Hi All

Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new 
there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence 
which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I 
decided I got relief from an immovable object.

It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not 
feel we had to involve higher authority.

Were we right?

psychman

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 21:07, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief.


This information, that wasn't included in your original question,
alters the situation.

Decision 13-2/20 covers it.

On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> tho' so justice was done!

Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
no matter how much it leans over.

--
"Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> 
>>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Were we right?
>>
>>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>>
>>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>>
>>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
>>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
>>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
>>tho' so justice was done!
> 
> 
> Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> no matter how much it leans over.
> 
> --
> "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
> 


I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions 
('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an 
obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision 
13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!

Somebody should fill in a form or something!

cheers
david

On 11 Jun, 11:34, david s-a  wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> >>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>Were we right?
>
> >>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>
> >>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> >>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> >>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> >>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> >>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> >>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> >>tho' so justice was done!
>
> > Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> > situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> > imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> > boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> > doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> > oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> > no matter how much it leans over.
>
> > --
> > "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
>
> I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions
> ('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an
> obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision
> 13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!
>

I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.

Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.

johnty wrote:


> 
> I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
> leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
> upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
> only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.
> 
> Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.
>

Of course, I see now,  I'm reading the Definition 'part b' with quite 
the opposite meaning to what it actually says! I'm reading that the 
immovable object is out of bounds...and any part of it that is in bounds 
is an exception and therefore not an 'obstruction'. Silly me!

  What it actually refers to is any 'out of bounds' part (of an 'in 
bounds' immovable obstruction). I had it quite the other way round!

Thanks JH
david

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 21:07, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief.


This information, that wasn't included in your original question,
alters the situation.

Decision 13-2/20 covers it.

On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> tho' so justice was done!

Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
no matter how much it leans over.

--
"Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> 
>>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Were we right?
>>
>>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>>
>>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>>
>>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
>>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
>>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
>>tho' so justice was done!
> 
> 
> Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> no matter how much it leans over.
> 
> --
> "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
> 


I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions 
('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an 
obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision 
13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!

Somebody should fill in a form or something!

cheers
david

On 11 Jun, 11:34, david s-a  wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> >>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>Were we right?
>
> >>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>
> >>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> >>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> >>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> >>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> >>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> >>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> >>tho' so justice was done!
>
> > Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> > situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> > imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> > boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> > doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> > oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> > no matter how much it leans over.
>
> > --
> > "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
>
> I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions
> ('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an
> obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision
> 13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!
>

I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.

Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.

johnty wrote:


> 
> I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
> leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
> upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
> only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.
> 
> Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.
>

Of course, I see now,  I'm reading the Definition 'part b' with quite 
the opposite meaning to what it actually says! I'm reading that the 
immovable object is out of bounds...and any part of it that is in bounds 
is an exception and therefore not an 'obstruction'. Silly me!

  What it actually refers to is any 'out of bounds' part (of an 'in 
bounds' immovable obstruction). I had it quite the other way round!

Thanks JH
david

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 21:07, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief.


This information, that wasn't included in your original question,
alters the situation.

Decision 13-2/20 covers it.

On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> tho' so justice was done!

Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
no matter how much it leans over.

--
"Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> 
>>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Were we right?
>>
>>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>>
>>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>>
>>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
>>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
>>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
>>tho' so justice was done!
> 
> 
> Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> no matter how much it leans over.
> 
> --
> "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
> 


I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions 
('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an 
obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision 
13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!

Somebody should fill in a form or something!

cheers
david

On 11 Jun, 11:34, david s-a  wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> >>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>Were we right?
>
> >>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>
> >>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> >>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> >>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> >>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> >>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> >>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> >>tho' so justice was done!
>
> > Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> > situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> > imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> > boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> > doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> > oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> > no matter how much it leans over.
>
> > --
> > "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
>
> I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions
> ('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an
> obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision
> 13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!
>

I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.

Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.

johnty wrote:


> 
> I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
> leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
> upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
> only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.
> 
> Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.
>

Of course, I see now,  I'm reading the Definition 'part b' with quite 
the opposite meaning to what it actually says! I'm reading that the 
immovable object is out of bounds...and any part of it that is in bounds 
is an exception and therefore not an 'obstruction'. Silly me!

  What it actually refers to is any 'out of bounds' part (of an 'in 
bounds' immovable obstruction). I had it quite the other way round!

Thanks JH
david

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 21:07, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief.


This information, that wasn't included in your original question,
alters the situation.

Decision 13-2/20 covers it.

On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> tho' so justice was done!

Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
no matter how much it leans over.

--
"Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> 
>>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Were we right?
>>
>>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>>
>>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>>
>>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
>>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
>>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
>>tho' so justice was done!
> 
> 
> Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> no matter how much it leans over.
> 
> --
> "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
> 


I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions 
('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an 
obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision 
13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!

Somebody should fill in a form or something!

cheers
david

On 11 Jun, 11:34, david s-a  wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> >>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>Were we right?
>
> >>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>
> >>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> >>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> >>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> >>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> >>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> >>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> >>tho' so justice was done!
>
> > Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> > situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> > imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> > boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> > doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> > oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> > no matter how much it leans over.
>
> > --
> > "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
>
> I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions
> ('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an
> obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision
> 13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!
>

I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.

Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.

johnty wrote:


> 
> I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
> leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
> upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
> only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.
> 
> Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.
>

Of course, I see now,  I'm reading the Definition 'part b' with quite 
the opposite meaning to what it actually says! I'm reading that the 
immovable object is out of bounds...and any part of it that is in bounds 
is an exception and therefore not an 'obstruction'. Silly me!

  What it actually refers to is any 'out of bounds' part (of an 'in 
bounds' immovable obstruction). I had it quite the other way round!

Thanks JH
david

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 21:07, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief.


This information, that wasn't included in your original question,
alters the situation.

Decision 13-2/20 covers it.

On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> tho' so justice was done!

Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
no matter how much it leans over.

--
"Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> 
>>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Were we right?
>>
>>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>>
>>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>>
>>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
>>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
>>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
>>tho' so justice was done!
> 
> 
> Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> no matter how much it leans over.
> 
> --
> "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
> 


I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions 
('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an 
obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision 
13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!

Somebody should fill in a form or something!

cheers
david

On 11 Jun, 11:34, david s-a  wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> >>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>Were we right?
>
> >>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>
> >>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> >>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> >>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> >>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> >>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> >>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> >>tho' so justice was done!
>
> > Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> > situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> > imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> > boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> > doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> > oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> > no matter how much it leans over.
>
> > --
> > "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
>
> I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions
> ('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an
> obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision
> 13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!
>

I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.

Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.

johnty wrote:


> 
> I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
> leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
> upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
> only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.
> 
> Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.
>

Of course, I see now,  I'm reading the Definition 'part b' with quite 
the opposite meaning to what it actually says! I'm reading that the 
immovable object is out of bounds...and any part of it that is in bounds 
is an exception and therefore not an 'obstruction'. Silly me!

  What it actually refers to is any 'out of bounds' part (of an 'in 
bounds' immovable obstruction). I had it quite the other way round!

Thanks JH
david

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:07:23 GMT, "psychman" 
wrote:

>
>"John Laird"  wrote in message 
>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Were we right?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>> obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>> are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
>tho' so justice was done!
>
>Psychman
>

You might examine Decision 24/2.  I think you will find it supports
your procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

psychman wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message 
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>>>Were we right?
>>>
>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
> 
> 
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
> 
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
> tho' so justice was done!
> 
> Psychman
> 
> 


I think you misunderstood John's reply......and to clarify this.....;

 From the 'Definitions', and your description, the fence is presumably 
'immovable' itself and the bit leaning in bounds is a "..part of an 
*immovable* artificial object that is out of bounds...". Thus it is NOT 
an 'obstruction' and Rule 24-2 does NOT apply....so there is NO relief 
available under the rules.

However, if the fence, out of bounds, WAS moveable then the 'bit 
interfering with the player's stance (or area of swing)', or even the 
fence itself, could have been moved (Decision 24-1/3)......Farmer George 
would probably have disagreed with this.....he considering his fence to 
be of the 'fixed' or immovable variety, and at best something to lean 
on! All you could do here is actually move it...there is no free drop 
relief under Rule 24-1.

Any clearer now?

David

On 10 Jun, 21:07, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief.


This information, that wasn't included in your original question,
alters the situation.

Decision 13-2/20 covers it.

On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> "John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Were we right?
>
> >> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> > To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> > are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> tho' so justice was done!

Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
no matter how much it leans over.

--
"Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."

John Laird wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
> 
>>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Were we right?
>>
>>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>>
>>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
>>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>>
>>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>>
>>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
>>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
>>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
>>tho' so justice was done!
> 
> 
> Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> no matter how much it leans over.
> 
> --
> "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
> 


I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions 
('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an 
obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision 
13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!

Somebody should fill in a form or something!

cheers
david

On 11 Jun, 11:34, david s-a  wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:07 pm, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> >>"John Laird"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>Were we right?
>
> >>>>Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> >>>>obstruction.  No relief.
>
> >>>To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> >>>are at the front of the Rules booklet.
>
> >>Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....
>
> >>In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question
> >>belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit
> >>that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points
> >>tho' so justice was done!
>
> > Johnty, as ever, has pinpointed a decision which exactly covers this
> > situation.  You were correct to take free relief.  You were also,
> > imho, lucky !  The fence sounds as if it is the natural course
> > boundary but white posts have presumably been added to remove any
> > doubt caused by the state of the fence itself.  Had it remained as the
> > oob defining structure, then there is no relief from any part of it,
> > no matter how much it leans over.
>
> > --
> > "Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk."
>
> I see a clash of reasoning here.....according to the Definitions
> ('Obstruction'- part 'b') the bit leaning in bounds is NOT an
> obstruction, and therefore Rule 24-2b cannot apply. However, Decision
> 13-2/20 appears to directly contradict this!
>

I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.

Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.

johnty wrote:


> 
> I don't see a contradiction.  A part of an oob artificial object that
> leans over on to the course is not out of bounds (margins extend
> upwards, etc) and thus becomes an obstruction by definition - part b
> only applies the the part that remains outside the boundary.
> 
> Dec 24/2 shows the same principle.
>

Of course, I see now,  I'm reading the Definition 'part b' with quite 
the opposite meaning to what it actually says! I'm reading that the 
immovable object is out of bounds...and any part of it that is in bounds 
is an exception and therefore not an 'obstruction'. Silly me!

  What it actually refers to is any 'out of bounds' part (of an 'in 
bounds' immovable obstruction). I had it quite the other way round!

Thanks JH
david

On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> Were we right?
>

Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
obstruction.  No relief.

On Jun 10, 7:26 pm, johnty  wrote:
> On 10 Jun, 17:30, "psychman"  wrote:
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Playing at a new course in a comp, I hit my ball towards O/B (nothing new
> > there). It came to rest in bounds, just, but my swing was impeded by a fence
> > which was out of bounds. After much humming and ha-ing my 2 partners and I
> > decided I got relief from an immovable object.
>
> > It was a Stableford comp, and since nul points was the outcome we did not
> > feel we had to involve higher authority.
>
> > Were we right?
>
> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
> obstruction.  No relief.

To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
are at the front of the Rules booklet.

--
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket ?"

"John Laird"  wrote in message 
news:1181504776.058252.229360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Were we right?
>>
>> Sorry, no. A fence out of bounds (or an out of bounds fence) is not an
>> obstruction.  No relief.
>
> To clarify, this is in the definition of an obstruction - definitions
> are at the front of the Rules booklet.

Glad to have that clarified........ or not.....

In this case the OB was defined by white posts. The fence in question 
belonged to Farmer George and was of the wobbly very old variety. The bit 
that got in my way was leaning in bounds. Hence relief. Still nul points 
tho' so justice was done!

Psychman

On