Relief from contoured slope leading into drainage grate? - Page 2

Is the branch touching the sand? If not, it is not in the bunker. 

However, as you are away, you may remove it. Your opponent may have it replaced before his stroke if he wishes.

If it is in the bunker and you were not away, your removing it would probably fall foul of an equity ruling re decisions 13-2/33 and 33-7/7

What is a sand hazard by the way? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360 

Yes.

 

Curious how you would rule in this situation.  Match play.  My ball is on the edge, but outside of a sand hazard.  My opponent is in the sand hazard.  I am away.  There is a loose branch obstructing my opponent's ball but a portion of the branch is also obstructing my ball.  I should be able to remove the branch because to me it is loose impediment.  My opponent is not entitled to move the branch because his ball lies in the bunker.  If I move the branch for my shot does it get replaced for HIS shot, or does my relief from the loose impediment end up giving HM relief from his, even though he would not have otherwise been entitled to relief.

 

Thanks.

You are free to remove the loose impediment, and he just benefits from some good fortune.   The rules say that a player is entitled to the lie that his stroke gave him, but in a situation like this, he isn't required to recreate it.  If the branch somehow offered a benefit, then he could replace it after your stroke, but I can't imagine a case where I would do so.  

It's a bit more difficult to rule if the player in the bunker is away, but you have a legitimate reason for playing first.  He may have crossed the fairway help a fellow competitor in a ball search, but your group is out of position and you decide to play before helping with the search.  You move the branch thinking of nothing but the pace of play concern, but now you have also improperly improved his lie.  I think that intent has to come into the ruling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 
It's a bit more difficult to rule if the player in the bunker is away, but you have a legitimate reason for playing first.  He may have crossed the fairway help a fellow competitor in a ball search, but your group is out of position and you decide to play before helping with the search.  You move the branch thinking of nothing but the pace of play concern, but now you have also improperly improved his lie.  I think that intent has to come into the ruling.

Why? And what's intent got to do with this? As you say, he did it without thinking, i.e. without intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 
It's a bit more difficult to rule if the player in the bunker is away, but you have a legitimate reason for playing first.  He may have crossed the fairway help a fellow competitor in a ball search, but your group is out of position and you decide to play before helping with the search.  You move the branch thinking of nothing but the pace of play concern, but now you have also improperly improved his lie.  I think that intent has to come into the ruling.

 

Why? And what's intent got to do with this? As you say, he did it without thinking, i.e. without intent.

My point is that he did it with the intent of facilitating adherence to another rule (pace of play), and thus the etiquette issue that Rulesman raised should not be considered in the ruling.  There was no breach of etiquette, nor any intent to do so.  

Had he moved the branch with the same thought, but then realized that there was no reason to be concerned with pace of play because the group in front of them was still in range, then that new point should be considered.  It probably won't change the ruling, but it's just another factor that must be weighed by a rules official in making a decision.  

If he had no reason to move it early, but did so to help his fellow competitor just because he's a nice guy, then he is guilty of a breach of etiquette for giving his FC an unfair advantage over the field, and the case should be presented to the committee for adjudication.  In such a case the FC would not be penalized unless it was a conspiracy, only the player who moved the stick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree 

I could imagine a similar situation with a sunk sprinkler head where I have seen a 6 inch or so area around the sprinkler head where the turf has been cut away.  What would be the ruling if a ball (or player's foot) was sitting a few inches from the sprinkler head below the level of the surrounding grass but where the sprinkler head itself was not actually interfering with your swing or stance.

Quick question regarding this one:  I realize that some have already answered that they believe the dirt depression around the actual sprinkler head would NOT be considered an obstruction.  But let's say I'm playing a round and none of us are 100% sure if that is the correct ruling.  And, let's say my ball is up against the "lip" of this depression such that I want to take a drop for an unplayable lie.

It's my understanding that any time that you are unsure of what the ruling is, that you just play it both ways, and then ask a rules official at the end.  In this case, it's going to be either a free drop from an immovable obstruction, or a drop with penalty for an unplayable lie.  Either way, I'm dropping in the same place, so my question is, do I actually have to play two separate balls?  Or can I just play the one ball, and find out later if I have to add the unplayable lie stroke to my total or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree 

I could imagine a similar situation with a sunk sprinkler head where I have seen a 6 inch or so area around the sprinkler head where the turf has been cut away.  What would be the ruling if a ball (or player's foot) was sitting a few inches from the sprinkler head below the level of the surrounding grass but where the sprinkler head itself was not actually interfering with your swing or stance.

Quick question regarding this one:  I realize that some have already answered that they believe the dirt depression around the actual sprinkler head would NOT be considered an obstruction.  But let's say I'm playing a round and none of us are 100% sure if that is the correct ruling.  And, let's say my ball is up against the "lip" of this depression such that I want to take a drop for an unplayable lie.

 

It's my understanding that any time that you are unsure of what the ruling is, that you just play it both ways, and then ask a rules official at the end.  In this case, it's going to be either a free drop from an immovable obstruction, or a drop with penalty for an unplayable lie.  Either way, I'm dropping in the same place, so my question is, do I actually have to play two separate balls?  Or can I just play the one ball, and find out later if I have to add the unplayable lie stroke to my total or not?

Your options for relief are slightly different under Rule 28 (ball unplayable - you get 2 clublengths from the point where the ball lies for option c) than they are under Rule 24 (Obstructions - 1 clublength from the nearest point of relief - NPR must be established before measuring for the 1 clublength).   In some cases this can result in a very different drop location.  I would recommend playing 2 balls, one under each rule, and let the committee decide.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a sprinkler with a lip around the depression which was far enough away from the obstruction that it wouldn't interfere in some way and qualify for relief under Rule 24.  What is most common is a smooth depression in the grass which isn't that hard to hit from anyway.

Thanks for those who gave an opinion on my hypothetical.  Just a couple of clarifications.  I did specify that I was away, and I specified that it was match play, so I was obligated to play first.  So in this case, if I am understanding the responses, is that I am entitled to move the branch but then my opponent gets the benefit of that as well.

What if I am a REAL SOB (I'm not) and when I move the branch I move it to right over his ball.  He is still entitled to the lie he had, so I imagine he can move the branch after I make my stroke, but he would have to move it back to where it was, which was interfering with his stroke.  Would that give me the ability to get relief without giving him relief?  (No I would never do this in practice but I find the interplay of the various rules interesting.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

Your options for relief are slightly different under Rule 28 (ball unplayable - you get 2 clublengths from the point where the ball lies for option c) than they are under Rule 24 (Obstructions - 1 clublength from the nearest point of relief - NPR must be established before measuring for the 1 clublength).   In some cases this can result in a very different drop location.  I would recommend playing 2 balls, one under each rule, and let the committee decide.

 

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a sprinkler with a lip around the depression which was far enough away from the obstruction that it wouldn't interfere in some way and qualify for relief under Rule 24.  What is most common is a smooth depression in the grass which isn't that hard to hit from anyway.

Thanks.  (I agree with Turtleback above that although some of this stuff is unlikely to happen, the interplay of the various rules is fascinating)

And, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen that type of sprinkler head on a golf course either.  (A lot of people have those in their home yards, but that's because they have different and smaller type sprinklers)

Now, what IF it is determined that the drop areas overlap, can you then just play one ball as both options, or would you still recommend two separate balls?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

Your options for relief are slightly different under Rule 28 (ball unplayable - you get 2 clublengths from the point where the ball lies for option c) than they are under Rule 24 (Obstructions - 1 clublength from the nearest point of relief - NPR must be established before measuring for the 1 clublength).   In some cases this can result in a very different drop location.  I would recommend playing 2 balls, one under each rule, and let the committee decide.

 

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a sprinkler with a lip around the depression which was far enough away from the obstruction that it wouldn't interfere in some way and qualify for relief under Rule 24.  What is most common is a smooth depression in the grass which isn't that hard to hit from anyway.

Thanks.  (I agree with Turtleback above that although some of this stuff is unlikely to happen, the interplay of the various rules is fascinating)

 

And, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen that type of sprinkler head on a golf course either.  (A lot of people have those in their home yards, but that's because they have different and smaller type sprinklers)

 

Now, what IF it is determined that the drop areas overlap, can you then just play one ball as both options, or would you still recommend two separate balls?

I would still play 2 balls.  That is what is required under Rule 3-3, and trying to shortcut it can only lead to problems.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

I would still play 2 balls.  That is what is required under Rule 3-3, and trying to shortcut it can only lead to problems.  

Good to know .. thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

Thanks for those who gave an opinion on my hypothetical.  Just a couple of clarifications.  I did specify that I was away, and I specified that it was match play, so I was obligated to play first.  So in this case, if I am understanding the responses, is that I am entitled to move the branch but then my opponent gets the benefit of that as well.

 

What if I am a REAL SOB (I'm not) and when I move the branch I move it to right over his ball.  He is still entitled to the lie he had, so I imagine he can move the branch after I make my stroke, but he would have to move it back to where it was, which was interfering with his stroke.  Would that give me the ability to get relief without giving him relief?  (No I would never do this in practice but I find the interplay of the various rules interesting.)

He would not have to move it back, although he may if he wishes. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

 

He would not have to move it back, although he may if he wishes. 

I understand that, but if he chooses not to move it back then is he stuck with where I put it, interfering with his ball?

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

 

He would not have to move it back, although he may if he wishes. 

I understand that, but if he chooses not to move it back then is he stuck with where I put it, interfering with his ball?

He's still entitled the lie his stroke gave him.  If that is better than what you did then yes, he can recreate the original lie.  

And If that's how you do things, I'm not sure I want to play with you. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

I understand that, but if he chooses not to move it back then is he stuck with where I put it, interfering with his ball?

I would say not.

Further, if you deliberately moved it so that it interfered with his play then I suggest you would be up for a breach of 1-2 with a possible DQ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

He's still entitled the lie his stroke gave him.  If that is better than what you did then yes, he can recreate the original lie.  

 

And If that's how you do things, I'm not sure I want to play with you. 

I wouldn't want to play with me either if I did that.   

But the question fascinates me, for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

 

I would say not.

Further, if you deliberately moved it so that it interfered with his play then I suggest you would be up for a breach of 1-2 with a possible DQ.

How so if I am essentially leaving his with the same kind of lie he had originally?  It is not as I I am am moving the branch from where it does nto interfere to where it does interfere. 

I'm really curious now.  I think I'm going to email the scga rules folks and ask them.

Why not try the USGA? They are the ultimate authority. The SCGA cannot give a definitive answer.

Keep us posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

Why not try the USGA? They are the ultimate authority. The SCGA cannot give a definitive answer.

Keep us posted.

I dunno, they are my regional golf association - the one through which my club is affiliated to ghin.  Plus, they are the one whose email address is in my address book.