• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Odogesq

Relief from Fence

31 posts in this topic

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

My understanding is that if its a fence marking out of bounds, you are not entitled to relief.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Odogesq

The purpose of the fence was likely to mark out of bounds

But was it marked OB boundary?

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

If it not physically identified/marked then it must be defined in the Local Rules.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  I don't see any other options.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0