3 rules questions-immovable obstructions, GUR and dangerous ground?

[Charlie_B1981]

hi all,

sorry for the bombardment - i could post three posts but guess it will be the same people reading and replying anyway.

last 2 weeks had three rules that caused confusion and after other peoples thoughts as to the rule and our solution.

1- ball hit into the rough and found to be sat on top of a houe brick half embedded in the ground, . as it was half embedded it was unlcear if it could actually be moved. questions ensued around : is a house brick a moveable obstruction- agreed yes, but what if its embedded, do it then become imovable, you cannot check if its properly embedded without moving the ball which could be a penalty. with a lot of force and digging out the brick could have been lifted. does this make it a moveable obstruction and therefore mean a free drop is not possible

2:ground under repair - sign in the ground but no line to signify the end, patch with some little shrubs then a path running alongside which is completely bare but natuaral, where do you drop, on the path or also include this patch as GUR and drop the other side where there is grass. - agreed as a group path should be GUR so dropped on the grass the other side- 15 yds from original position

3: dangerous ball position - area on the course where the groundsman burns rubbish from time to time. ball landed on the edge of the ash from one obviously used the night before and still smoking and red in the middle. no sign for GUR or local rule and danger of ash still being hot- free drop or tough luck and play it where it lies- agreed free drop for safety. remember reading something about safety to cater for snakes, Unexploded bombs etc but we couldnt find it in the rules.

many thanks all!
Charlie B

 

[Region3]

I'm guessing these so don't take them as being right. I'm also interested in the answers.

1. Is it not a loose impediment? After all, it's just a stone, albeit it a big one.
If it is a moveable obstruction, are you not allowed to mark the ball then move the obstruction and replace the ball?

2. No idea, but sounds like you were sensible about it.

3. Could it be classed as 'material piled for removal', since the act of burning it means that the greenkeepers don't intend it to stay there?

 

[Colin L]

Hi Charlie
Some answers for you:

1) The brick is an obstruction, being artificial. You were allowed to lift your ball as it was resting on the obstruction. If it were possible to move the brick without undue effort it was a movable obstruction and you would remove it and drop the ball as near as possible to below where the ball was. Rule 24-1b. If the brick could not be moved it was an immovable obstruction and you would take relief by dropping within 1 club length of the nearest point of relief. Rule 24-2b (i). I would want to go for its being immovable because of the embedding, not least of all because if it were well embedded there would be a hole when you removed it!

2.) No real answer to this: sounds as if your Committee is at fault for not defining the GUR clearly enough.

3.) Decision 1-4/10 allows relief from dangerous situations, using a live rattlesnake or a bee's nest to illustrate where it is unfair to expect a player to play or to incur a penalty in order to play from somewhere else. Decision 1-4/11 clarifies that a dangerous situation is one which is unrelated to conditions normally encountered on the course and so does not include nettles cacti and the like. Players, it says, have to accept unpleasant lies as a common occurrence. I would reckon standing on burning embers is a bit beyond an acceptable unpleasant lie and would allow relief.

 

[Charlie_B1981]

thanks colin,

i've been trying to find the exact rules, we all knew of them but couldnt find them in the little guides you get.

1- exactly right and now i have the rule its so clear. this one was me and i played two balls and checked later with the committe, 1 ball with a penalty drop one with no penalty and playing from the spot after moving the brick. got a double bogey with the first and par with the second - comittee rules it was just tough luck and the doubly bogey stood, can see this now gave me 2 extra shots than i should have had.

2- this has been raised with the comittee

3-that was our view, its not just unpleasant- we again just couldnt find the rule in the book.

cheers gents

 

[Colin L]

I do wonder what your Committee thought was just bad luck. Did they think the brick was a natural object like a stone and therefore a loose impediment, I wonder? A brick to me is a manufactured object and therefore an obstruction. And I bet any member of your committee finding his ball lying on a brick path would be quick enough to agree. That this was a solitary brick shouldn't make any difference.

That was wise to play 2 balls. Were you aware that under Rule 3-3 which allows you to do this, you are required to state to your marker or a fellow competitor which ball you want to count before you do anything? In your case that would obviously have been the original ball you were going to lift in order to remove the obstruction. But even if you had not made this declaration, the Committee should have taken the score with the original ball (Rule 3-3 b ii) as long as the ball was played out according to the Rules. As far as I can see it was.

 

[Charlie_B1981]

I played 2 with a view to querying which was correct later and i was aware you could do this, this was agreed with the other players but didnt declare in advance which i wanted to take as i didnt realise i had to. although i can now see why and you could always end up with a lower score with a penalty and chose that later!

have no idea what the committe thought but i may ask them this week, i get on well with them so can an in a friendly way rather than a 'oi why'd you rob me of 2 shots' like you i can only think they believed the brick to be a loose impediment rather than an obstruction.

 

[Colin L]

Please ignore the second para of the above. I realised too late to edit it that I think I have got it a bit wrong. will sort it later.

 

[Colin L]

Sorry about farting around a bit. I am not entirely familiar with the ins and outs of 3-3 so am being slightly tentative in putting forward this interpretation. I am pretty sure I got it wrong in the last sentence because you did not in fact play the original ball.
[SUB]
As I see it, you put 2 balls into play, one I presume under Rule 28 Unplayable Lie and the other without penalty under 24-1 b. Unfortunately since you did not declare at the time which ball was to count, the Committee will count the first ball put into play and from what you have said, it looks as if the first ball was the double bogey one. That might be the tough luck!

By the way, did you place or drop the ball after removing the obstruction? It should have been dropped if the ball was on it and not touching the course.
[/SUB]
​

 

[Charlie_B1981]

the declaring which ball is a fair point and as such the double bogey would stand, although the committee members didnt question this and the view was it was just tough luck based on not getting free relief from the brick.

yes it was dropped in accordance with the rules - dropping through the green, placing on the putting surface.

 

[Colin L]

Well done on knowing to drop the ball! I have seen a video of Nick Faldo arguing with a referee that he should be allowed to place a ball that had landed on top of a polybag belonging to a spectator. The referee, to his credit, stood his ground and made him drop it.

So it comes down to the matter of the brick. Not much more to be said then :mmm: I cant see other than that it is a manufactured item, artificial and therefore an obstruction and that your Committee is wrong. When you speak to them you might ask what the difference is between one brick and a path load of bricks.

I'll have another look through the Decisions book for anything that might be relevant.

 

[Charlie_B1981]

cheers colin!

seems the only two points are as you say - me not knowing to nominate a ball as the main one, and the committe's idea of a moveable obstruction.

i'm always suprised at the pro's a lot of them seem to think that because they have the referee's there they dont need to know the rules.

thanks for the help

 

[duncan mackie]

I'll have another look through the Decisions book for anything that might be relevant.

26/4 is probably best; it makes it clear that even a natual object (a stone) that was part of a manufactured (artificial) construction (wall) becomes a moveable obstruction if it detaches from the wall.

 

[Colin L]

Yes, I knew of that one, but reckoned in the end the Definition is sufficiently clear in itself to satisfy me (though perhaps not Charlie's Committee) that a manufactured house brick is an obstruction without the need of a Decision. 26/4 is a good one to remember if there are drystone dykes around your course, though.

 

[williamalex1]

Yes, I knew of that one, but reckoned in the end the Definition is sufficiently clear in itself to satisfy me (though perhaps not Charlie's Committee) that a manufactured house brick is an obstruction without the need of a Decision. 26/4 is a good one to remember if there are drystone dykes around your course, though.

harry [beer bottle] bradshaw springs to mind. he lost the open . many many years ago, by not knowing the rule