Immovable Obstruction in a hedge or base of tree

[memwso]

I was recently in a matchplay comp when my partner hit his ball in a hedge.  Inside the hedge are sprinkler pipes ( as we live in Dubai they are needed to water the trees etc).

He took relief outside the hedge saying nearest point from the obstruction, but my arg\ument is that he could not make a swing in the hedge anyway so there should be no relief under 24-2 exception.

Please can you comment on how to interrupt this ruling?

[luu5]

24-2b/6

Quote:

24-2b/6 Relief from Immovable Obstruction Incidentally Results in Relief from Boundary Fence

Q: A player's ball is in such a position that a boundary fence and an immovable obstruction near the fence both interfere with the area of the player's intended swing. It is reasonable for him to play the stroke despite the interference from the boundary fence. If the player takes relief from the obstruction under Rule 24-2b, he will incidentally get relief from the fence. Is the player entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b in such circumstances?

A: Yes

[Rulesman]

It depends on the exact circumstances. Could he have made a stroke at all if the pipe had not been there? You post suggests not.

Note the words in the decision quoted above.

"It is reasonable for him to play the stroke despite the interference from the boundary fence"

Then compare the Exception in the Rule itself (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.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by memwso

but my arg\ument is that he could not make a swing in the hedge anyway so there should be no relief under 24-2 exception.

Whether the hi lighted above is true or not  is the key.  Would the ball be playable if the obstruction were not there?  Would it be " reasonable " for the player to play a stroke at the ball in the hedge if the obstruction were not there.

24-2b/16

Obstruction Interferes But Ball Unplayable Due to Some Other Condition

Q. A player's ball lies between two exposed tree roots. The ball is clearly unplayable due to the roots. An immovable obstruction is so located that it would interfere with the player's back swing if the player could play the ball. The player claims he is entitled to relief, without penalty, under Rule 24-2b(i) . Is the player correct?

A. No. See Exception under Rule 24-2b . The player must invoke Rule 28 .

[wadesworld]

The interesting thing about that decision is "the ball is clearly unplayable."

Shouldn't it be the player's decision whether or not a ball is unplayable?  Can your opponent or even a rules official really say, "You can't hit that ball?"

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by wadesworld

The interesting thing about that decision is "the ball is clearly unplayable."

Shouldn't it be the player's decision whether or not a ball is unplayable?  Can your opponent or even a rules official really say, "You can't hit that ball?"

It goes to the reasonableness of attempting to play the ball.  Although it's the player's decision to declare his ball unplayable anywhere through the green, that allowance can't be used in reverse to escape an obvious penalty situation.   That would be contrary to the intent and spirit of the rules.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by wadesworld

The interesting thing about that decision is "the ball is clearly unplayable."

Shouldn't it be the player's decision whether or not a ball is unplayable?  Can your opponent or even a rules official really say, "You can't hit that ball?"

Your opponent can't make a decision but he can make a claim.

A Fellow Competitor can only report the incident to the Committee.

A Referee can make the decision.