Ball In Bounds, But Hostile Homeowner Forbids Play

[EmperorPenguin]

A ball is in bounds by inches, but playing it means standing out of bounds on private property, and the owner is hostile and wants nobody standing on his property.  I assume we are allowed relief, but if that is the case, where is it clearly stated that we do?

[rogolf]

Unplayable or stroke and distance are options that are available.

[Halebopp]

The club might have that part of the OB defined as a No Play Zone in their local rules.

[Colin L]

The assumption of relief by the OP is unfounded.  The club could make the boundary "on or beyond the roadway" which would take away the problem, save on white stakes and maybe appease the owner so much that he agrees to sponsor the hole.

 

 

Edited March 25 by Colin L

[2bGood]

As for the rules of golf you are allowed to stand out of bounds, but you have no relief options for anything that is OB as it is not one of the defined areas of the golf course. I would say this extends to angry neighbours. You would in my view need to either play it as it lies or take one of many other options that will cost you a penalty stroke. 

[Snowman9000]

As an aside, would the owner’s string fence be considered a boundary fence?

[AzRoger]

The OB is not marked very well if the intent is to mark OB ~12" off the cart path. The cart path is curved in that section and placing a string between the two shown OB stakes would likely place part of the cart path OB, hard to tell but maybe even the ball as shown in the photo is OB or very close to it.

In any case if the home owner is going to be anal about it they need to put up some kind of a picket fence along their property line, that's the only way you'll ever stop people from stepping on your property.

Edited March 25 by AzRoger

[Newby]

9 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

A ball is in bounds by inches, but playing it means standing out of bounds on private property, and the owner is hostile and wants nobody standing on his property.  I assume we are allowed relief, but if that is the case, where is it clearly stated that we do?

 

Is the orange wire the actual limit of the neighbour's property? If so, why aren't the OB stakes adjacent to it?

[rogolf]

Is there a local Rule which clarifies what defines OOB for that situation?

BTW, course boundaries are not required to align with legal boundaries - the course boundary is what the Committee decides.

Edited March 25 by rogolf

[caniac6]

You would think a guy with a bunker in his yard would be a bit more tolerant.

[Newby]

9 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

A ball is in bounds by inches, but playing it means standing out of bounds on private property, and the owner is hostile and wants nobody standing on his property.  I assume we are allowed relief, but if that is the case, where is it clearly stated that we do?

 

It is stated in Rule 16.1a.

But 16.1a(3) tells you when relief is not permitted.

However if you are right handed, a left handed shot may provide a get out (16.1a(3)/1). As you are not permitted to stand where you would if taking relief normally, IMO you would have a claim for a LH stroke not being unreasonable.

Edited March 25 by Newby

[davep043]

If the homeowner has a firearm (not too uncommon in the US), or otherwise threatens violence, could the homeowner be considered a Dangerous Animal?

6 hours ago, Colin L said:

The assumption of relief by the OP is unfounded.  The club could make the boundary "on or beyond the roadway" which would take away the problem, save on white stakes and maybe appease the owner so much that he agrees to sponsor the hole.

I prefer this general option, I'd define the OB as the left edge of the pavement.  

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, davep043 said:

If the homeowner has a firearm (not too uncommon in the US), or otherwise threatens violence, could the homeowner be considered a Dangerous Animal?

I prefer this general option, I'd define the OB as the left edge of the pavement.  

 

LMAO

 

That was my first thought; "Dangerous animal"

 

41 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

You would think a guy with a bunker in his yard would be a bit more tolerant.

 

That was my 2nd thought.

 

 

[Schulzmc]

31 minutes ago, Newby said:

It is stated in Rule 16.1a.

But 16.1a(3) tells you when relief is not permitted.

However if you are right handed, a left handed shot may provide a get out (16.1a(3)/1). As you are not permitted to stand where you would if taking relief normally, IMO you would have a claim for a LH stroke not being unreasonable.

If that is the case would he then get relief as his left handed stance is on the cart path? Or would that not help as the nearest point of relief would be OB?

[rogolf]

6 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

If that is the case would he then get relief as his left handed stance is on the cart path? Or would that not help as the nearest point of relief would be OB?

A nearest point of complete relief must be on the course!

[Newby]

5 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

If that is the case would he then get relief as his left handed stance is on the cart path? Or would that not help as the nearest point of relief would be OB?

No, the npcr must be within the course boundary. The npcr would now be just off the other side of the path. If after taking correct relief for his LS stroke he may address the ball for a RH stroke and if there is interference from the path may take further relief

[caniac6]

37 minutes ago, davep043 said:

If the homeowner has a firearm (not too uncommon in the US), or otherwise threatens violence, could the homeowner be considered a Dangerous Animal?

I prefer this general option, I'd define the OB as the left edge of the pavement.  

A course I used to belong to had a situation like this. A home owner threatened a guy that came on to his property to retrieve a ball. He wasn’t going to play it, just pick it up. If you live on a course, you need to expect a bit of this. This particular home owner tried to discourage golfers from playing balls close to his property. We just allowed guys to drop in the rough away from this bonehead’s yard. I know it should have been a penalty, but there was no advantage gained,except eliminating a more sever penalty.

[Hawkeye77]

Someone ought to stir up a little something with the HOA (assuming there is one).  Bet almost anything Mr. Tour Green in his backyard isn't allowed to have that "fence" there --- now, maybe all his buddies are on the board and just ignore anyone seeking to enforce the rules.

[caniac6]

If I was the super, I’d plant bamboo in that narrow strip. That would really tick him off, especially when it starts to spread.

[Treats]

Two recent photos from the property owner's Facebook page.

 

 

[caniac6]

It would be interesting to know how much area the course mows left of the path. 

[2bGood]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

It is stated in Rule 16.1a.

But 16.1a(3) tells you when relief is not permitted.

However if you are right handed, a left handed shot may provide a get out (16.1a(3)/1). As you are not permitted to stand where you would if taking relief normally, IMO you would have a claim for a LH stroke not being unreasonable.

 

5 hours ago, davep043 said:

If the homeowner has a firearm (not too uncommon in the US), or otherwise threatens violence, could the homeowner be considered a Dangerous Animal?

I prefer this general option, I'd define the OB as the left edge of the pavement.  

 

I was thinking about both these ideas overnight, so I am glad to see them posted. I am interested if either is actually true? The rules of golf are silent on what relief you can get from OB for the most part basically OB does not exist within the rules. Given this I am twisting my mind int pretzels. Rules 16 states the relief is allowed anywhere on the course expect a penalty area. How can this rule extend to animal that is only a danger to you off the course or anything of the course? 

 

I clearer scenario is if this home owner has a dog on chain the extends to a few feet from the OB marking. The dog cannot get to the course, but if you stood out of bounds it could reach you. The dog is not danger to person on the course, so how could you take relief from it.

 

It is clear you don't get relief from boundary objects, so how can you get relief from objects outside the boundaries? So given this how can you argue it is reasonable to hit left handed in this situation as you not entitled to a stance of any kind OB?

 

Thoughts?

Edited March 25 by 2bGood

[davep043]

31 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Rules 16 states the relief is allowed anywhere on the course expect a penalty area.

Dangerous Animal Relief (16.2) is available even in a Penalty Area.  "Normal" relief under 16.1 isn't.  I don't read that 16.2 relief is limited to animals on the course, only that the ball itself must be on the course.  I'm not sure that an irate homeowner would qualify, but a dog might.

As for 16.1 relief in this situation, you'd have to evaluate whether a left-handed stance is "clearly unreasonable".  Given that you are prohibited (by the homeowner, not the RoG) from standing OB, the left-handed play seems reasonable to me, and that would put your feet on the cart path.  .  

 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Dangerous Animal Relief (16.2) is available even in a Penalty Area.  "Normal" relief under 16.1 isn't.  I don't read that 16.2 relief is limited to animals on the course, only that the ball itself must be on the course.  I'm not sure that an irate homeowner would qualify, but a dog might.

As for 16.1 relief in this situation, you'd have to evaluate whether a left-handed stance is "clearly unreasonable".  Given that you are prohibited (by the homeowner, not the RoG) from standing OB, the left-handed play seems reasonable to me, and that would put your feet on the cart path.  .  

 

 

Let's stick with dogs as humans under the rules are not considered an animal. You don't get relief from humans.

 

Animal

Any living member of the animal kingdom (other than humans), including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates (such as worms, insects, spiders and crustaceans).

 

I see what you are saying - if you read 16.2 in isolation I can see how you would decide you get relief as it does not mention course but....If read all of Rule 16 and the definitions I come up with different conclusion.  Rule is 16 called Relief from Abnormal Course Conditions. A dangerous animal falls under this rule.

 

The definition of course is:

Course

The entire area of play within the edge of any boundaries set by the Committee:

• All areas inside the boundary edge are in bounds and part of the course.

• All areas outside the boundary edge are out of bounds and not part of the course.

• The boundary edge extends both up above the ground and down below the ground.

The course is made up of the five defined areas of the course.

 

By definition a dangerous animal off the course, is not an abnormal course condition in my view. It is an abnormal condition off the course. 

 

If the animal has the potential to enter the course I would agree you get free relief.

 

I will admit I not resolute on my view here and look forward to some debate.

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

Let's stick with dogs as humans under the rules are not considered an animal. You don't get relief from humans.

 

Animal

Any living member of the animal kingdom (other than humans), including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates (such as worms, insects, spiders and crustaceans).

 

I see what you are saying - if you read 16.2 in isolation I can see how you would decide you get relief as it does not mention course but....If read all of Rule 16 and the definitions I come up with different conclusion.  Rule is 16 called Relief from Abnormal Course Conditions. A dangerous animal falls under this rule.

 

The definition of course is:

Course

The entire area of play within the edge of any boundaries set by the Committee:

• All areas inside the boundary edge are in bounds and part of the course.

• All areas outside the boundary edge are out of bounds and not part of the course.

• The boundary edge extends both up above the ground and down below the ground.

The course is made up of the five defined areas of the course.

 

By definition a dangerous animal off the course, is not an abnormal course condition in my view. It is an abnormal condition off the course. 

 

If the animal has the potential to enter the course I would agree you get free relief.

 

I will admit I not resolute on my view here and look forward to some debate.

The full title of Rule 16 is:

"Rule 16 - Relief from Abnormal Course Conditions (Including Immovable Obstructions), Dangerous Animal Condition, Embedded Ball"

Each of these three Rules, for ACC, for Dangerous Animals, and for Embedded Balls, has its own limitations on when Relief is allowed, set out in subsection "a" of each of the three rules.  16.1a(2) does require the ACC to be on the Course, not Out of Bounds.  16.2a has no similar limitation requiring the Dangerous Animal to be on the Course.

[Double Mocha Man]

6 hours ago, AzRoger said:

... that's the only way you'll ever stop people from stepping on your property.

 

Full bore "Get off my lawn" kinda guy.  He's probably watching his stupid lawn 14 hours a day...

[Double Mocha Man]

6 hours ago, caniac6 said:

You would think a guy with a bunker in his yard would be a bit more tolerant.

 

😃  I did a double-take.  the OP must be a lefty...

[abh00]

How would this be any different than the drop spieth got to take a few weeks ago after duck hooking one 180 against the fence having to take a lefty stance and got a free drop because his lefty stance he  was standing on the cart path?

Edited March 26 by abh00

[llewol007]

It’s the same as if there was a boundary fence and your ball is in but you would not be able to take a normal stance. You either chip it in play back wards or you take an unplayable and take a stroke penalty and drop back no closer to the hole .

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

The full title of Rule 16 is:

"Rule 16 - Relief from Abnormal Course Conditions (Including Immovable Obstructions), Dangerous Animal Condition, Embedded Ball"

Each of these three Rules, for ACC, for Dangerous Animals, and for Embedded Balls, has its own limitations on when Relief is allowed, set out in subsection "a" of each of the three rules.  16.1a(2) does require the ACC to be on the Course, not Out of Bounds.  16.2a has no similar limitation requiring the Dangerous Animal to be on the Course.

I just can't get my head around the idea that the rules of golf can be applied to what is off the course and only off the course. You just don't see this in any other areas of the rules. I concede the text of 16.2a alone infers your are correct, I just don't think in the context of the rules of golf it is. The situation is pretty niche so this is more philosophical than practical, but fun to dive into.

 

To the OP's issue. I can't see him getting free relief - a human is not animal under rules of golf so that is out and 16.1 is very clear it only applies to what is on the course. The property owner forbid him from standing on his lawn, to me that is the same as if the house was built right up to the property line. You can stand there and it is OB - you have not entitlement to a stance OB.