On course, OB question

[Augster]

Hey, on course

 

 

Card says OB is "fence on 13". Is that ball OB? I'd say yes as the Posts are holding up the fence but I'd like your ruling.

 

Thanks.

 

I should add if you line up the course side line from post to post it's clearly over that line.

[Augster]

I should add if one draws a line from the course side of the posts, the ball is clearly over that line

[augustgolf]

I'd say that this is why there are so many problems making valid, sensible rulings on a golf course.

 

Vague, completely mis-interpretable (if that is a word) definitions as to what is, or isn't, OB/water hazard, GUR, etc

 

I would say that the FENCE itself is OB, and that the ball, as we see it, is not OB, however, as per the rule, there is no relief from the stakes/posts/whatever defining the OB

[BrianMcG]

No. The ball has to be on the other side of the fence. It doesn't say "in line with the fence posts is ob. "

[YoungJedi]

As long as the ball is on the course (in this case), it's in bounds. It would have to be on the other side of the fence to be OB.

 

However, you do not get free relief from this man made obstruction because it's OB. You'd have to take an unplayable, or hit it left handed and hope for the best.

[SNIPERBBB]

Posts are not fences. Unless of course the posts themselves are painted white then likely you are O B.

 

LRAMBF

[Augster]

Thanks for the responses so far.you are correct in that there is no white paint on the posts and the card does. Ow mention the posts. Only the "fence".

 

Thanks.

[HitEmTrue]

The ball is OB. The definition of OB is very clear, but just to drive the point home:

 

Q.In view of the Definition of "Out of Bounds," is it correct to say that, if the posts of a boundary fence are on the golf course side of the fence, the diameter of the posts is greater than the diameter of a golf ball and the fence is straight, a ball lying against the inside of the fence would be out of bounds?

 

A.Yes.

[Augster]

Hitem, thanks very much. I can't find the decisions while I'm walking out here but it thought I remembered one.

 

Thanks for finding that.

[Stuart_G]

I would have got it wrong, but upon closer inspection, if you look carefully, it's in the definitions - don't really need the decision.

 

When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points at ground level of the stakes or fence posts (excluding angled supports).

[Shilgy]

One of the rules the USGA should look at in an effort to simplify the things imo. If the scorecard says the fence defines the ob 90%(yes I made that up) of players would call that ball in bounds. So if we are playing a club event only those players that really know the rules would have stroke and distance applied in this example. As we can see from the responses in this thread many consider that ball in bounds and would continue on their merry way.

I realize the definition is such in the rule book but to most people a fence is the actual fencing-not the posts.

[LeoLeo99]

The ball is OB. The definition of OB is very clear, but just to drive the point home:

 

Q.In view of the Definition of "Out of Bounds," is it correct to say that, if the posts of a boundary fence are on the golf course side of the fence, the diameter of the posts is greater than the diameter of a golf ball and the fence is straight, a ball lying against the inside of the fence would be out of bounds?

 

A.Yes.

 

The ball in the picture above is not lying against the inside of the fence.

[Shilgy]

The ball is OB. The definition of OB is very clear, but just to drive the point home:

 

Q.In view of the Definition of "Out of Bounds," is it correct to say that, if the posts of a boundary fence are on the golf course side of the fence, the diameter of the posts is greater than the diameter of a golf ball and the fence is straight, a ball lying against the inside of the fence would be out of bounds?

 

A.Yes.

 

The ball in the picture above is not lying against the inside of the fence.

But the application of the decision still applies. The ball is completely within the diameter of the posts.

[LeoLeo99]

The ball is OB. The definition of OB is very clear, but just to drive the point home:

 

Q.In view of the Definition of "Out of Bounds," is it correct to say that, if the posts of a boundary fence are on the golf course side of the fence, the diameter of the posts is greater than the diameter of a golf ball and the fence is straight, a ball lying against the inside of the fence would be out of bounds?

 

A.Yes.

 

The ball in the picture above is not lying against the inside of the fence.

But the application of the decision still applies. The ball is completely within the diameter of the posts.

 

I'm not following. The fence is OB. The ball is several inches away from the fence. It's not touching the fence, hence I don't see the applicability of the decision.

[HitEmTrue]

I'm not following. The fence is OB. The ball is several inches away from the fence. It's not touching the fence, hence I don't see the applicability of the decision.

 

Stuart quoted the definition of OB in post #10. The decision simply gives an example of applying the definition.

[Stuart_G]

The ball is OB. The definition of OB is very clear, but just to drive the point home:

 

Q.In view of the Definition of "Out of Bounds," is it correct to say that, if the posts of a boundary fence are on the golf course side of the fence, the diameter of the posts is greater than the diameter of a golf ball and the fence is straight, a ball lying against the inside of the fence would be out of bounds?

 

A.Yes.

 

The ball in the picture above is not lying against the inside of the fence.

But the application of the decision still applies. The ball is completely within the diameter of the posts.

 

I'm not following. The fence is OB. The ball is several inches away from the fence. It's not touching the fence, hence I don't see the applicability of the decision.

 

In both cases the ball is completely outside the line that defines OB - which is defined as the course side of the posts. In the decision we know this because the ball is touching the fence and the posts have a larger diameter than the ball so all of the ball must be OOB. In the OP picture, the ball is not touching the fence but the posts have a very large diameter and we can make a close approximation visually. Although to be certain (since we can't see the post to the left of the ball in the picture) Augster would have to double check the ball position with respect the actual line connecting the course side of the posts.

[augustgolf]

So, in actuality, from this picture alone, no determination can be made of whether or not the ball is OB, since we do not have the reference point on the opposite of the ball from the one post that we are able to see.

 

Without that reference point, this ball is IN bounds.

[Augster]

As I made in my second post, if you line up a string, post to post, along the course side of the posts, (the posts are on the course side, I hooked it over there but that's neither here nor there), the ball is well over that line as those posts are about a foot thick.

 

 

[snoilr1]

The ball is OB. The definition of OB is very clear, but just to drive the point home:

 

Q.In view of the Definition of "Out of Bounds," is it correct to say that, if the posts of a boundary fence are on the golf course side of the fence, the diameter of the posts is greater than the diameter of a golf ball and the fence is straight, a ball lying against the inside of the fence would be out of bounds?

 

A.Yes.

 

The ball in the picture above is not lying against the inside of the fence.

But the application of the decision still applies. The ball is completely within the diameter of the posts.

 

I'm not following. The fence is OB. The ball is several inches away from the fence. It's not touching the fence, hence I don't see the applicability of the decision.

 

The fence is OB. The posts are part of the fence, so in this case because they are on the course side, a line between the backs of the posts marks OB, not the chain link side. That ball is laying 100% out.

 

The decision references the size of the posts because If the posts were smaller than a ball diameter, part of the ball would be in bounds if the ball came to rest against the fence. It just so happens that In this case the posts are so large, it leaves room to possibly hit a ball that's sitting within the post diameter, but that area is OB.

[LeoLeo99]

So if the fence is OB, then the fence posts are the actual OB stakes.

[HitEmTrue]

So if the fence is OB, then the fence posts are the actual OB stakes.

 

Yes. The condition of the bottom of a fence could lead to an ambiguous OB line. The chain link could be curled inward or outward, or be wavy shaped between posts, and not even touching the ground. The posts themslves, at ground level, provide consistent reference points even if the fence starts to lean one way or the other.

 

< edit >

This is an example where there rules are well-thought out. More than appears at first blush.

[Shilgy]

So if the fence is OB, then the fence posts are the actual OB stakes.

Yes, the inside(course side) of the post is the actual ob line.

[Newby]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary). The RBs don't seem to have recognised this and have created a piece of land that is owned by the courses owner but is not on the course.

 

If the fence is placed on the course side, the golfing problem is solved but it then gives rise to possible disputes of land titles.

 

Which is the most expensive problem to solve?

[HitEmTrue]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary).

 

If I lived on a course, the good side of the fence would be facing into my yard. Posts on the outside of my yard.

 

But I see what your getting at regarding property lines.

[rogolf]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary). The RBs don't seem to have recognised this and have created a piece of land that is owned by the courses owner but is not on the course.

 

If the fence is placed on the course side, the golfing problem is solved but it then gives rise to possible disputes of land titles.

 

Which is the most expensive problem to solve?

The "course" is defined by the Committee (Rule 33-2a) and is not required to coincide with the property lines of the golf club.

[LeoLeo99]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary).

 

If I lived on a course, the good side of the fence would be facing into my yard. Posts on the outside of my yard.

 

But I see what your getting at regarding property lines.

 

Depends on your state. In NJ the posts go on the inside. In PA the posts can go on the outside.

[Newby]

The problem arises because those landowners who want a fence, tend to place the stakes on their land and put the fence on the outside (ie on the land boundary). The RBs don't seem to have recognised this and have created a piece of land that is owned by the courses owner but is not on the course.

 

If the fence is placed on the course side, the golfing problem is solved but it then gives rise to possible disputes of land titles.

 

Which is the most expensive problem to solve?

The "course" is defined by the Committee (Rule 33-2a) and is not required to coincide with the property lines of the golf club.

 

That was the point of my post.

[HitEmTrue]

Depends on your state. In NJ the posts go on the inside. In PA the posts can go on the outside.

 

Interesting...here in Texas it would typically be a home owner's association that would require the good side to face out. Along a street, for example.

[Bush Pilot]

Wow, if that's OB and you have to walk back to the tee to hit your third, that's a big bowl of sh1t soup right there. Give me a break.

[rogolf]

Wow, if that's OB and you have to walk back to the tee to hit your third, that's a big bowl of sh1t soup right there. Give me a break.

 

He'd only have to return to the tee if he hadn't played a provisional ball. Bad luck starts somewhere.