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

[supermac]

help required in confusion over a rule. My friends ball came to rest next to a large rock (2 foot high and a bout 5 feet wide) after his drive. he said that he gets a free drop (relief) but i disagreed and said it was a stoke penaly if he moves the ball.

any assistance on this rule would be great. thanks.

[ghalfaire]

A large rock that you cannot move by yourself (no assistance) is like a tree. It is a natural part of the course and you're not entitled to free relief.  If your buddy could push it out of the way, by himself, it is a loose impediment and he can move it out of his way.  But in neither case can he move the ball without penalty.

[deasy55]

Should have done this!!

No free relief, but if it's not embedded in the ground then it can be moved if it's possible.

[Grumpter]

  ghalfaire said:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

A large rock that you cannot move by yourself (no assistance) is like a tree. It is a natural part of the course and you're not entitled to free relief.  If your buddy could push it out of the way, by himself, it is a loose impediment and he can move it out of his way.  But in neither case can he move the ball without penalty.

You forget Tiger having the Boulder moved by spectators?

Sometimes the rules need some clarification. We call these clarifications Decisions on the Rules of Golf. There are two important decisions under the Loose Impediment Rule (Rule 23) relating to Tiger's situation. The first one is Decision 23-1/2 which is appropriately titled " Large Stone Removable Only with Much Effort ." This decision states that stones that are not solidly embedded can be of any size and still be considered a loose impediment. As long as it can be removed without unduly delaying play, the player may remove it.

Which then leads us to Decision 23-1/3, which asks the question: "May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc., assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?" The answer is "Yes."

http://www.usga.org/news/2009/january/10-Years-After-Tiger-s-Loosem-Impediment-Ruling-At-Phoenix-Open/

[iacas]

  ghalfaire said:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

A large rock that you cannot move by yourself (no assistance) is like a tree. It is a natural part of the course and you're not entitled to free relief.  If your buddy could push it out of the way, by himself, it is a loose impediment and he can move it out of his way.  But in neither case can he move the ball without penalty.

Just one clarification: he doesn't have to be able to move it by himself. It just has to be moveable.

But yeah, stroke penalty if he wants to drop away from it by declaring his ball unplayable. Otherwise play it as it lies.

[sean_miller]

That decision makes me less comfortable than it should. It was gross to watch at the time, but not it's just a part of golfing history.

  Grumpter said:

Originally Posted by Grumpter

You forget Tiger having the Boulder moved by spectators?

Sometimes the rules need some clarification. We call these clarifications Decisions on the Rules of Golf. There are two important decisions under the Loose Impediment Rule (Rule 23) relating to Tiger's situation. The first one is Decision 23-1/2 which is appropriately titled "Large Stone Removable Only with Much Effort." This decision states that stones that are not solidly embedded can be of any size and still be considered a loose impediment. As long as it can be removed without unduly delaying play, the player may remove it.

Which then leads us to Decision 23-1/3, which asks the question: "May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc., assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?" The answer is "Yes."

http://www.usga.org/news/2009/january/10-Years-After-Tiger-s-Loosem-Impediment-Ruling-At-Phoenix-Open/

[supermac]

thanks for all the responses. My friends arguement is that the rock was put there by man and is decorative, so he gets a free drop. does anyone what is the rule number to show him that what he says is untrue? thanks.

[Zeph]

  supermac said:

thanks for all the responses. My friends arguement is that the rock was put there by man and is decorative, so he gets a free drop. does anyone what is the rule number to show him that what he says is untrue? thanks.

There is no such rule. For that stone to give you relief, it has to be listed under the local rules as an immovable object or something like that. Ask him to show you which rule gives him a free drop.

[luu5]

  supermac said:

Originally Posted by supermac

thanks for all the responses. My friends arguement is that the rock was put there by man and is decorative, so he gets a free drop. does anyone what is the rule number to show him that what he says is untrue? thanks.

If it is decorative then it could be obstruction and he is entitled of free relief. But there could be a local rule stating that these are integral part of course and then no free relief is possible.

[Fourputt]

  sean_miller said:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

That decision makes me less comfortable than it should. It was gross to watch at the time, but not it's just a part of golfing history.

There was already a similar decision long before Tiger and his rock.  The old decision concerned a large fallen tree which was only movable with the assistance of several people.  It was removed when the Tiger rock decision was added, simply because Tiger's decision sparked so much comment.  I'd have been happy if they had left well enough alone.  Too many people think that it was okayed just because he was Tiger, but that had absolutely nothing to do it.  It was allowed because the rock was a loose impediment under the definition in the rules.

[Shorty]

  luu5 said:

Originally Posted by luu5

If it is decorative then it could be obstruction and he is entitled of free relief. But there could be a local rule stating that these are integral part of course and then no free relief is possible.

That is not correct.

The rock may well be decorative, as are waterfalls, trees and bunkers. Doesn't mean it isn't part of the course.

He is not entitled to a drop unless the rock is within a garden or designated area where a player gets free relief.

You don't have local rules saying that rocks are part of the course. You might have one that states that for some reason or other they are not and you get relief. Local rules are for exceptions to normal rules.

The card will say so. Otherwise, too bad!

If it says nothing about them, they are part of the course, which one would assume anyway.

To the OP, who wrote:

My friends arguement is that the rock was put there by man and is decorative, so he gets a free drop.

Ask him where he heard this nonsense.  I just can't believe how many things golfers just seem to make up these days.

Or they hear them from other ignorant players and just repeat them as if they're fact.

[supermac]

the rock is just a big boulder on the edge of the fairway. its not part of a garden or anything close that is manmade.

thanks, we had a bet of 100 bucks over this. The tough part will to collect. lol.

[Zeph]

"This bunker is obviously made by man and it looks pretty nice with the white contrast to the green grass. I'll take a free drop outside it."

[ghalfaire]

I did not forget about Tiger and in fact was there.  I didn't however help move the boulder.  I was under the impression that because of this incident in fact it was decided that if you could not move it yourself, it was not movable.  But I'll look up the decision as apparently I'm wrong.  Seems odd to me that the golfer is entitled to help from other that an partner or caddie.

  Grumpter said:

Originally Posted by Grumpter

You forget Tiger having the Boulder moved by spectators?

http://www.usga.org/news/2009/january/10-Years-After-Tiger-s-Loosem-Impediment-Ruling-At-Phoenix-Open/

[Fourputt]

  ghalfaire said:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I did not forget about Tiger and in fact was there.  I didn't however help move the boulder.  I was under the impression that because of this incident in fact it was decided that if you could not move it yourself, it was not movable.  But I'll look up the decision as apparently I'm wrong.  Seems odd to me that the golfer is entitled to help from other that an partner or caddie.

  23-1/3  Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment said:

23-1/3  Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment

Q. May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc., assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?

A. Yes.

[laconic517]

What if a rock is used as a yardage marker, say 150 yards?  I've played several courses that have done something like that.  Would have to be allowed to move your ball I'd assume.

[Littlebigman]

Just use the foot wedge, considering the round was not during a championship or anything like that, who will know? :D Phil Mickelson... thats who. But seriously.

In my opinion, the only people who want free relief from a bad lie are people who probably don't really play the game the right way anyhow.  I played with a friend of mine who had an extremely brutal divot in front of about a 6 foot par putt.  He hit the putt, it hit the divot, he missed the putt.  He told me he was going to score himself a par, instead I told him to hit the putt from the same distance, two inches to the left, he missed that putt also, with no divot.  Moral of the story is, you should let you buddy make up some nonsensical rule to help him come that much closer to a par on that hole because in the grand scheme of things, he is the one missing out on the best part of the game, and thats the integrity that has been passed on throughout the years from the pros and the weekened duffer 25+ handicappers, and the people who actually count there first shot instead of the second shot.

[luu5]

  Shorty said:

Originally Posted by Shorty

That is not correct.

The rock may well be decorative, as are waterfalls, trees and bunkers. Doesn't mean it isn't part of the course.

Sorry my bad, got mixed up. Too late when I posted.