Animal Scrapping / burrows

And too many players want relief from the tree. You have to let them know NPR means nearest, not nicest. I had a situation in a club k/o a couple of years back and eventually caved in to his request, so the 3&2 win was all the more satisfying.
This has really enlightened me, the lack of knowledge at my old club from so-called seasoned players who have taken relief from a 'scrape', which is a word or term not used anywhere in the R&A Rules as I just did a search, is unbelievable.

I've seen players ask for relief near trees and get it for what looks no different to that of a divot with a few drops of poo nearby, hence the term 'scrape'.

Are we saying, and as I have just read to the best of my ability on the R&A site, that relief should only be given like in the picture it shows, being a 'hole' and anything that is simply a 'scrape' gets the 2 finger salute :smirk:
 
Can anyone give me a reference to what a cast is please. Not looking for a personal opinion but an actual reference as I am struggling to find one.

I think the dictionary is the place to look for the definition.

But Worm Casts and Molehills are examples. Worm Casts are, however, defined as Loose Impediments.
 
And too many players want relief from the tree. You have to let them know NPR means nearest, not nicest. I had a situation in a club k/o a couple of years back and eventually caved in to his request, so the 3&2 win was all the more satisfying.

I got told by a very 'respectable' player at KGC that he could take relief because his line to the green from a wayward drive had a staked tree in front, I'm aware of the staked tree local rule if it affects your swing but this staked tree was about 2 metres in front and he attempted to tell me that because it was staked, it was protected from a direct hit and he could drop to the side to miss it, I fell about laughing and then he got nasty so I said do want you want but I'm not signing your card!
 
I got told by a very 'respectable' player at KGC that he could take relief because his line to the green from a wayward drive had a staked tree in front, I'm aware of the staked tree local rule if it affects your swing but this staked tree was about 2 metres in front and he attempted to tell me that because it was staked, it was protected from a direct hit and he could drop to the side to miss it, I fell about laughing and then he got nasty so I said do want you want but I'm not signing your card!

The simple thing to do in those cases is point out your opinion and let him decide what to do on the basis that you will get the ruling confirmed after the round. There is no reason to refuse to sign his card - unless he refuses to allow you to confirm the Rule. But there's every reason to fall about laughing at the hustle attempt!
 
Molehills are also defined as Casts, if not by dictionary, then by Decision 25/23.

Was just looking up Foxholer's reference to decision 25/23 then got side tracked by some cross references. And now have a question. Is a worm a burrowing animal? (After all, they are animals, and they burrow don't they?) If not, where does it say not? (And I'm not accepting the definition of loose impediment as the answer). Next time I'm standing on a wormcast, I'm having a free drop under rule 25
 
Was just looking up Foxholer's reference to decision 25/23 then got side tracked by some cross references. And now have a question. Is a worm a burrowing animal? (After all, they are animals, and they burrow don't they?) If not, where does it say not? (And I'm not accepting the definition of loose impediment as the answer). Next time I'm standing on a wormcast, I'm having a free drop under rule 25

Of course a worm is a burrowing animal! Its cast is both a loose impediment and an abnormal ground condition. If your ball were up against or even on one, you would not be able to remove it as a loose impediment but you could tai relief from it as an abnormal ground condition.

But standing on a worm cast? Under Rule 25, in what way is the worm cast under your foot interfering with your stance?

You must be a man with a very sensitive soul. (Sorry :o)
 
Last edited:
Of course a worm is a burrowing animal! Its cast is both a loose impediment and an abnormal ground condition. If your ball were up against or even on one, you would not be able to remove it as a loose impediment but you could tai relief from it as an abnormal ground condition.

That's not that black & white is it? If the ball as you state was up against a cast and as you say it is also classed as a loose impediment, then surely you can remove it 'as long as' the ball doesn't move!

I know I'm probably nit picking but with the way these rules are sometimes presented and explained, its healthy to challenge some statements for greater clarification. So, whilst saying that, wouldn't a cast be more a case of abnormal ground conditions only rather than a loose impediment as most casts I've come across are almost 'rooted' to the ground, especially when dry they tend to not just form a 'surface' obstruction!
 
Of course a worm is a burrowing animal! Its cast is both a loose impediment and an abnormal ground condition. If your ball were up against or even on one, you would not be able to remove it as a loose impediment but you could tai relief from it as an abnormal ground condition.

But standing on a worm cast? Under Rule 25, in what way is the worm cast under your foot interfering with your stance?

You must be a man with a very sensitive soul. (Sorry :o)

Nope -I'm usually regarded as a very insensitive soul :) Just very sensitive feet :)

But on the serious note, if your ball is right up against a wormcast, why can't you move move it as a loose impediment when they are specifically mentioned in the definition of loose impediment. (Ps: I'm aware of decision 23/11 - which is what got me thinking in the first place).
 
Of course a worm is a burrowing animal! Its cast is both a loose impediment and an abnormal ground condition. If your ball were up against or even on one, you would not be able to remove it as a loose impediment but you could tai relief from it as an abnormal ground condition.

But standing on a worm cast? Under Rule 25, in what way is the worm cast under your foot interfering with your stance?

You must be a man with a very sensitive soul. (Sorry :o)

Definition of "burrowing animal" from the R&A... (my bold)

A "burrowing animal" is an animal (other than a worm, insect or the like) that makes a hole for habitation or shelter, such as a rabbit, mole, groundhog, gopher or salamander.
 
Nope -I'm usually regarded as a very insensitive soul :) Just very sensitive feet :)

But on the serious note, if your ball is right up against a wormcast, why can't you move move it as a loose impediment when they are specifically mentioned in the definition of loose impediment. (Ps: I'm aware of decision 23/11 - which is what got me thinking in the first place).

Apologies if I confused. My LI post (#23) should probably have had an '(also)' before the word 'defined'.

You certainly can treat the cast as an LI and simply move it. But should the ball move, you would be penalised, so probably safer to 'take relief' as you are (also) allowed to do - and you can clean the ball when you do.

I seriously doubt whether worm casts would ever actually 'interfere' with your stance though!:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

I've just the first few answers and it seems to now go against what has been written above in the topic!

We seem to have moved away from the common term 'scrape' because in the rules it doesn't exist, however a 'hole' does, the question now beckons, was that a hole or a scrape and if it was the latter, you shouldn't get relief, or, a bigger question, when does a 'scrape' become a 'hole'? Does the offending burrowing animal have to be able to hide within it or can it be an attempt and abandoned burrow which inadvertently leaves a 'scrape'?
 
I've just the first few answers and it seems to now go against what has been written above in the topic!

We seem to have moved away from the common term 'scrape' because in the rules it doesn't exist, however a 'hole' does, the question now beckons, was that a hole or a scrape and if it was the latter, you shouldn't get relief, or, a bigger question, when does a 'scrape' become a 'hole'? Does the offending burrowing animal have to be able to hide within it or can it be an attempt and abandoned burrow which inadvertently leaves a 'scrape'?

That is the problem, what do you define as a scrape, a hole and a cast. No where in the R&A rule book can I find where it describes it. If there is an obvious indentation in the ground that has been made by a burrowing animal, is that a hole or not?
 
If I was playing in a Match, I would certainly allow my opponent relief from either of those conditions in Gareth's previous post - and would expect to be allowed relief myself, though wouldn't get angry if it was not forthcoming! The presence of the tree as the major obstruction would, of course, influence whether relief was allowed though.

That is, indeed, about the point where a 'scrape' does become a 'hole'!

In the case of Fish's Club's LR though, it wouldn't be too much hassle should it only be my stance that was affected - I could manufacture a stance reasonably satisfactorily.
 
Last edited:
If I was playing in a Match, I would certainly allow my opponent relief from either of those conditions in Gareth's previous post - and would expect to be allowed relief myself, though wouldn't get angry if it was not forthcoming! The presence of the tree as the major obstruction would, of course, influence whether relief was allowed though.

That is, indeed, about the point where a 'scrape' does become a 'hole'!

In the case of Fish's Club's LR though, it wouldn't be too much hassle should it only be my stance that was affected - I could manufacture a stance reasonably satisfactorily.

If you're taking relief from the scrape/hole, do you not have to take full relief including stance?
 
Top