16.3 Embedded ball

[Jigger]

I’ve a quick query for the experts. The following is an exception to the embedded ball rule

• When playing the ball as it lies is clearly unreasonable because of something from which the player is not allowed to take free relief (such as when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush).

I note a bush being used as an example and the key words of “unable to make a stroke”. Would this mean that I can take relief away from a tree trunk because I could make a swing in one direction or another?

Thanks

 

[doublebogey7]

Essentially yes, the question you should ask yourself is, would I take an unplayable from this position if my ball was not embedded. If the answer is yes, then no penalty free relief. If no then you may take free relief for the embedded ball.

 

[jim8flog]

My reading of that rule is that your are not entitled to relief.

The old rules used to make allowances for what would be considered a normal direction of play for an abnormal ground condition ( ie if a normal direction of play was going backwards or sideways). The new rules make no such mention under the embedded ball rule or the abnormal ground condition 16.1.

 

[doublebogey7]

My reading of that rule is that your are not entitled to relief.

The old rules used to make allowances for what would be considered a normal direction of play for an abnormal ground condition ( ie if a normal direction of play was going backwards or sideways). The new rules make no such mention under the embedded ball rule or the abnormal ground condition 16.1.

So are you arguing that a sideways shot is "clearly unreasonable" if the ball is against a tree. If so where do you draw the line. A tree is thirty yards in front of you leaving no clear view of the green, would a sideways shot then be unreasonable.

 

[jim8flog]

So are you arguing that a sideways shot is "clearly unreasonable" if the ball is against a tree. If so where do you draw the line. A tree is thirty yards in front of you leaving no clear view of the green, would a sideways shot then be unreasonable.

I am not saying a sideways shot is unreasonable I am saying there is no free relief for the embedded ball.

The reference to direction of play now only refers to deliberately adopting a direction of play so as to get relief.

The old rules used to give you relief for abnormal ground condition if you direction of play was 'usual' but the old rules for embedded ball not on grass cut to fairway height were worded the same as they are now.

 

[jim8flog]

Further to previous comments

My brain is so addled at the moment I could be getting it completely wrong.

 

[Jigger]

I am not saying a sideways shot is unreasonable I am saying there is no free relief for the embedded ball.

The reference to direction of play now only refers to deliberately adopting a direction of play so as to get relief.

The old rules used to give you relief for abnormal ground condition if you direction of play was 'usual' but the old rules for embedded ball not on grass cut to fairway height were worded the same as they are now.

Hey Jim. The only part I can find that relates to fairway height is this.

• When the ball is embedded in sand in a part of the general area that is not cut to fairway height or less

Our club are using in for non fairway general areas.

 

[jim8flog]

I was referring to the old rules. You only got embedded ball relief 'in the rough' by Local rule pre 2019.

In 2019, with the new rules, you got it in the general area.

 

[rulefan]

My reading of that rule is that your are not entitled to relief.

The old rules used to make allowances for what would be considered a normal direction of play for an abnormal ground condition ( ie if a normal direction of play was going backwards or sideways). The new rules make no such mention under the embedded ball rule or the abnormal ground condition 16.1.

The 2019 rules for AGC say
Exception: A player may not take relief ... if
(a) ... makes the stroke clearly impracticable
(b) ... only through ... clearly unreasonable stroke or unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

No mention of it being in a normal direction only not being unnecessarily abnormal.

 

[Steven Rules]

In 16.3 the player is not allowed to take free relief if playing the ball from the embedded spot would be clearly unreasonable because of something else from which free relief is not allowed.

So as long as the intended stroke would not be clearly unreasonable - in other words, if the stroke is is reasonable under the circumstances - then free embedded ball relief is available.

While we don't know the exact flora and geography here, from #1 I am imagining a requirement to chip sideways from a standard run-of-the-mill tree trunk. This seems reasonable (and certainly not 'clearly unreasonable') under the circumstances, and so embedded ball relief is permitted under 16.3.

Essentially yes, the question you should ask yourself is, would I take an unplayable from this position if my ball was not embedded.

It is not helpful to introduce the term 'unplayable' here. A player may treat their ball as unplayable anywhere on the course except a penalty area for any reason (or no reason) whatsoever.

 

[Colin L]

Essentially yes, the question you should ask yourself is, would I take an unplayable from this position if my ball was not embedded. If the answer is yes, then no penalty free relief. If no then you may take free relief for the embedded ball.

Just to emphasise what Steven has referred to, the player's decision that his ball is unplayable does not necessarily mean that a stroke is impossible. Normally in matters of interference you have several questions to ask, but in the matter of an embedded ball, the only question is whether it would be unreasonable to make a stroke because of something other than the fact that the ball is embedded.

 

[Jigger]

Just to emphasise what Steven has referred to, the player's decision that his ball is unplayable does not necessarily mean that a stroke is impossible. Normally in matters of interference you have several questions to ask, but in the matter of an embedded ball, the only question is whether it would be unreasonable to make a stroke because of something other than the fact that the ball is embedded.

Hey Colin, to elaborate on my question. I’m behind a tree meaning I can’t advance forward but I do have an option to chip backwards so a stroke can be made.

I think what you and others are saying is that whilst it is unreasonable to make a stroke forward, I am actually ok to take relief if I can make a stroke backward as it’s with the terms of being reasonable. My thinking is that this could be advantageous as the free relief would likely give me that shot forwards.

 

[salfordlad]

My reading of that rule is that your are not entitled to relief.

The old rules used to make allowances for what would be considered a normal direction of play for an abnormal ground condition ( ie if a normal direction of play was going backwards or sideways). The new rules make no such mention under the embedded ball rule or the abnormal ground condition 16.1.

See 16.1a(3)/2 for the current version of this guidance.

 

[RichA]

On the subject of embedded balls, was the rule ever that the player could roll the ball sideways out of the plug or is that just a local club myth? It's what most players at my club do rather than taking a drop.
It's what I was actually told on my first round with the club secretary a few years ago.

 

[Steven Rules]

Pre 2019 the ball had to be dropped. Post 2019 the ball has to be dropped. Sounds like some pretty bad practices happening at your club.

 

[Jigger]

On the subject of embedded balls, was the rule ever that the player could roll the ball sideways out of the plug or is that just a local club myth? It's what most players at my club do rather than taking a drop.
It's what I was actually told on my first round with the club secretary a few years ago.

We did it post 2019 but can’t confirm it was an official ruling but it was club guidance for us at the time.

 

[Steven Rules]

can’t confirm it was an official ruling

"official ruling"? While I acknowledge you can't confirm this, in your mind where and who would such an "official ruling" come from? What would it look like?

(When you say "it", I assume you mean rolling the ball out of the hole and playing it from there.)

 

[salfordlad]

On the subject of embedded balls, was the rule ever that the player could roll the ball sideways out of the plug or is that just a local club myth? It's what most players at my club do rather than taking a drop.
It's what I was actually told on my first round with the club secretary a few years ago.

This is incorrect, it is a mix up of the pre 2019 Rules. An embedded ball needed to be dropped in taking relief (and still does), as Steven notes. However, if a marked ball was being returned to play there was no penalty for returning it by rolling it - there was a Decision (16-1d/3) confirming this. However, 2019 tightened this up, requiring a ball to be replaced by "setting it down..." - which excluded rolling it by finger, club or whatever - and this also applied to a dropped ball that subsequently needed to be placed. 2023 has brought more minor evolution, adding "by hand" to "setting it down".

 

[rulie]

Some history, from "The Rules of the Green - A History of the Rules of Golf", by Kenneth Chapman,

Just Plain Stuck

To return to the embedded ball, the forerunners of the Royal Burgess Golfing Society mentioned it first in their 1773 Code:

If a Ball shall be so played as to stick fast to the ground, the said Ball shall be loosened by the opposite party to the owner of the Ball so fastened.

This rule appeared only in Burgess rules until the Society of St. Andrews Golfers adopted it in 1829, but without the restriction that the opponent had to loosen the ball:

A ball which is stuck fast in the ground may be loosened.

From this code it was adopted into those of other clubs (Perth 1839, Honourable Company 1839, and Blackheath 1844).

The Watery Sod

The Royal and Ancient Golf Club rephrased its embedded ball rule a bit more precisely in 1842:

A ball stuck fast in wet ground or sand, may be taken out and replaced loosely in the hole it has made.

This rule remained unchanged through the R&A code of 1891. Willie Park, Jr., in his commentary on that code, had this to say about it:

This only applies to wet ground or sand and the ball must be replaced in the hole; the hole cannot be closed and the ball placed on the top.

When the newly formed Rules of Golf Committee drew up its first code of rules in 1899, there was no mention of the embedded ball. From then on, a player who found his ball embedded either had to play it or treat it as unplayable. Relief finally came in 1980, when our current rule was adopted.

 

[chrisd]

I still get told I should roll the ball out sideways. Even though I tell them the real way to proceed I'm willing to bet that they still roll it out sideways in their next game