Out of Bounds is Defined By Rock Wall, Question about Free Drop

[North Texas]

I play a course occasionally that has several holes with rock walls running along the holes. Anything on the other side of the rock wall is out of bounds.

 

Here is my question.

 

Your ball is laying inside the rock wall and therefore in bounds. However, the rock wall interferes with your stance and/or swing and/or line of flight.

 

Do you get a free drop?

[KnightPS]

No. A fence or wall defining Out of Bounds is not an obstruction so you are not entitled relief.

 

 

24/4 Part of Boundary Fence Within Boundary Line

 

 

Q.Part of a boundary fence is bowed towards the course so that it is inside the boundary line formed by the fence posts. A player's ball comes to rest against this part of the fence. Is the player entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b?

 

A.No. A fence defining out of bounds is not an obstruction even if part of it is inside the boundary line formed by the fence posts - see Definitions of "Obstructions" and "Out of Bounds."

[Sawgrass]

The Rules permit the Committee to define OB as being on either the inside or the outside of the rock wall. The hard card of the Metropolitan Golf Association here specifies the outside of the wall unless otherwise noted.

 

It's important to note that one may not move a rock that's part of the wall, even if it's loose and easily moved. The rock is considered a part of an immovable obstruction which is not designed to be moved and therefore must be left intact.

[farmer]

Our OB fence is a 7 wire barbed wire fence, tight as a fiddle string. I've always thought it should be ruled like a road or cart path. If it's just white stakes, you can stand outside the marker and play, but you will not play outside our OB marker.

[Newby]

Our OB fence is a 7 wire barbed wire fence, tight as a fiddle string. I've always thought it should be ruled like a road or cart path. If it's just white stakes, you can stand outside the marker and play, but you will not play outside our OB marker.

Fences are generally there to prevent you (not the ball) going beyond them.

[farmer]

Our OB fence is a 7 wire barbed wire fence, tight as a fiddle string. I've always thought it should be ruled like a road or cart path. If it's just white stakes, you can stand outside the marker and play, but you will not play outside our OB marker.

Fences are generally there to prevent you (not the ball) going beyond them.

This one is to keep cattle from coming in, but still it's an immovable obstruction.

[Colin L]

]This one is to keep cattle from coming in, but still it's an immovable obstruction.

 

As it is the out of bounds fence, it's not.

 

But be glad it's there: I am well acquainted with courses where cows graze and where, as cows do, they take free relief frequently. It can be a messy business for some shots.

[HitEmTrue]

I am well acquainted with courses where cows graze and where, as cows do, they take free relief frequently.

 

So they only get one club length for their drop. No closer to the hole, of course.

[Shilgy]

I am well acquainted with courses where cows graze and where, as cows do, they take free relief frequently.

 

So they only get one club length for their drop. No closer to the hole, of course.

No-I would hope their drop is as near as possible. :)

[KnightPS]

Our OB fence is a 7 wire barbed wire fence, tight as a fiddle string. I've always thought it should be ruled like a road or cart path. If it's just white stakes, you can stand outside the marker and play, but you will not play outside our OB marker.

 

Is the fence on the golf course property or the adjacent land? The course may have no say in the matter if its not on their property.

[Shilgy]

Our OB fence is a 7 wire barbed wire fence, tight as a fiddle string. I've always thought it should be ruled like a road or cart path. If it's just white stakes, you can stand outside the marker and play, but you will not play outside our OB marker.

 

Is the fence on the golf course property or the adjacent land? The course may have no say in the matter if its not on their property.

Really does not matter. If the course is using it to define the OOB there is no relief.

 

Perhaps to appease the OP the course could have stakes a few feet closer to the fairway and away from the fence. The course would be narrower but he could stand outside the stakes to play a ball in bounds if so desired. :taunt:

[Mr. Bean]

The Rules permit the Committee to define OB as being on either the inside or the outside of the rock wall. The hard card of the Metropolitan Golf Association here specifies the outside of the wall unless otherwise noted.

 

It's important to note that one may not move a rock that's part of the wall, even if it's loose and easily moved. The rock is considered a part of an immovable obstruction which is not designed to be moved and therefore must be left intact.

 

But Sawgrass, that wall is NOT an immovable obstruction as it defines the OB of the course. So in this case it is considered to be an integral part of the course, from which any parts must not be removed.

[Sawgrass]

The Rules permit the Committee to define OB as being on either the inside or the outside of the rock wall. The hard card of the Metropolitan Golf Association here specifies the outside of the wall unless otherwise noted.

 

It's important to note that one may not move a rock that's part of the wall, even if it's loose and easily moved. The rock is considered a part of an immovable obstruction which is not designed to be moved and therefore must be left intact.

 

But Sawgrass, that wall is NOT an immovable obstruction as it defines the OB of the course. So in this case it is considered to be an integral part of the course, from which any parts must not be removed.

 

Nice! I bow to the technicality. But for those more confused and less amused, let me add:

 

13-2/32

 

Improving Line of Play by Removing Stone from Wall

 

Q.A stone wall on the course is on a player's line of play. The player removes a stone from the top of the wall and, as a result, improves his line of play. Is this permissible?

 

A.No. The wall as a whole does not meet the definition of a movable obstruction and the individual stones are intended not to be moved. Therefore, the wall is an immovable obstruction and all parts of the wall are deemed to be fixed. In improving his line of play by removing part of an immovable obstruction, the player was in breach of Rule 13-2. The same ruling would apply if the wall had been declared an integral part of the course. (Revised)

[farmer]

OK, it should be an immovable obstruction. The course owns both sides of the fence, leases the pasture. Cattle and their reminders are not as big an issue as the gaping hoofprints they will leave on greens.

[HitEmTrue]

OK, it should be an immovable obstruction. The course owns both sides of the fence, leases the pasture. Cattle and their reminders are not as big an issue as the gaping hoofprints they will leave on greens.

 

Do you feel like OB fences should always be immovable obstructions? Or only in certain scenarios?

[Mr. Bean]

Just to create more conversation, why is it that structures defining OB are not immovable obstructions? What is the reason?

[Newby]

Just to create more conversation, why is it that structures defining OB are not immovable obstructions? What is the reason?

I don't know but possibly because not all delimiters are 'obstructions', eg hedges or ditches

[Stuart_G]

Just to create more conversation, why is it that structures defining OB are not immovable obstructions? What is the reason?

I don't know but possibly because not all delimiters are 'obstructions', eg hedges or ditches

 

I don't know either, and would love to - but I would not think that's it. The exclusion is part of the definition of 'obstruction' - so really specific to artificial objects.

[Mr. Bean]

Just to create more conversation, why is it that structures defining OB are not immovable obstructions? What is the reason?

I don't know but possibly because not all delimiters are 'obstructions', eg hedges or ditches

 

I don't know either, and would love to - but I would not think that's it. The exclusion is part of the definition of 'obstruction' - so really specific to artificial objects.

 

I agree, it only applies to objects and structures that otherwise would be IO's.

 

I started thinking that as those objects are not on the course they are not IO's but as we have read in this thread a stone wall may be entirely on the course yet it is not an IO. So it beats me why those structures defining OB are excluded from IO's, just as if a player should be punished for hitting so close to the boundaries of the course.

[Stuart_G]

Well one thought crossed my mind. Obviously I have no idea if it's the case or not but - remember the exclusion really applies to 'obstructions' in general, not just immovable obstructions. Maybe the focus of the exclusion was targeting movable obstructions such as boundary stakes to prevent players from messing with what could be a critical location (from a legal standpoint as well as equity to all players). And the carry over to immovable obstructions is more a side-effect than an original cause.

 

Now yes, there would be other ways around this (now) since the rules also allow the committee to declare certain movable obstructions as immovable - but don't' know if that was a recognized option when the rule was first formalized in its current form.

[North Texas]

Man, after reading this thread, I don't know how anyone could conclude that the rules of golf are too complicated :taunt:

[Mr. Bean]

Well one thought crossed my mind. Obviously I have no idea if it's the case or not but - remember the exclusion really applies to 'obstructions' in general, not just immovable obstructions. Maybe the focus of the exclusion was targeting movable obstructions such as boundary stakes to prevent players from messing with what could be a critical location (from a legal standpoint as well as equity to all players). And the carry over to immovable obstructions is more a side-effect than an original cause.

 

Then why MO's are MO's even outside the boundaries but IO's are not?

[Mr. Bean]

Man, after reading this thread, I don't know how anyone could conclude that the rules of golf are too complicated :taunt:

 

These past years I have come to the conclusion that the Rules are far easier to master than the golf swing..

[Stuart_G]

Well one thought crossed my mind. Obviously I have no idea if it's the case or not but - remember the exclusion really applies to 'obstructions' in general, not just immovable obstructions. Maybe the focus of the exclusion was targeting movable obstructions marking the boundary such as boundary stakes to prevent players from messing with what could be a critical location (from a legal standpoint as well as equity to all players). And the carry over to immovable obstructions is more a side-effect than an original cause.

 

Then why MO's are MO's even outside the boundaries but IO's are not?

 

No idea - but I don't see that as being contrary to the idea (modified in bold with what I meant to say but wasn't clear about) - just another, separate arbitrary decision by the RB's.

[Colin L]

Well one thought crossed my mind. Obviously I have no idea if it's the case or not but - remember the exclusion really applies to 'obstructions' in general, not just immovable obstructions. Maybe the focus of the exclusion was targeting movable obstructions such as boundary stakes to prevent players from messing with what could be a critical location (from a legal standpoint as well as equity to all players). And the carry over to immovable obstructions is more a side-effect than an original cause.

 

Then why MO's are MO's even outside the boundaries but IO's are not?

 

In my view an obstruction can only exist on the course. Anything artificial beyond the course boundary, movable or immovable is not an obstruction, but just something artificial . You will notice that Decision 24-1/3 refers to a movable artificial object lying out of bounds. The choice of artificial object as opposed to obstruction will not be accidental.

[Stuart_G]

That's because that's how the rules currently define it. The question is why the RB's came to make that decision and formulate the definition in that way.

[Sawgrass]

In general, the relief from IOs is an effort to eliminate distractions which were not intended to be part of the architect's planned challenge. Cart paths and sprinkler heads being prime examples. Given that, why would you provide free relief from a planned boundary?

[sui generis]

Just to create more conversation, why is it that structures defining OB are not immovable obstructions? What is the reason?

 

They are not on the golf course. To be an "obstruction" the thing must be on the golf course. Things not on the golf course are merely objects.

[Stuart_G]

In general, the relief from IOs is an effort to eliminate distractions which were not intended to be part of the architect's planned challenge. Cart paths and sprinkler heads being prime examples. Given that, why would you provide free relief from a planned boundary?

 

Just playing the devil's advocate here:

 

Sprinkler heads and cart paths are planned. And immovable artificial objects that are not marking the boundary but are out of bounds are not planned either but still are not IOs.

[HitEmTrue]

In general, the relief from IOs is an effort to eliminate distractions which were not intended to be part of the architect's planned challenge.

Sprinkler heads and cart paths are planned.