Could I have taken relief?

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, 6Aces said:

Your statement in bold suggests that, hypothetically, if there was a sprinkler head in the tree, (or perhaps some other abnormal ground condition or immovable obstruction) that you would be entitled to free relief.

The exceptions in 24-1b and 25-1b indicate that you would not get free relief.

Thanks for the correction. :)

[Groucho Valentine]

That sucks 

In tournament play or a match, your only option is to take an unplayable lie there. Playing it as it lies would be a little silly. You could end up in a worse place, or not advance the ball at all.  In a casual round with some bros, see what you can get away with..lol

[Buckeyebowman]

On 1/19/2017 at 0:15 PM, CarlSpackler said:

Take a drop and go raise hell in the pro shop. 

 

On 1/19/2017 at 0:20 PM, iacas said:

Why? If that was still a tree you wouldn't, and a full tree is far more penal.

Well, I've never had a ball penetrate a live tree and come to rest in the center of its trunk. And I suspect that this may be a public course, because if it was a country club some serious Hell would be raised! I heard of one place where the members wanted the greenkeeper's head on a platter because a bird had crapped on a ball washer and no one had cleaned it up! And that tree looks like it's been dead for a while. If you're going to cut it down, then cut it down.

Hey, it's a bad break. From the looks of it I'd have to take an unplayable lie with the penalty and drop. No way I'm risking a broken club or wrist trying to chop it out of there!

[Martyn W]

On 1/23/2017 at 11:42 AM, Golfingdad said:

The exceptions in 24-1b and 25-1b indicate that you would not get free relief.

I had a similar situation officiating at an NCAA event last year. A player's ball was under a bush and he called me over asking for relief from the rabbit scrape his ball was laying on. I asked him what he would be doing if the AGC was not there. Obviously knowing the Rule, he told he he would get on his knees and play the ball (expecting me to grant relief). Since it was 'clearly unreasonable' to play the ball I denied relief. Having painted himself into a corner, he attempted the shot, and three strokes later extricated the ball!

[Fourputt]

On 2/4/2017 at 10:38 AM, Martyn W said:

I had a similar situation officiating at an NCAA event last year. A player's ball was under a bush and he called me over asking for relief from the rabbit scrape his ball was laying on. I asked him what he would be doing if the AGC was not there. Obviously knowing the Rule, he told he he would get on his knees and play the ball (expecting me to grant relief). Since it was 'clearly unreasonable' to play the ball I denied relief. Having painted himself into a corner, he attempted the shot, and three strokes later extricated the ball!

I often wonder why people will attempt the improbable shot (and usually fail) when they could declare the ball unplayable and give themselves a much better and usually more predictable situation by dropping and taking the penalty stroke.  If I can't reasonably advance the ball and feel pretty certain of a good result, I'll take the penalty every time.

[6Aces]

19 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I often wonder why people will attempt the improbable shot (and usually fail) when they could declare the ball unplayable and give themselves a much better and usually more predictable situation by dropping and taking the penalty stroke.  If I can't reasonably advance the ball and feel pretty certain of a good result, I'll take the penalty every time.

While probably not applicable to the situation in the original  picture, gambling on making a low percentage stroke, eliminates the stroke and distance option of Rule 28 for the original lie.  Kevin Na learned this the hard way. 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I often wonder why people will attempt the improbable shot (and usually fail) when they could declare the ball unplayable and give themselves a much better and usually more predictable situation by dropping and taking the penalty stroke.  If I can't reasonably advance the ball and feel pretty certain of a good result, I'll take the penalty every time.

Maybe better players are more certain of their ability to advance the ball a little.

[Piz]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

Maybe better players are more certain of their ability to advance the ball a little.

And better at determining which option confers the greater advantage.

[Fourputt]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

Maybe better players are more certain of their ability to advance the ball a little.

I'm talking about the typical player making a poor decision solely out of a phobia about taking a penalty stroke.  I've seen too many blowup holes caused this when the player had virtually no chance of making a decent shot, or even getting the ball into a favorable position for the next shot.  Good golf consists of playing good shots from reasonable lie, and then making good decisions when faced with a less than favorable situation.  In part it has to do with being honest with yourself about what your ability will let you get a way with.

I've faced plenty of those chancy shots, and I've gotten good at evaluating my ability to play from those positions (and no I still don't always make the right decision).  In a casual round, I'll sometimes try it even when I know that the odds are against me.  But in a tournament I'll take the odds and the penalty 90% of the time.  I don't mean that I take a penalty drop for every bad lie, only when my honest assessment tells me that the odds are against me, I prefer taking a safer route.

I've played in tournaments for more than 25 years, and I see players who can't hold back, no matter what the stakes, and that is what I can't understand.  It has to be ego taking control of reason - there is no other logical explanation for attempting a shot you know you can't execute when a tournament is on the line.  If a guy can physically get the club on the ball, he tries to play it no matter what.