Relief from contoured slope leading into drainage grate? - Page 4

OK, you guys convinced me. The gist is that since you are in compliance with the rules in moving the branch you are not subject to 1-2 under Exception 1.  IOW, if you move the branch so it no longer obstructs you but still obstructs your opponent you are fine.  Your opponent has the option of leaving the branch where you move it or moving it back to its original position.  I inferred that the key is that you did not disadvantage your opponent since the branch was already interfering with the ball.  So when you moved the branch so that it still interfered with his ball you were not disadvantaging him and you were operating in accordance with a specific rule.

They did not address the issue of what your obligation is in a stroke play competition in regard to protecting the field.  But they did say that if the player in the bunker asked the other player to move the branch he would be subject to DQ.  I would infer from this that I might have an obligation to move the branch so that it does not interfered with me while still interfering with the fellow competitor in order to protect the field.

Thanks, good info on R1-2.

It was an interesting hypothetical, but I think in the real world a branch that large which affected play both though the green and in a hazard would probably be removed by the committee before anyone got in your situation. 

As the legal recipient of the email you are now the owner. You are entitled to publish whatever you wish. 

The R&A are careful to include the following words in their disclaimer - If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take any action in reliance on this email.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

OK, you guys convinced me. The gist is that since you are in compliance with the rules in moving the branch you are not subject to 1-2 under Exception 1.  IOW, if you move the branch so it no longer obstructs you but still obstructs your opponent you are fine.  .

That part was never really a problem. It's what you or your opponent are permitted to do after you have played.

If you are reluctant to post the full text can you simply answer yes or no the three three questions you posed 1, 2a and 2b

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360 

Thanks, good info on R1-2.

 

It was an interesting hypothetical, but I think in the real world a branch that large which affected play both though the green and in a hazard would probably be removed by the committee before anyone got in your situation. 

Not necessarily.  I've seen branches only a foot long which still lie across the hazard line.  I've also seen branches 10 feet long which don't get removed for a day or two after a storm.  Not all courses can afford to send out a patrol each morning to look for downed branches, and often they never get removed from within the margin of a water hazard, especially if its a brushy and untended hazard.  The situation of a loose impediment lying both in and out of a hazard comes up more than you might think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

OK, I set it to them as well.  For the record, here is what I sent:

 

 

The format is match play

 

Player A's ball is away, and is on the edge, of but not in, a  bunker.

 

Player's B ball is in the same bunker.

 

There is a large branch lying partly in the bunker and partly outside of the bunker that interferes with both balls.

 

Since Player A's ball is outside of the bunker he is entitled to move the branch without penalty. 

 

Question 1:  If Player A moves the branch so that it does not interfere with his ball but also no longer interferes with Player B's ball, must player B replace the branch before playing his shot, since he was not entitled to relief from the loose impediment?

 

Question 2: If player A moves the branch so that it does not interfere with his ball but still interferes with Player B's ball:

 

    a) is it correct that Player B has the option of putting the branch back where it was originally, since he is entitled to the lie he he originally before Player A moved the branch?

    b) Did Player A breach any rule by moving the branch so that it no longer interfered with his ball but still interfered with Player B's ball?

 

I would also be interested in your thoughts should such a situation arise in a stroke play tournament, regarding Player A's responsibility to protect the field in how he proceeds.

 

Thank you.

 

 1)  No

2a) Yes

2b) No

Many thanks.

I think a player who moved the branch such that still interfered night not progressed much further along the course but that said there is still the most interesting question outstanding.

Can the player in the bunker now move the branch?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

Not necessarily.  I've seen branches only a foot long which still lie across the hazard line.  I've also seen branches 10 feet long which don't get removed for a day or two after a storm.  Not all courses can afford to send out a patrol each morning to look for downed branches, and often they never get removed from within the margin of a water hazard, especially if its a brushy and untended hazard.  The situation of a loose impediment lying both in and out of a hazard comes up more than you might think.

HI Rick.

Ok, I'll take your word for it....I just haven't seen it.  Foot long is one thing but with regards to the OP's question I was visualizing something much larger.  I'd get the 10 foot branches out of the bunkers....but hey that's  just me.     I would agree that anything totally in the margin of a water hazard would not be a big concern.....it is after all a hazard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

Many thanks.

 

I think a player who moved the branch such that still interfered night not progressed much further along the course but that said there is still the most interesting question outstanding.

 

Can the player in the bunker now move the branch?

Hi Rulesman.

Maybe I don't understand your question.....or the USGA's response.  What I got was player B, who is in the hazard, can either leave the branch where player A put it (still interfering) , or return it to its original position (still interfering).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360 

 

Hi Rulesman.

 

Maybe I don't understand your question.....or the USGA's response.  What I got was player B, who is in the hazard, can either leave the branch where player A put it (still interfering) , or return it to its original position (still interfering).

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

Many thanks.

 

I think a player who moved the branch such that still interfered night not progressed much further along the course but that said there is still the most interesting question outstanding.

 

Can the player in the bunker now move the branch?

I'm not so sure.  The original question was match play, but then I started thinking about stroke play and the player's responsibility to protect the field.   The player in the bunker would be DQed if he asked the other player to remove the branch.  So how can he get upset because you didn't do something (move the branch in a way that gives him relief) when he would be DQed if he asked you to do that?  It would be like getting upset because a fellow competitor doesn't repair a spike mark in your line of putt.

But the interference may not be the same. It may originally have been stance but now intended area of swing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360 

 

Hi Rulesman.

 

Maybe I don't understand your question.....or the USGA's response.  What I got was player B, who is in the hazard, can either leave the branch where player A put it (still interfering) , or return it to its original position (still interfering).

There is a missing question to the USGA.

What we don't know is if B may move it from the new position so that it no longer interferes at all.

In match play, if he did move it and A did not make a claim, there is no penalty due to B because if they did not know the rule they cannot agree to waive it.

I wonder if turtleback would be prepared to ask the USGA a supplementary, if in strokeplay or matchplay could B move the branch elsewhere. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360 

 

Hi Rulesman.

 

Maybe I don't understand your question.....or the USGA's response.  What I got was player B, who is in the hazard, can either leave the branch where player A put it (still interfering) , or return it to its original position (still interfering).

 

 

There is a missing question to the USGA.

 

What we don't know is if B may move it from the new position so that it no longer interferes at all.

 

In match play, if he did move it and A did not make a claim, there is no penalty due to B because if they did not know the rule they cannot agree to waive it.

 

I wonder if turtleback would be prepared to ask the USGA a supplementary, if in strokeplay or matchplay could B move the branch elsewhere. 

I don't see that as being equitable.  He isn't allowed relief just because the branch was moved into a different form of interference.  I think that the original answer still applies - he can leave it as it is or recreate the original lie.   I don't see any scenario where he would be entitled to complete relief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

I don't see that as being equitable.  He isn't allowed relief just because the branch was moved into a different form of interference.  I think that the original answer still applies - he can leave it as it is or recreate the original lie.   I don't see any scenario where he would be entitled to complete relief.

I agree.  I cannot imagine any rationale under which the guy in the bunker would be entitled to move the branch away completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

 

I agree.  I cannot imagine any rationale under which the guy in the bunker would be entitled to move the branch away completely.

We won't know unless the USGA tell us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

 

We won't know unless the USGA tell us.

They effectively did.  They said he could leave it where player A placed it or he could move it back to its original position.  There was no third option.  No option to remove it completely.

Thanks