Jump to content
QB57

Ball against a wooden tee box

16 posts / 1543 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

While playing yesterday I hit the ball to the side of the green and it landed against an elevated tee box (similar construction to the photo attached). I couldn’t hit it because it was wedged against the side of this. Am I entitled to a free drop on the side of it? Do I have to hit it as it lies? Or should I take a penalty drop?

i took a penalty drop but still unsure about man made structure rules.

 

thanks!

5F1EE136-EA59-48E5-A79D-4482923FA08A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

The retaining wall is an Immovable Obstruction and as such you are entitled to free relief.

See Rule 24-2 

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-24

and the definitions of Immovable Obstruction and Nearest Point of Relief

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14253

and have a look at this to show how to take relief

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-25,d25-1b-2

 

 

 

Edited by Rulesman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. Just out of curiosity, do I have to be right up against the immovable obstruction in order to take the drop or can it be close enough that you can’t play a proper shot because of a restricted swing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, QB57 said:

Thanks for the clarification. Just out of curiosity, do I have to be right up against the immovable obstruction in order to take the drop or can it be close enough that you can’t play a proper shot because of a restricted swing?

Did you read the first part of Rule 24-2?

Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or when the obstruction interferes with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:28 PM, iacas said:

Unless it’s deemed an integral part of the course.

Which would be unusual.

I'm curious about this. The wall in the photo is holding the t box in place, vs being decorative. I seem to remember guys at 17 Sawgrass having to play shots with the supports holding the green together in the way. When does 'integral' kick in?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Papa Steve 55 said:

I'm curious about this. The wall in the photo is holding the t box in place, vs being decorative. I seem to remember guys at 17 Sawgrass having to play shots with the supports holding the green together in the way. When does 'integral' kick in?
 

When the Committee deem any construction to be an Integral Part of the Course. See the definition of Obstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rulesman said:

When the Committee deem any construction to be an Integral Part of the Course. See the definition of Obstruction.

that's an honest answer, but it doesn't really help the guy standing there - unless the "Committed" just happens to be standing there to consult

How, "typically" would the player know the decision in non-tournament play?  would it typically be a note on the score card?  a sign on the obstruction?  (I know these answers are specific to each course, but I'd hope there was some expectation or standardization of how courses "implement and inform" on subjective decisions.  I mean, there's a 'committee' likely at high end courses, the 'committee' at your local goat track might be some guy named 'Joe')

Edited by rehmwa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, rehmwa said:

that's an honest answer, but it doesn't really help the guy standing there - unless the "Committed" just happens to be standing there to consult

How, "typically" would the player know the decision in non-tournament play?  would it typically be a note on the score card?  a sign on the obstruction?  (I know these answers are specific to each course, but I'd hope there was some expectation or standardization of how courses "implement and inform" on subjective decisions.  I mean, there's a 'committee' likely at high end courses, the 'committee' at your local goat track might be some guy named 'Joe')

It should be on the score card at least. As it is a fairly unusual situation, IMO it should be on a notice at the clubhouse and possibly at the location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

It should be on the score card at least.

And when it is, it's usually just a sentence or something, like "150-yard markers, tee signs, and water system control boxes are immovable obstructions. All bulkheads and retaining walls are integral parts of the course."

Or something like that.

For example here's North Berwick's scorecard, which is actually a bit wordy (they define things that don't need to be defined, like "water hazards marked with yellow stakes are ordinary water hazards." Unnecessary.), says "All… stone walls are integral parts of the course."

image.png

That way when you play this hole…

North%2520Berwick1-43.jpg

…you know you don't get relief from the stone wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just to make it clear, on that hole (the 13th), the fairway runs parallel to the wall on its right hand side behind the camera

Edited by Rulesman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Just to make it clear, on that hole (the 13th), the fairway runs parallel to the wall on its right hand side behind the camera

On a not-too-far off tangent, why is Grannie Clark's Wynd at St. Andrews (running across 1st and 18 fairways) considered integral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

15 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

On a not-too-far off tangent, why is Grannie Clark's Wynd at St. Andrews (running across 1st and 18 fairways) considered integral?

Because they've deemed it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Just to make it clear, on that hole (the 13th), the fairway runs parallel to the wall on its right hand side behind the camera

True, but there are a few other holes where walls run pretty much perpendicular to the line of play, and all of them are integral to the course.  In this case, from what I've read, the walls are all in areas that were added to the original course, so they were probably in place before golf was established on this ground.  Similarly, Granny Clark's Wynd may have been in place (certainly not paved) prior to the period when the concept of relief from man-made structures came to being.  It makes sense to me that when golf clubs moved onto new ground, they accepted its condition of that ground as it was, no relief necessary for things like walls or paths.

Spoiler

I've thought of this before, and its a pretty wide tangent, but divot holes were certainly in existence before the idea of relief of any kind came into being, before even the first rules were established.  Of course most players didn't dig really deep divots with wooden-shafted clubs, but still, divots were taken.  Perhaps the existence of divots well before the existence of rules of golf is one reason that the rules have never (so far) looked at a divot hole as a reason for relief.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

On a not-too-far off tangent, why is Grannie Clark's Wynd at St. Andrews (running across 1st and 18 fairways) considered integral?

Although I said earlier that it is 'a fairly unusual situation', I was really referring to the specific case raised and other constructions introduced after the land became a golf course. Preexisting, ancient walls, crofters cottages (often ruins), paved and unpaved tracks which are scattered all over the UK are virtually always deemed to be integral.

Edited by Rulesman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • It's speculation that doesn't actually matter. GOAT is not the longest driver or we'd already be throwing Cameron Champ's or Jamie Sadlowski's names in the discussion.
    • How far would golf's legends drive the ball using modern equipment? At the 2016 Ryder Cup, the 6-foot-5 Thomas Pieters belted a drive 324...   An interesting article on how players way back would have driven the ball with today's ball and equipment.  I didn't realize that Jack had driven the ball 341 yards in a longest drive competition when he was 18.  
    • Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Ha ha ha.
    • I’ve never been one to sit on my donkey for too long. The past four and half decades have pretty much been work for me , as so I know, for many others as well.  Developing my golf game will (not) dominate my new found free time. It will though give me a new avenue of pursuits that I hope will keep my mind expanding. Thanks for the input and reply. 
    • That sort of extrapolation is not possible.  You are talking that he would be hitting the golf ball further than the average long drive competitor. I am not buying it. He would be one of the longer hitters on tour. Jack is not the physical freak like Dustin Johnson. I would put him probably a top 10 in distance yearly if he was in his prime competing today.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dan42nepa
      Dan42nepa
      (63 years old)
    2. James Dalton
      James Dalton
      (78 years old)
    3. JMHARDING
      JMHARDING
      (29 years old)
    4. mwh1023
      mwh1023
      (52 years old)
    5. Skeesh
      Skeesh
      (47 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...