Abnormal Ground Ground Condition (Animal Scraping) - Entitlement of relief

One Planer

Global Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
13,430
Location
Modsville
Visit site
Didn't seve try this one?

He did indeed:

On the many times that I ruled with Seve he had this fire, the Latin temperament and a fierce competitive spirit which is what made him so popular. For example, it was the final round of the final event of the 1994 season. Seve was tied for the lead with Bernhard Langer playing the 18th hole at Valderrama Spain and he had hit his ball behind a tree. At the base of this tree there was a fairly large hole and Seve was trying to claim relief from this hole by trying to convince me that this hole had been made by a burrowing animal.

I disagreed, and what followed was a fairly lengthy debate between us as he was trying to show me all sorts of little things on the ground which he was claiming were rabbit droppings and I wasn't agreeing. In the end I said "Sorry Seve there is no relief from here." So he chipped it out sideways and unfortunately he didn't win the golf tournament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/raiseyourgame/sites/motivation/thegaffer/pages/john_paramor.shtml
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
To be exact about it, Seve wasn't trying to claim relief from rabbit droppings, but to use the existence of (alleged!) rabbit droppings to convince Paramor that the hole had been made by a rabbit - as indeed was the point of my jokey remark earlier. Duncan's concern was that someone might think you got relief just from the droppings. The bunny gets the relief, but the player doesn't.

And in case anyone is wondering, animal droppings are loose impediments and may be removed from around your ball - which is fine if it's a rabbit, not too bad if it's a sheep, getting pretty awful if it's a horse and horrendous if it's a cow. I have never played golf where elephants are around.:cool:
 

MashieNiblick

Tour Winner
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
3,710
Location
Berkshire
Visit site
Interesting thread.

Colin

As I read it the exception for Rules 24-2 and 25-1 covers 3 scenarios


  • The shot proposed is impractical due to some other factor,
  • The shot proposed is unreasonable
  • The shot proposed involves an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play
In addition to the examples you described I think unreasonable would also cover, say proposing to use a driver from thick grass 50 yards from the green with the intent that the wider arc, different stance etc would bring an obstruction or AGC into play therefore justifying relief. Although the stance, swing and direction of play would not be abnormal the shot intended is clearly unreasonable and is proposed wholly in order to justify relief.

My question about the scenario described by Chris was whether a shot that would be highly unlikely to get a better result than a penalty drop could be regarded as "unreasonable" - suppose the best outcome would be to move the ball a couple of feet. Is it reasonable for a player attempt that when a penalty drop would gain him 2 club lengths? Would free relief be justified in that case? It seems to me the only reason for proposing the shot is to gain free relief.

Interested in any thoughts on that.
 

One Planer

Global Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
13,430
Location
Modsville
Visit site
My question about the scenario described by Chris was whether a shot that would be highly unlikely to get a better result than a penalty drop could be regarded as "unreasonable" - suppose the best outcome would be to move the ball a couple of feet. Is it reasonable for a player attempt that when a penalty drop would gain him 2 club lengths?

In Chris' example, as I read it anyway, there is no scrape so would that mean, due to the tree root, the ball is "potentially" in an unplayable lie?

He contrived a shot to make an effective stroke, similar to Mickleson playing a shot right handed from inside a bush not too long ago (I forget which tournament. May have been the Masters?).

Butch Harmon commented at the time he would have been better taking an unplayable but Phil decided to contrive a stroke to play the ball from its lie, so I see your point about it being more beneficial to take a penalty drop over a contrived/high risk shot.

Would free relief be justified in that case? It seems to me the only reason for proposing the shot is to gain free relief.

As previous, with there being no scrape would he be entitled to relief?

Do tree roots come under "abnormal ground conditions"?
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Interesting indeed!

So some points arising from what you say - and these are just my take on the matter, not in any way authoritative.

The exception is structured in two parts dealing with
etc
a) where a stroke is impracticable (not impractical, but more of that later) i.e. where a stroke cannot physically be made; and,

b) where a stroke is practicable but can only be made through an unreasonable distortion of the norm - either in terms of stroke or of stance, swing or direction of play.

The either/or of the second part gives you your 3 situations but I expect it is worded the way it is simply because of the broad distinction between the impossible shot and the possible but abnormal shot/set-up. It probably doesn't matter how you see it.

Now to the difference between impractical and impracticable. The rule uses impracticable because it is means an impossible shot. An impractical shot is possible but probably not very clever - you know the kind when you go for it and really should have played a safety shot. It seems right that we should get relief where there is an impractical shot available (such as that one with the putter described above).

Rather rushed - just going out - but hope that makes sense.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
It's maybe getting a little confusing so here's and attempt to summarise what's coming out of this thread.If an abnormal ground condition (casual water, ground under repair or hole made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird) or an immovable obstruction interferes with your lie, stance or area of your intended swing, you are generally entitled to relief (Rule 24-2b and 25-1b).

There is one exception designed to prevent a player getting relief when he doesn't have a possible shot (impracticable) or when he would have to do something ridiculously out of the norm in order to prove interference (unreasonable or abnormal).

An example of impracticable is where your ball lies in front of a staked tree where there is no local rule giving relief. The stake is an obstruction, but if the tree is between your ball and the stake such that you wouldn't hit the stake because of the tree, you don't get relief.

An example of an unreasonable stroke might be where your ball is stuck a metre and a half up in a bush just in front of an obstruction. You might have a job persuading anyone that you had a reasonable stroke were the obstruction not there.

An example of an abnormal stance would be where you widen your stance to a groin straining extent so that your foot is on a path or an area of GUR, when your normal stance is shoulder width.

An example of an abnormal direction of play might be where the player has only a sideways shot that would go straight into a water hazard.

Other points from the thread:

1)I don't think the question of whether a player might be better off with an unplayable lie penalty than attempting a difficult shot is relevant to a decision as to whether he gets relief. He either has a shot and gets relief, or has no shot and doesn't, a judgement that is made only on where the ball lies and what the possibility is for playing it. If he doesn't get relief he has the choice of attempting the "impossible" or deciding his ball is unplayable.

2) You can use Rule 28 (Lie Unplayable) anywhere at any time.

3) Tree roots are not abnormal ground conditions.
 
Last edited:

MashieNiblick

Tour Winner
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
3,710
Location
Berkshire
Visit site
As previous, with there being no scrape would he be entitled to relief?

Do tree roots come under "abnormal ground conditions"?

The situation as I understood it was that when playing the shot in question there was interference with the players stance by an AGC. Hence my question as to whether relief was available given that the reasonableness of playing the shot at all might be in doubt.

a) where a stroke is impracticable (not impractical, but more of that later)

to the difference between impractical and impracticable. The rule uses impracticable because it is means an impossible shot. An impractical shot is possible but probably not very clever

Cheers Colin that was just a typo/poor proof reading on my part but the explanation was useful anyway.


1)I don't think the question of whether a player might be better off with an unplayable lie penalty than attempting a difficult shot is relevant to a decision as to whether he gets relief. He either has a shot and gets relief, or has no shot and doesn't, a judgement that is made only on where the ball lies and what the possibility is for playing it. If he doesn't get relief he has the choice of attempting the "impossible" or deciding his ball is unplayable.

Thanks, that was the essence of the query I had and I think that covers it very well. Makes sense and would be fair.
 

One Planer

Global Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
13,430
Location
Modsville
Visit site
Just for clarification.

I went for a quick 9 after work and took a picture of the offending scrape:

temporary-88.jpg


The scrpae I refer to is at the base of the picture (In the centre, semi covered by a weed)

You can just make a out the dropping below it and to the right.

As you can see no real issues with the swing being impracticle or impossible, just a question as to whether relief from the scrape was correct or not.

Thanks for the clarification :thup:
 
Top