Unplayable Lie - Odd Scenario

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by dffjunior

You may not get much from an unplayable rule, but what about the fence itself? Is it considered an obstruction from which you would get relief? If so, there's no restriction on distance for relief:

(i)Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief.

Nearest Point of Relief

The “nearest point of relief” is the reference point for taking relief without penalty from interference by an immovable obstruction (Rule 24-2), an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a wrong putting green (Rule 25-3).

It is the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies:

(i) that is not nearer the hole, and

(ii) where, if the ball were so positioned, no interference by the condition from which relief is sought would exist for the stroke the player would have made from the original position if the condition were not there.

I've seen guys go 40 yards to get relief from grandstands.

Typically you do not get free relief from boundary fences, so you have to rely on the unplayable lie options.

[dffjunior]

Correct.  However, he didn't specify it was a boundary fence.  That's why I asked a question about the fence itself, and noted that IF it qualified as an obstruction he'd get relief.

edit: I guess he kind of did in a roundabout way with the edge of course comment - sorry, that part didn't stick with me very well.  He also had etc etc in there, so in those etc situations where it's not a boundary fence, he could be entitled to relief.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by dffjunior

Correct.  However, he didn't specify it was a boundary fence.  That's why I asked a question about the fence itself, and noted that IF it qualified as an obstruction he'd get relief.

edit: I guess he kind of did in a roundabout way with the edge of course comment - sorry, that part didn't stick with me very well.  He also had etc etc in there, so in those etc situations where it's not a boundary fence, he could be entitled to relief.

I'm not sure I was so roundabout - I mentioned twice that man-made obstacles might apply better here.

but that was in the midst of the geometry and math exercises...

so you actually did make a good point - the actual scenario did turn out to be 'man made' obstacle that was a boundary marker.  so relief was just a few yards down the fairway....but the hypothetical 'unplayable lie' general discussion was still interesting and informative

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by dffjunior

You may not get much from an unplayable rule, but what about the fence itself? Is it considered an obstruction from which you would get relief? If so, there's no restriction on distance for relief:

(i)Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief.

Nearest Point of Relief

The “nearest point of relief” is the reference point for taking relief without penalty from interference by an immovable obstruction (Rule 24-2), an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a wrong putting green (Rule 25-3).

It is the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies:

(i) that is not nearer the hole, and

(ii) where, if the ball were so positioned, no interference by the condition from which relief is sought would exist for the stroke the player would have made from the original position if the condition were not there.

I've seen guys go 40 yards to get relief from grandstands.

No relief when it's a boundary fence.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

I'm not sure I was so roundabout - I mentioned twice that man-made obstacles might apply better here.

but that was in the midst of the geometry and math exercises...

so you actually did make a good point - the actual scenario did turn out to be 'man made' obstacle that was a boundary marker.  so relief was just a few yards down the fairway....but the hypothetical 'unplayable lie' general discussion was still interesting and informative

mis stated here - should have wrote " 'man made' obstacle that was NOT a boundary marker"

my bad

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

misstated here - should have wrote " 'man made' obstacle that was NOT a boundary marker"

my bad

You should have written 'Obstruction' or 'artificial object'.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

You should have written 'Obstruction' or 'artificial object'.

I should have said "man made object per rule # (............)"  with a caviat to discuss "or boundary/natural feature indicating an unplayable lie per rule #(..........)" as an alternate discussion.

that would have even been better.  I'll go back in time right now and fix the verbage.  thanks

(Snarky, I know, but your point is what other than 20/20 hindsight)

(post edit - Actually, if you have a point other than trying to fit the scenario with rules verbage, I'm interested.  If not, I'm comfy snarking away on it.  But I should have given you the benefit of the doubt first.  now I'm stuck with both replies.)

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

I should have said "man made object per rule # (............)"  with a caviat to discuss "or boundary/natural feature indicating an unplayable lie per rule #(..........)" as an alternate discussion.

that would have even been better.  I'll go back in time right now and fix the verbage.  thanks

(Snarky, I know, but your point is what other than 20/20 hindsight)

(post edit - Actually, if you have a point other than trying to fit the scenario with rules verbage, I'm interested.  If not, I'm comfy snarking away on it.  But I should have given you the benefit of the doubt first.  now I'm stuck with both replies.)

I'm comfortable with both replies

But my reason for being 'snarky' is that the wrong use of words or the use of wrong words causes much confusion when discussing the Rules of Golf.

If a poster doesn't know the right words, I hope they will accept I am trying to be helpful. If they do know the right words, I hope they will get the message.

[rehmwa]

Thanks, I appreciate the help.

(Though I was noting my reply was snarky, not yours)

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

Thanks, I appreciate the help.

(Though I was noting my reply was snarky, not yours)

Perhaps my post was sarcy