Allen Grant seeks rules relief at Badlands Golf Course - Page 2

A wall?  They are individual stones laid side by side.  There is not a single stone stacked on top of the base stones to form a second layer.  If two or three or twenty small rocks are laid side by side it does not make a wall. 

"An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without delaying play, and without causing damage."  What about these stones does not fit that definition?  It would be necessary to move only a couple of them, they are small enough that they could be lifted with one hand, and they easily be replaced.  So it would not be unreasonable effort, it would not delay play and it would not cause damage. 

I am familiar with stacked stone walls that are several feet and multiple layers of stone high and if you were talking a wall of several layers of stone, or at least two, I would agree that moving them would cause damage but this is a single layer of stone.  As you note, individual stones are not obstructions which is why I would consider them to be loose impediments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again 

A wall?  They are individual stones laid side by side.  There is not a single stone stacked on top of the base stones to form a second layer.  If two or three or twenty small rocks are laid side by side it does not make a wall. 

 

"An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without delaying play, and without causing damage."  What about these stones does not fit that definition?  It would be necessary to move only a couple of them, they are small enough that they could be lifted with one hand, and they easily be replaced.  So it would not be unreasonable effort, it would not delay play and it would not cause damage. 

 

I am familiar with stacked stone walls that are several feet and multiple layers of stone high and if you were talking a wall of several layers of stone, or at least two, I would agree that moving them would cause damage but this is a single layer of stone.  As you note, individual stones are not obstructions which is why I would consider them to be loose impediments.

A proper Local Rule is certainly needed here to clear things up. AFA a stone wall is concerned I would believe that the personnel of that course would not like to reassemble those stones lined up every time someone decides to move them, so from a sheer practicality point of view I would concider them to be an immovable obstruction.

I cannot remember whether it was here we discussed about status of flower beds and in those discussions a circle of stones around a flower bed was regarded as an IO. That is also a single stack of stones but clearly a construction with specific purpose, very similar to this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

 

The first drop was taking relief from the wall and the ball finished next to ther hard surfaced part of the path. He then said he got relief from that edge. So he dropped a second time but this was for a different relief. Not the wall but the hard surfaced path. He then placed the ball.

 

However, I am not convinced that gravel part of the path is not simply another part of the same path. It is certainly an artificial surface. 

 

If I am right, he should not have dropped second time wher he did. He must take full relierf from the whole path 

oh, I though he drop the second time because the first time the ball rolled towards the hole, cart path or not the ball could not be in play there.

He said:

'This path now is also in my way. That's another drop'

There are a number of interesting aspects of this situation and since there is a video, we all get to see the same thing.  Even if we award the placed stones the status of immovable obstruction, has anyone looked carefully at whether they would interfere with his stance or swing?  The places where you can get some perspective for where his ball lies relative to the placed stones is in the first 30 seconds of the video.  At one point he says "I am standing on them.  That's a free drop right there?" but at that point he is not even close to the stance he would use when he addresses the ball.  It looks doubtful to me that the placed stones interfere with stance or swing but he would need him to take his stance to determine that which he never does. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again 

A wall?  They are individual stones laid side by side.  There is not a single stone stacked on top of the base stones to form a second layer.  If two or three or twenty small rocks are laid side by side it does not make a wall. 

 

"An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without delaying play, and without causing damage."  What about these stones does not fit that definition?  It would be necessary to move only a couple of them, they are small enough that they could be lifted with one hand, and they easily be replaced.  So it would not be unreasonable effort, it would not delay play and it would not cause damage. 

 

I am familiar with stacked stone walls that are several feet and multiple layers of stone high and if you were talking a wall of several layers of stone, or at least two, I would agree that moving them would cause damage but this is a single layer of stone.  As you note, individual stones are not obstructions which is why I would consider them to be loose impediments.

They are arranged and set to form a border.  That makes it an artificial construction.  Since none of the stones are out of place, they don't qualify as stones loose from a wall, they are still part of the wall, such as it is.  I agree that the status of the border stones should be clarified, but lacking such clarification, I would play it as an immovable obstruction.  If you move the stone, then the ruling goes against you, you have incurred a 2 stroke penalty under Rule 13-2, and if you have already returned your card without the penalty, you are disqualified.  That is a silly risk to take.  

Ultimately it's a bad situation all the way around.  If the border, graded area and pavement are all considered as a single obstruction, then the NPR is in the rocks.  While there is only a guarantee of relief from the obstruction under Rule 24, having to drop in the rocks would likely result in an unplayable lie.  Looking at the video again, I might even question his decision on another basis.  He appears to be dropping closer to the hole, or at least it's enough to raise doubt.  All in all, the guy in the video was rather lackadaisical in his treatment of the situation.

If it was me, I'd take the relief back up the hill and try to find a legal spot to drop where the ball would hit a playable lie when it hit the ground (and the relief would satisfy both Rule 24 and Rule 28).  Since it appears that any such drop would probably roll back into interference, after a second drop, I would be required to place the ball where it hit the ground, and if I chose well, it would leave me some sort of a stroke.  Then before returning my card, I would present the case to the committee.  If necessary, I would even accept the penalty stroke under Rule 28 if it was determined that the stone was movable.

Question here for Rulesman:  Would I still be required to play a second ball under Rule 28 in order to have that option if the ruling went against me, even though the relief procedure I used was correct for both?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

 

Question here for Rulesman:  Would I still be required to play a second ball under Rule 28 in order to have that option if the ruling went against me, even though the relief procedure I used was correct for both?

Not Rulesman but I'm assuming with your question, the player has announced this intention before making a stroke at the dropped ball, and he did not place the ball after the second drop as this would not comply with R28.  In that case, yes the player can play the one ball and ask for a ruling later.

3-3/11

Competitor Drops One Ball in Accordance with Two Different Rules Instead of Playing Second Ball

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball comes to rest through the green in a deep rut which has not been defined as ground under repair by the Committee. The ball is not playable due to the rut. The competitor believes that the Committee might declare the rutted area to be ground under repair. He announces to his marker or a fellow-competitor that he will drop the ball at a spot which conforms to the procedures prescribed in both Rule 25-1b(i) (Ground Under Repair) and Rule 28c (Ball Unplayable), seek a ruling from the Committee before returning his score card, and accept the penalty stroke in Rule 28 if the Committee does not declare the rutted area to be ground under repair. Is such a procedure permissible?

A.Yes. Although it would have been advisable for the competitor to proceed under Rule 3-3 in this situation, the Rules do not prohibit such a procedure - see also Decision 3-3/12.

You need to be careful when doing this because of this, however.

3-3/12

Competitor Drops One Ball in Accordance with Two Different Rules Instead of Playing Second Ball; Dropped Ball Rolls Back into the Condition from Which Relief Taken

Q.In the circumstances described in Decision 3-3/11, what is the ruling if the competitor drops the ball and it rolls and comes to rest where there is still interference from the same rutted area?

A.If this occurred it would be advisable for the competitor to obtain a ruling from the Committee before proceeding further or invoke Rule 3-3.

If the Committee determines that the area is ground under repair, the ball must be re-dropped (Rule 20-2c(v)). Otherwise, the dropped ball is in play and the competitor must either play the ball as it lies or, for a second time, proceed under the unplayable ball Rule (Rule 28) incurring an additional penalty stroke.

Thinking about this some more, I'm not sure the player would have to say anything before playing the stroke, as long as he informed his marker that he would need a ruling and did sign for a wrong score on the hole before he talked to the committee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

"They are arranged and set to form a border.  That makes it an artificial construction.  Since none of the stones are out of place, they don't qualify as stones loose from a wall, they are still part of the wall, such as it is.  I agree that the status of the border stones should be clarified, but lacking such clarification, I would play it as an immovable obstruction.  If you move the stone, then the ruling goes against you, you have incurred a 2 stroke penalty under Rule 13-2, and if you have already returned your card without the penalty, you are disqualified.  That is a silly risk to take." 

 

 

I accept that since they have clearly been arranged in a row, they are obstructions rather than loose impediments.  Can you point to anything in the rules that suggests they are immovable obstructions instead of moveable obstructions?  They are certainly small enough that they can be moved w/o unreasonable effort.  I could move any of them with one hand.  Since only a few of them would have to be moved, this could be done within half a minute so no undue delay.  They are not intricately laid in place so replacing them would take another half a minute so no damage would be caused.  Those are the three requirements in the rules for an obstruction to be a moveable obstruction. 

 

If you lifted the ball and took relief on the assumption they were immovable and they were ruled to be moveable, you also incur a 2 stroke penalty, correct?  So either way, a player better get a ruling before he does anything. 

 

The ruling regarding the stone that was broken away from a wall is not relevant.  It simply clarifies that when a immovable obstruction is broken, pieces of it that fit the definition of a moveable obstruction are moveable obstructions. 

But if they are considered to be part of the cart path, then it would all be a single immovable obstruction.

Here is another Decision which may apply in this case:

Is the ball playable in its original position?  Most people I know wouldn't think so. 

24-2b Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

The ball was clearly visible and arguably hittable. Would a stroke be considered to be clearly impracticable or clearly unreasonable? I think one would need to be there to be sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourputt 

The ruling regarding the stone that was broken away from a wall is not relevant.  It simply clarifies that when a immovable obstruction is broken, pieces of it that fit the definition of a moveable obstruction are moveable obstructions. 

Decision 24/7 fits the bill

Interesting discussion.  Someone needs to tell me how you put the quotes in the box to make it clear what you are commenting on.

I would agree that if the stones are considered part of the cart path then it would all be immovable.  But I think that would have to be stated in the local rules.

24-2b/16 is relevant only if you have already concluded that the stones are immovable obstructions.  It prevents a player from moving a ball that would be unplayable because of reasons other than the obstructions.  It does not help us to decide whether the stones in question are moveable or immovable. 

Rulesman, the 24/7 decision does make me a little less confident of my position.  In this case there is an object that is clearly an immovable obstruction (the drain) and a movable part of that same obstruction.  So it would be apply to the cart path and placed stones if they are considered to parts of the same obstruction.   That said my confidence is waning but I keep going back to the definition of moveable obstruction and it tells me the stones are moveable

The example that someone cited about a flower bed surrounded by a single layer of rocks (not interlocking manufactured landscaping stones) would be the best test of this question.  You would have to assume no local rule applying to the flower bed and its stone border.  This gets rid of all of the other complications of the Badland's situation such as whether the stones are part of the cart path.

Thanks for letting me participate in a thought provoking discussion. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourputt 

The ruling regarding the stone that was broken away from a wall is not relevant.  It simply clarifies that when a immovable obstruction is broken, pieces of it that fit the definition of a moveable obstruction are moveable obstructions. 

 

Decision 24/7 fits the bill

I'm not sure how you quoted that, but I didn't post it.  That was posted by 3 Putt Again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

I'm not sure how you quoted that, but I didn't post it.  That was posted by 3 Putt Again.

Sorry, but have a look at your post just up the page. Somehow 3 Putt Again has got his text inserted in yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

I'm not sure how you quoted that, but I didn't post it.  That was posted by 3 Putt Again.

 

Sorry, but have a look at your post just up the page. Somehow 3 Putt Again has got his text inserted in yours.

Yeah.... I went back and figured it out after I posted, but it was late so I just left it.  I guess we'll have to get him properly trained.