Large Rock Ruling - The Tiger Woods Boulder Incident with Gallery Help

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I have seen a tree in the process of removal marked, along with area around it, as ground under repair, not as an obstruction.  That sounds more reasonable to me as that tree has not been "manufactured", nor is it artificial, and that is a necessary qualification for an obstruction.

What you are referring to is a fallen tree (cut by man) marked as GUR, which is fine, no rule against marking an area containing an obstrucion as GUR. But I am merely repeating something that R&A; has already stated and maybe you being so close to USGA can ask for their view.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

What you are referring to is a fallen tree (cut by man) marked as GUR, which is fine, no rule against marking an area containing an obstrucion as GUR. But I am merely repeating something that R&A; has already stated and maybe you being so close to USGA can ask for their view.

Just because you've heard that some member of the R and A said such a thing doesn't make it part of the rules. It isn't a rule until it becomes a decision.  Until the joint rules committee adds it to the the book, it's just hearsay.  I can't make such a ruling in a competition based on that.  Until I see something official, I can't call a sawed down tree an obstruction.  It just doesn't fit the definition.  I'm not doubting that you've heard it somewhere, but I can't base a ruling on your say-so.  That stone we talked about above was cut from a quarry, moved onto position with machinery, yet it's still a loose impediment.  I don't see the tree as anything different.

[supermac]

here is a picture of the actual rock. its the one in centre of the picture.  its not near any yard marker, however the area to the left is the driving range I don't know if that make any difference or not.His argument is that it was "man placed" so he gets relief. I disagree.

[Shorty]

The fact that it is "man placed" has nothing to do with anything. That has just been made up by someone. The only way he'd get free relief would be if there was specific mention of rocks such as this on the scorecard under the"local rules" heading. I thought that this was established in the first,and every subsequent post following your initial one.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Just because you've heard that some member of the R and A said such a thing doesn't make it part of the rules. It isn't a rule until it becomes a decision.  Until the joint rules committee adds it to the the book, it's just hearsay.  I can't make such a ruling in a competition based on that.  Until I see something official, I can't call a sawed down tree an obstruction.  It just doesn't fit the definition.  I'm not doubting that you've heard it somewhere, but I can't base a ruling on your say-so.  That stone we talked about above was cut from a quarry, moved onto position with machinery, yet it's still a loose impediment.  I don't see the tree as anything different.

Well, it was not just 'heard' but it was an official note on request by our national golf association. But you are right, there is no decision on that so anyone is free to have his doubts.

Once one begins to think of the logic behind the note given it is not so hard to understand. I mean, where to draw the line? How many cuts with a chain saw or a disk saw is required before the object changes it's status from a loose impediment into an obstruction? Why not start with the first cut?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Well, it was not just 'heard' but it was an official note on request by our national golf association. But you are right, there is no decision on that so anyone is free to have his doubts.

Once one begins to think of the logic behind the note given it is not so hard to understand. I mean, where to draw the line? How many cuts with a chain saw or a disk saw is required before the object changes it's status from a loose impediment into an obstruction? Why not start with the first cut?

To me that doesn't qualify as "manufactured" or "artificial".  You haven't done anything to alter it's use or function.  It's still just a tree - lying down rather than standing - but a tree none the less.  I just don't think that such a ruling would be consistent with the definition of obstruction, and the definitions serve as the first line of defense in the Rules of Golf.  If you go with your contention, then you start to do an end run around the definition.  Next I ask, if I just break off a branch, is it a loose impediment or an obstruction?  Or if I cut it off with a knife instead of breaking it, does that change its status?  I feel that in the process of converting it to something artificial, and thus to an obstruction, it must be transformed with a function or purpose in mind which takes it well beyond its natural state.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

To me that doesn't qualify as "manufactured" or "artificial".  You haven't done anything to alter it's use or function.  It's still just a tree - lying down rather than standing - but a tree none the less.  I just don't think that such a ruling would be consistent with the definition of obstruction, and the definitions serve as the first line of defense in the Rules of Golf.  If you go with your contention, then you start to do an end run around the definition.  Next I ask, if I just break off a branch, is it a loose impediment or an obstruction?  Or if I cut it off with a knife instead of breaking it, does that change its status?  I feel that in the process of converting it to something artificial, and thus to an obstruction, it must be transformed with a function or purpose in mind which takes it well beyond its natural state.

It is not that black & white. One may build a bench by making two piles of rocks and laying a fallen tree on top of them  None of the articles used to make this bench have been transformed into anything but now they all are part of an obstruction.

But I agree with you to some extent, your arguments are good and fair. I cannot explain the idea behind R&A;'s statement but I will try to get some more detailed info. Will get back to you later.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

It is not that black & white. One may build a bench by making two piles of rocks and laying a fallen tree on top of them  None of the articles used to make this bench have been transformed into anything but now they all are part of an obstruction.

But I agree with you to some extent, your arguments are good and fair. I cannot explain the idea behind R&A;'s statement but I will try to get some more detailed info. Will get back to you later.

You could still say that by building the bench, they have used loose impediments to create an artificial construction.  That makes it an obstruction.  It's like a gravel cart path.  Applying gravel to a dirt path constitutes creating an artificial surface under the rules and turns the dirt path into an obstruction.  However, if a few of those pieces of gravel get kicked into the grass, then they are once again only pebbles, and as such, just loose impediments.

[sbanks06]

If the rock is embedded it is not movable under the rules. This included partially embedded! If the rock is a yardage marker then yes you get relief.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

It is not that black & white. One may build a bench by making two piles of rocks and laying a fallen tree on top of them  None of the articles used to make this bench have been transformed into anything but now they all are part of an obstruction.

But I agree with you to some extent, your arguments are good and fair. I cannot explain the idea behind R&A;'s statement but I will try to get some more detailed info. Will get back to you later.

I checked the issue and my information was out of date. This has been the R&A; interpetation many years ago but has been changed and is today more or less covered by Dec 25/7. So a tree fallen down by a lumberjack is a loose impediment or GUR, depending on the size of the tree.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by sbanks06

If the rock is embedded it is not movable under the rules. This included partially embedded! If the rock is a yardage marker then yes you get relief.

Dec 23/2 says that if a stone is partially embedded and may be picked up with ease, it is a loose impediment.

[9iron]

Yes and then this

Did they ever change the rule to make large boulders like this no longer "loose impediments?" Although not technically against the rules to get a dozen Rambo's from the gallery to move a boulder that you hit your ball behind, I always felt this episode violated the spirit of the rules.

If they have not, then my suggestion would be to reclassify loose impediments as only those that can be lifted by the player himself and without the aid of any mechanical or outside agencies (patrons, or even the caddie - although I could be talked into allowing the caddie to move the impediment in lieu of the player)  or mechanical devices (levers).

[turtleback]

Did they ever change the rule to make large boulders like this no longer "loose impediments?" Although not technically against the rules to get a dozen Rambo's from the gallery to move a boulder that you hit your ball behind, I always felt this episode violated the spirit of the rules.

If they have not, then my suggestion would be to reclassify loose impediments as only those that can be lifted by the player himself and without the aid of any mechanical or outside agencies (patrons, or even the caddie - although I could be talked into allowing the caddie to move the impediment in lieu of the player)  or mechanical devices (levers).

No they did not change the rule because there is no reason to.  It was there before and it is there still.  Complaining about this is like complaining because a gallery member found someone's errant tee shot when someone with a smaller gallery might have ended up with a lost ball.  I cannot tell you how many people I have played with (not suggesting you would do this) who refuse to acknowledge a lost ball penalty because a gallery would have found the ball and if the guys on TV get that advantage they should too.

As to your suggested response?  A solution in search of a problem.

[9iron]

No they did not change the rule because there is no reason to.  It was there before and it is there still.  Complaining about this is like complaining because a gallery member found someone's errant tee shot when someone with a smaller gallery might have ended up with a lost ball.  I cannot tell you how many people I have played with (not suggesting you would do this) who refuse to acknowledge a lost ball penalty because a gallery would have found the ball and if the guys on TV get that advantage they should too.

As to your suggested response?  A solution in search of a problem.

The lost ball rule is a red herring. I don't complain when Player A has a larger gallery and his ball ends up being found while Player B has a small gallery and ends up with a lost ball because there is no practical way to level that playing field.  Golf is about finding equitable solutions to the thousands of circumstances that can arise, and they have done all they can with the lost ball circumstance.

The reason to address this rule in some way is simple. To not do so is to allow a golfer's popularity to become the determining factor as to how he will get to play his next shot. That is bad for the sport. Let me ask a simple question. Have you ever seen another player do what Tiger did here? Get ten guys from the gallery to do something for him that has never been done on tour for anyone else? I have not. Now I am not aware what has transpired in every professional event ever to take place in the world, so maybe you could point out another time this has happened?

The only reference to a similar event in a tournament setting that I could find dealt with a downed tree limb ... 60 years ago. It is fairly obvious that the tournament directors of that event would not have designed things for play to have to proceed thru a downed tree limb, so that player gained relief and did so with the aid of patrons.

Perhaps this could be addressed via local rules, which I would suggest they do exactly that. That is different from an outright rules change as I had previously described, but would also lend itself to a more equitable playing field. FWIW, Mark O'Meara suggested the same change as I have.

[iacas]

Golf is about finding equitable solutions to the thousands of circumstances that can arise, and they have done all they can with the lost ball circumstance.

Equitable may not mean what you think it means. Equitable simply means that like situations are treated alike.

If someone else had a gallery who could help them move a large rock, that would have also been allowed.

Equitable does not mean "what seems fair."

The reason to address this rule in some way is simple. To not do so is to allow a golfer's popularity to become the determining factor as to how he will get to play his next shot.

Don't we also then have to reward the players who are more popular because fans are more likely to distract them? Or to step on their ball in the rough accidentally? Or move a shadow at an inopportune moment?

You can't legislate for a player's popularity. And please, try to define how large something is before it's too large that anyone else can move it? Are we going to get scales out or something? What if someone has a bad back, but can play golf really well, and can't lift something himself that someone stronger could lift? Some players might choose super strong caddies if this type of thing was a common occurrence, and then they'd have the advantage, would they not?

You can't reasonably begin to build things in which take into account the number, health, strength, etc. of the people that may be nearby. That's not "equitable" even if, at first glance, it seems "fair" to you.

Have you ever seen another player do what Tiger did here?

Yes. I've seen it several times. I once helped a guy move a large rock. He was my opponent at the time.

If you want to be super-specific about it ("ten guys" and so on), then no. But I have seen "multiple people moving a loose impediment that would be not be moveable by one person."

It has been done on Tour for others. I witnessed a player have two gallery members and a marshal move a tree limb that had fallen a few feet in front of his ball.

The only reference to a similar event in a tournament setting that I could find dealt with a downed tree limb ... 60 years ago. It is fairly obvious that the tournament directors of that event would not have designed things for play to have to proceed thru a downed tree limb, so that player gained relief and did so with the aid of patrons.

Why does this matter? We sometimes see a Rules situation come up that wasn't televised. If they're handled the same way as an equal situation, that's "equity."

Perhaps this could be addressed via local rules, which I would suggest they do exactly that. That is different from an outright rules change as I had previously described, but would also lend itself to a more equitable playing field. FWIW, Mark O'Meara suggested the same change as I have.

I don't think the Rule needs to be changed at all.

Again, too, it's not like having a larger gallery is only a positive thing.

I'm going to move this to a new Rules thread. I thought we had one on Tiger's boulder incident, but… I don't see one right now. So this may be a new thread for a bit.

[Rulesman]

Please just lock it.

[iacas]

Please just lock it.

No thanks. Please just ignore it if that's your desire.

[Fourputt]

Did they ever change the rule to make large boulders like this no longer "loose impediments?" Although not technically against the rules to get a dozen Rambo's from the gallery to move a boulder that you hit your ball behind, I always felt this episode violated the spirit of the rules.

If they have not, then my suggestion would be to reclassify loose impediments as only those that can be lifted by the player himself and without the aid of any mechanical or outside agencies (patrons, or even the caddie - although I could be talked into allowing the caddie to move the impediment in lieu of the player)  or mechanical devices (levers).

People like 9iron always posted about this as if this was a unique situation.  There was a decision involving this before Tiger's incident ever happened, the only difference being that it involved a fallen tree or large branch of a tree which required assistance for the player to move it.  That decision was removed in favor of the boulder incident, but the situation is the same.  The definition of a loose impediment was not changed or altered in any way as a result of either case. All the decision does is confirm that the act is correct and allowable under the rules , and that the only requirement is that the impediment not be embedded.  Weight is not a factor in the definition.