3981 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Played a round this weekend and this issue came up:

An approach shot into the green went over, rolled down a small hill and came to rest against a metal chain link fence.  The purpose of the fence was likely to mark out of bounds, since the other side was a public sidewalk/bike path.  There was no way this guy had any kind of shot because the ball had come to reset on a small strip of concrete just in front of the chain link fence as well as resting against the chain link fence.  The fence/concrete were completely interfering with his stance/swing.

So, is he entitled to relief without penalty and a drop at npr?  Or was he forced to play it where it was?

In My Bag:

:tmade: 9.5˚ Rocketballz | :callaway: 15˚ X-Hot 3 Wood :tmade: ran TP (3-PW) | :vokey: Vokey 52˚ & 56˚ | :odyssey: White Smoke MC-72 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Odogesq

So, is he entitled to relief without penalty and a drop at npr?  Or was he forced to play it where it was?

Neither. In that situation you can take an unplayable lie, with the associated penalty. (You can play it as it lies, but you're not forced to.)

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


All good answers, just remember there is no relief from anything that defines the out of bounds margin.  Objects defining OB margins are not obstructions ( you would get relief from an obstruction).  These items are instead deemed to be fixed.  No relief from anything fixed.

Regards,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by ilikefishes

If the concrete the ball came to rest on is inside the course, he could get free relief from that. Otherwise the other responses are correct.

He could only get relief from the path if he was able to make a stroke that was neither impracticable nor unreasonable.

It sounds like the fence would make the stoke impossible if it was tight up against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Rule 24-2 Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance , swing or direction of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by luu5

But was it marked OB boundary?

It doesn't matter.  When a fence, sidewalk, road, whatever defines the boundry of the course, as determined by the course, it doesn't need to be further marked as such.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Thank you to everyone that responded!

To recap the responses:

Under the original scenario, where the ball came to rest against the fence, the player would NOT be entitled to relief under 24-2 because the fence physically marked OB and, as such, is not considered an obstruction under 24-2.

The only remaining question is whether the player would be entitled to relief under 24-2 from the concrete base of the fence, which may or may not be considered an obstruction for purposes of rule 24-2.  I will mention that the concrete base of the fence was on the "in bounds" side of the fence, though I am not sure it makes a difference because even if we assume that the concrete base is an obstruction for purposes of 24-2, the player would not be entitled to relief under 24-2 because he would have to make an "impractical or unreasonable" stroke to hit the ball, as a result of the ball being up against the fence.

The player at this point has two options: (1) he either has to play it as it lies; or (2) take a penalty and proceed under rule 28.

Is this correct?

In My Bag:

:tmade: 9.5˚ Rocketballz | :callaway: 15˚ X-Hot 3 Wood :tmade: ran TP (3-PW) | :vokey: Vokey 52˚ & 56˚ | :odyssey: White Smoke MC-72 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Odogesq

Thank you to everyone that responded!

To recap the responses:

Under the original scenario, where the ball came to rest against the fence, the player would NOT be entitled to relief under 24-2 because the fence physically marked OB and, as such, is not considered an obstruction under 24-2.

The only remaining question is whether the player would be entitled to relief under 24-2 from the concrete base of the fence, which may or may not be considered an obstruction for purposes of rule 24-2.  I will mention that the concrete base of the fence was on the "in bounds" side of the fence, though I am not sure it makes a difference because even if we assume that the concrete base is an obstruction for purposes of 24-2, the player would not be entitled to relief under 24-2 because he would have to make an "impractical or unreasonable" stroke to hit the ball, as a result of the ball being up against the fence.

The player at this point has two options: (1) he either has to play it as it lies; or (2) take a penalty and proceed under rule 28.

Is this correct?

If he can play it as it lies then it is arguable that does not have to make an "impracticable or unreasonable" stroke.

But we can't judge from here. One would have to see it it to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Rulesman

If he can play it as it lies then it is arguable that does not have to make an "impracticable or unreasonable" stroke.

But we can't judge from here. One would have to see it it to know.

Well, it was definitely impossible for him to hit the ball toward the green/hole because he could not get his club behind the ball without hitting the fence first.  In order to play the ball as it lied, he would have had to hit it away from the hole, along the length of the fence, and hope that it popped back toward the rough behind the green.  Either way, there is no way he could have hit the ball without his club also hitting the fence.  Alternatively, I suppose he could have hit it directly at the fence and away from the green a la Miguel Angel Jiminez's "off the wall" shot at the 2010 Open, though not sure a chain link fence would have produced the same effect.

In My Bag:

:tmade: 9.5˚ Rocketballz | :callaway: 15˚ X-Hot 3 Wood :tmade: ran TP (3-PW) | :vokey: Vokey 52˚ & 56˚ | :odyssey: White Smoke MC-72 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Odogesq

In order to play the ball as it lied, he would have had to hit it away from the hole, along the length of the fence, and hope that it popped back toward the rough behind the green.

If that was possible then he could have claimed relief from the path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
Originally Posted by Odogesq View Post

In order to play the ball as it lied, he would have had to hit it away from the hole, along the length of the fence, and hope that it popped back toward the rough behind the green.

If that was possible then he could have claimed relief from the path.

Exactly. It does booty matter where you are trying to hit it, just that you can hit it. Get your relief and make par.

Happy Gilmore was a Hack!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Odogesq

Thank you to everyone that responded!

To recap the responses:

Under the original scenario, where the ball came to rest against the fence, the player would NOT be entitled to relief under 24-2 because the fence physically marked OB and, as such, is not considered an obstruction under 24-2.

The only remaining question is whether the player would be entitled to relief under 24-2 from the concrete base of the fence, which may or may not be considered an obstruction for purposes of rule 24-2.  I will mention that the concrete base of the fence was on the "in bounds" side of the fence, though I am not sure it makes a difference because even if we assume that the concrete base is an obstruction for purposes of 24-2, the player would not be entitled to relief under 24-2 because he would have to make an "impractical or unreasonable" stroke to hit the ball, as a result of the ball being up against the fence.

The player at this point has two options: (1) he either has to play it as it lies; or (2) take a penalty and proceed under rule 28.

Is this correct?

I guess I'm not clear on the "base".  Is part of the fence, ie the posts  cemented into it.....then I think D24/3 is very similar.  If it's an obstruction not associated with a OB boundary then I think D24-/2b6 applies. If I were the committee I would define the OB as the inside edge of the concrete path or the path as an integral part of the course.

24/3

Concrete Bases of Boundary Fence Posts

Q. Posts of a boundary fence have been set in concrete bases 14 inches in diameter. Are the parts of the bases within the boundary of the course obstructions?

A. No. Such a base is part of the fence and thus no part of it is an obstruction - see Definition of "Obstructions." If such bases are at or below ground level, the boundary line is the inside points of the fence posts at ground level. If they are above ground level, the Committee should clarify the location of the boundary line.

24-2b/6

Relief from Immovable Obstruction Incidentally Results in Relief from Boundary Fence

Q. A player's ball is in such a position that a boundary fence and an immovable obstruction near the fence both interfere with the area of the player's intended swing. It is reasonable for him to play the stroke despite the interference from the boundary fence. If the player takes relief from the obstruction under Rule 24-2b , he will incidentally get relief from the fence. Is the player entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b in such circumstances?

A. Yes.

Regards,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3981 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I did read the fine print tonight. It said replace with “similar features & function”.  8 yeas ago my purchase had features that today are available on the lower end models and the current version of my model has more “bells & whistles” than what I got 8 years ago.  So I am thinking they honored the agreement and I can’t argue the offer. since getting a credit for the full purchase price all I am really out over the past 8 years was the cost of the extended warranty, which was less than a low end  treadmill would have cost me. now the question is which model to replace with.  I’ll stay with Nordic Track or I forfeit the $1,463 credit so I will get Nordic Track.  And they honored the warranty and were not hard to work with which is a plus.
    • Generally speaking, extended warranties are a terrible deal and should almost always be avoided. They are a huge profit center for the companies that offer them, which should tell you almost everything you need to know about how much value most consumers get when purchasing them.  This is correct, and the old adage applies - only buy insurance when you can't afford the loss. This usually doesn't apply to most consumer goods.  To your second question, no I don't believe the offer is fair. They are replacing it, but it is not being replaced at "no cost to you". Since the amount being disputed (over $500) is non-trivial, I would probably push the issue. Don't waste your time on the phone with a customer service agent or a supervisor. They have probably given you all they have the authority to do. Rather, I would look at the terms of your agreement and specifically legal disputes. The odds are you probably agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. The agreement will outline what steps need to be followed, but it will probably look something like this.  1. Mail the Nordic Track legal department outlining your dispute and indicate you are not satisfied with the resolution offered.  2. Open up a case with the AAA (American Arbitration Association), along with the required documentation. 3. Wait about 4-5 weeks for a case to be opened - at which point someone from Nordic Track's legal department will offer to give you the new model at no cost to you.  They certainly don't want to spend the time and energy to fight you over $500. 4. Enjoy your new Nordic Track at no cost to you. I recently entered binding arbitration against a fairly large and well known company that screwed me over and refused to make it right. In my demand letter, I made a pretty sizeable request that included compensation for my time and frustration. Once it hit their legal department, they cut me a check - no questions asked. It was far cheaper to settle with me than to send their legal team to defend them in the arbitration.
    • I never thought of looking at it on multiple purchases like you said.  Yes, the extended may help me on 1 or 2 items but not the other 5 or 6.
    • Day 84 - Forgot to post yesterday, but I did some more chipping/pitching.    Back/neck were feeling better today, so I did a much overdue Stack session. 
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬛⬛🟩🟨⬛ 🟩⬛🟩⬛🟨 🟩🟩🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...