A friend hit the ball left on his tee shot. It landed so close to the out of bounds fence that it got in the way of his shot. He took a drop (closer to the hole) and said it didn't count as a stroke because the fence was "man made". I disagree, but am not sure what the real rule is.

Thanks!

J

You can't drop closer to the hole.

However, I do believe you get a club length from the fence as long as your ball is in bounds. If it's on the other side of the fence, it's a stroke and distance penalty.

I think a fence that defines out of bounds is not considered an "obstruction" and therefore one does not get relief. One either plays it as it lies or declare it unplayable and take relief (with the appropriate 1 stroke penalty) under that provision.

This question comes up a lot. If the fence is just a decorative item (e.g. a little rail fence along a flower bed) then one typically gets relief as an immovable obstruction without penalty. However, boundary fences almost always define OB and as such one gets no relief.

Here is part of a USGA decision:

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."

This is another one of those rules that I think is stupid.

If my ball comes to rest next to a white OB stake, I can pull out the stake to get relief from it. But when OB is marked by a fence, not being able to take relief from the fence interfering with my swing even though my ball is in bounds is, IMHO, just plain stupid.

Bryan K wrote:

This is another one of those rules that I think is stupid. If my ball comes to rest next to a white OB stake, I can pull out the stake to get relief from it. But when OB is marked by a fence, not being able to take relief from the fence interfering with my swing even though my ball is in bounds is, IMHO, just plain stupid.

Actually, you are not supposed to move out of bounds stakes. Stakes defining a hazard are okay to move but stakes defining OB are considered fixed objects. You would need to take a penalty if you move an OB stake.

USGA (definition of Obstruction):
Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

I'd check the scorecard for the course. It may be declared on the card as a "local rule" that relief is given from the fence. It may also be that the fence is not defining out-of-bounds, but the course itself.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

Bryan K wrote: This is another one of those rules that I think is stupid. If my ball comes to rest next to a white OB stake, I can pull out the stake to get relief from it. But when OB is marked by a fence, not being able to take relief from the fence interfering with my swing even though my ball is in bounds is, IMHO, just plain stupid. Actually, you are not supposed to move out of bounds stakes. Stakes defining a hazard are okay to move but stakes defining OB are considered fixed objects. You would need to take a penalty if you move an OB stake. USGA (definition of Obstruction): Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

I guess that makes a little more sense. As long as the rule is consistent.

How about a fence that is part of a person's yard when the yard is marked as being OOB by signs/scorecard? If I'm in bounds a couple of feet from that fence, am I allowed to take relief?

Bryan K wrote:

How about a fence that is part of a person's yard when the yard is marked as being OOB by signs/scorecard? If I'm in bounds a couple of feet from that fence, am I allowed to take relief?

The USGA states in their Decisions:

24-2b/21 Interference by Immovable Artificial Object Situated Out of Bounds
Q. An immovable artificial object situated out of bounds interferes with a player's swing. May the player obtain relief as provided in Rule 24-2b?
A. No. Immovable artificial objects off the course are not obstructions (see Definition of "Obstructions"); therefore, the Rules provide no relief

It seems that we get no relief from the fence even though it is not part of the course. Your question was a good one and the only reason I knew where to look is I noted the "Decision" when looking for the answer to the first question.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

Bryan K wrote: How about a fence that is part of a person's yard when the yard is marked as being OOB by signs/scorecard? If I'm in bounds a couple of feet from that fence, am I allowed to take relief? The USGA states in their Decisions: 24-2b/21 Interference by Immovable Artificial Object Situated Out of Bounds Q. An immovable artificial object situated out of bounds interferes with a player's swing. May the player obtain relief as provided in Rule 24-2b? A. No. Immovable artificial objects off the course are not obstructions (see Definition of "Obstructions"); therefore, the Rules provide no relief It seems that we get no relief from the fence even though it is not part of the course. Your question was a good one and the only reason I knew where to look is I noted the "Decision" when looking for the answer to the first question.

Now this rule is, indeed, stupid. I can understand if OOB markers are not to be considered "obstructions" (even though I disagree with it), but I think it is rather ridiculous to define obstructions two different ways depending on whether they are in bounds or out of bounds.

A fence ON the course is an obstruction. But a fence that is six inches off the course isn't an obstruction because...um...it isn't on the course?

Makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems as if someone needs to go through the golf rule book and make it make sense.

i think that`s where the OOB in oobgolf comes from, out of bounds.

player wrote:

i think that`s where the OOB in oobgolf comes from, out of bounds.

Try again.

http://www.oobgolf.com/aboutus.php

mjaber wrote:

player wrote: i think that`s where the OOB in oobgolf comes from, out of bounds. Try again. http://www.oobgolf.com/aboutus.php

Sweet. From now on, I'm going to call it "hole, ball, club golf dot com".

i think the rule is fair. you hit the ball somewhere your not suppose to penalty. i dont think he was aiming for the fence bad swing sometimes results in a penalty. this is golf there are rule. Bkuehn i would like to play with someone who has as much knowledge about the rules as you do.

Banker85 wrote:

i think the rule is fair. you hit the ball somewhere your not suppose to penalty. i dont think he was aiming for the fence bad swing sometimes results in a penalty. this is golf there are rule. Bkuehn i would like to play with someone who has as much knowledge about the rules as you do.

Rules that don't make sense (i.e. aren't consistent) need to be changed. Period.

I love the game of golf, but I have very little respect for the rulebook. The result when people have no respect for the rulebook is that people break the rules.

That's why I don't think twice about people who break rules in my group on the course. How can you expect everyone to follow a stupid rulebook?

See the thing is that i think that rule is very consistent. While one fence is ok and another isn't - i don't think that's inconsistent because of where the fence lies. I think if it said "white split rail fences are free drops and log built breastwork fences are not considered a free drop" that would be inconsistent. I just think there's a lot of course out there and a million other places the ball can be hit other than very near to an OB fence. I mean, we're not talking about OB fences that come back onto the hole by 20 yards and then go out again. right? just my opinion. I've been on both sides of this ruling, and yes it's tough when you've got a shot but can barely (or not at all) take a stance because of one of those obstructions.