Taking relief where there is no relief

[MacDutch]

During a Stableford tourney a player states he is entiteld to take relief for a sprinkler head in his line of play to the green. Some courses have a local rule when your ball is within 2 clublengths of the sprinklerhead and the sprinklerhead is within 2 clublenghts of the green (and the sprinklerhead is in the line of play to the hole), you get free relief.

But this course does not have that local rule in place. The player is certain he gets free relief, the marker said he has never heared of this rule. 

I got two questions:

1. How should they procede, no rules official available?

2. What if the player takes relief and does not play the ball as it lies? So he only takes the incorrect option of free relief. Before signing his card after the round, he and the marker ask how to handle.

Edited June 23, 2017 by MacDutch

[iacas]

Look up Rule 3-3.

If they take a drop to which they're not entitled, they played from a wrong place and incur a penalty of two strokes.

[HonestyPolicy]

Anyone unsure of how to proceed can use Rule 3-3 Doubt as to procedure and play two balls, then get a ruling from the committee before signing the scorecard.

If I were trying to make a case, I would sight rule 24-2a claiming the sprinkler head is an immovable obstruction thus I get free relief. I have heard both sides of the story, that the sprinkler head is a part of the course, and it is not. It would then be up to the committee to address and decide.

 

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, HonestyPolicy said:

If I were trying to make a case, I would sight rule 24-2a claiming the sprinkler head is an immovable obstruction thus I get free relief.

Yeah that applies if it interferes with your stance or swing. Not your line of play from off the green.

[MacDutch]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Look up Rule 3-3.

If they take a drop to which they're not entitled, they played from a wrong place and incur a penalty of two strokes.

So it is not a serious breach? His position after the drop was way better than before the drop, because he did not have to chip over the sprinklerhead. The reason he dropped was to avoid the sprinklerhead. So his intention was to get a better position to play his ball from for free. On the other hand it was Stableford, so with a two stroke penalty there would be no points left for that hole and there is no benefit.

You could also argue that the drop could be handled as 'taking an unplayable' so only one stroke penalty. But that was not his intention. His intention was to play it with a free drop. Because he was incorrectly certain he would get the free drop.

After the round, the marker and player tried to get advice from the rules committee, but there was no committee.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, MacDutch said:

So it is not a serious breach?

No. He could putt the ball (for one stroke) a few feet to the side if he wanted to.

Serious breaches (see the internal definition in 1-2 IIRC) typically require a large distance or a hazard that you're supposed to negotiate to be sidestepped or avoided.

4 hours ago, MacDutch said:

So his intention was to get a better position to play his ball from for free.

It doesn't matter what his intention was; he paid the penalty (two strokes) that is greater than the potential advantage gained.

If you drop on the other side of a water hazard (yellow) that you're supposed to carry, you could take 2, 6, even 14 strokes to get over that hazard. So that's a serious breach for which a DQ is most appropriate.

4 hours ago, MacDutch said:

You could also argue that the drop could be handled as 'taking an unplayable' so only one stroke penalty.

You can't, because you have to say you're taking an unplayable.  Either before or after. If you said "you can't do that" and he said "I'm taking an unplayable" then that's fine. But he can't retroactively declare that he's taking an unplayable.

4 hours ago, MacDutch said:

After the round, the marker and player tried to get advice from the rules committee, but there was no committee.

It would just depend on whether that local rule was in place.

[MacDutch]

Thanks, no local rule in place, so a two stroke penalty.

[RickK]

6 hours ago, MacDutch said:

After the round, the marker and player tried to get advice from the rules committee, but there was no committee.

I am confused a bit .  Started out this was a Stableford tourney.  Someone was running the thing and handling the scoring.  By default...they become the "committee".  If it was at a club, where was the pro?  I have played in events where people running something really had no clue about a rules question, so we go in the pro shop and ask the pro, assistant pro, or whomever we can find.  Someone at the course should know if they have a local rule about sprinkler heads around the green.  

FWIW, does not surprise me that many people think they get relief.  I believe, (could be wrong) that the R&A allows such relief.  Even in the US Open this year, in a preview of the course, it was mentioned that relief would be granted from sprinkler heads around the green.  

Edited June 24, 2017 by RickK

[David in FL]

14 minutes ago, RickK said:

I am confused a bit .  Started out this was a Stableford tourney.  Someone was running the thing and handling the scoring.  By default...they become the "committee".  If it was at a club, where was the pro.  I have played in events where people running something really had no clue about a rules question, so we go in the pro shop and ask the pro, assistant pro, or whomever we can find.  Someone at the course should know if they have a local rule about sprinkler heads around the green.  

FWIW, does not surprise me that many people thing they get relief.  I believe, (could be wrong) that the R&A allows such relief.  Even in the US Open this year, in a preview of the course, it was mentioned that relief would be granted from sprinkler heads around the green.  

The PGA Tour often enacts a local rule allowing such relief.  But as has been said, absent the local rule specifically in place, the rules do not provide for such relief.

Edited June 24, 2017 by David in FL

[RickK]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

The PGA Tour often enacts a local rule allowing such relief.  But as has been said, absent the local rule specifically in place, the rules do not provide for such relief?

Correct.  I just found it strange that no one could find out whether or not there was a local rule for this event or from someone at the course.  Absence of such a rule...it is a penalty.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by RickK

[Rulesman]

This local rule is used primarily in the UK on links courses where putting from long distances off the green is the norm.

IMO it should only be used if chipping over is not a reasonable proposition.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Rulesman said:

IMO it should only be used if chipping over is not a reasonable proposition.

I think it should be used any time there's a sprinkler head within two clublengths of the green and the ball and everything in between is a closely mown area.

[David in FL]

7 hours ago, Rulesman said:

This local rule is used primarily in the UK on links courses where putting from long distances off the green is the norm.

IMO it should only be used if chipping over is not a reasonable proposition.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think it should be used any time there's a sprinkler head within two clublengths of the green and the ball and everything in between is a closely mown area.

Interesting.  I don't like it at all.  

I simply don't understand why this one kind of obstruction should be treated like any other.  Relief for stance or area of intended swing.  Outside of that, deal with it.

[iacas]

On 6/25/2017 at 11:01 AM, David in FL said:

Interesting.  I don't like it at all.  

I simply don't understand why this one kind of obstruction should be treated like any other.  Relief for stance or area of intended swing.  Outside of that, deal with it.

TIOs can be on your line of sight but not at all in play and allow for relief. It's not unlike any other kind of obstruction.

These are obstructions to the path that the course was designed to allow you to play - along the ground. But only when both are within two clublengths: the obstruction to the green and to your ball.

The reason for saying "sorry, you don't get to putt that one" is… what…? When the fix is so easy?

[David in FL]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

TIOs can be on your line of sight but not at all in play and allow for relief. It's not unlike any other kind of obstruction.

These are obstructions to the path that the course was designed to allow you to play - along the ground. But only when both are within two clublengths: the obstruction to the green and to your ball.

True.  A TIO is a bit different.  

There's no disputing that it's an acknowledged, valid LR, but I still think it's silly to offer LOP relief on one part of the course, through-the-green, but on no other.  It just strikes me arbitrary and unnecessary.