Recent content by Steven Rules

I agree with your overall conclusion but - on a technicality - I think the two answers are yes and no. (The second question was: '...would the decision be different...') I am confident everybody knew what you meant, though. I certainly did.

It has little or nothing to do with which tees the player plays from. If that were the case, a player (who is not submitting a GP card) could circumvent the Rules by tossing a ball on the fairway just forward of the tees and claim they were not playing the course, or playing the blue tees...

Back to the original title of this thread. Yes indeed. I, too, have just learned something new. After getting a quiz question wrong, the thing I have just learmed is that the status of growing things overhanging out beyond a no play zone (NPZ) depends on the type of NPZ. If a NPZ has been...

Those who read the thread 'Tee shot rebounds back onto the same teeing area' on this very forum less than two months ago would have been very aware.

That is not how I see it. The breach was inadvertent, but the caddie standing in the restricted area to help with aiming was very deliberate and intentional.

Thanks.9th hole, not 10th. Final round. I have now viewed the replay footage. I actually did see it happen live in real time but it didn't attract my attention from a Rules perspective at the time. I agree that the indcident depicts a dubious practice. As the player is taking his cramped...

In which round did this incident take place? Not the final round - Young played the 10th in regulation on day 4. Not a tree in sight. Can someone please let me know so I can go back and watch it?

As already stated, bunker liners are immovable obstructions by default. Most (all?) tour and elite amateur hard cards declare bunker liners in their intended position to be integral objects.

An obstruction is either a movable obstruction or an immovable obstruction, although the Committee may define a movable obstruction to be an immovable obstruction.

You are correct. In the circumstance you describe, the ball is in the general area and free relief would be available under Rule 16.1b. The term is penalty area, not water hazard.

Four-Ball Someone's got to say it 😱😏 (With acknowledgement to rulefan.)

The reminder in post #5, above, is worth reiterating, too.

Yes. Rule 6.2. The teeing area Rules apply whenever a player is required or allowed to play a ball from the teeing area. This includes when the player is starting play of the hole, the player will play again from the teeing area under a Rule, or (and this is the one relevant to your scenario)...

The robotic mower might be a remote possibility, but the same principle would apply if the ball played from the putting green hit any number of far more plausible movable obstructions on the putting green (e.g. a towel, a club other than the club used to make the stroke, a golf bag), or another...

It makes no difference whether the mower is stationary or moving. In this scenario, all that matters is that the ball is on the putting green when it is played and the movable obstruction is on the putting green when the ball hits it. Where the stationary/moving status is important is in...