Ball in Motion on Green Hits Robotic Mower

[Lucifer MorningStar]

I love the fact something can be both an immovable and movable obstruction. Golf loves to over complicate itself and make things as clear as mud to outside observers and those new to the game, it’s no wonder so many get confused by it.

 

[rulefan]

I love the fact something can be both an immovable and movable obstruction. Golf loves to over complicate itself and make things as clear as mud to outside observers and those new to the game, it’s no wonder so many get confused by it.

Who is confused by what?

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Who is confused by what?

I’m not confused! My point was it’s typical of golf to write rules so matter of fact then add the caveats underneath which allows something to be both moveable and immovable which does and clearly has caused confusion to some hence they got the wrong answers at the quiz!

To the casual player, new player and lots of long standing players many rules are confusing and overly contrived. It’s one of the reason so many people ask for help here as they don’t get it or others break rules unwittingly and with best intentions.

I was merely making that observation, If anyone’s tries to claim rules in golf aren’t or are never confusing then they’d be wrong in many instances.

 

[backwoodsman]

I'm intrigued as to who/what/where it's been said that something can be both a movable obstruction as well as an immovable obstruction?

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

I'm intrigued as to who/what/where it's been said that something can be both a movable obstruction as well as an immovable obstruction?

Maybe my mistake in reading it. As a dyslexic I read movable obstruction and outside influence that way. See what I mean about how things can get confusing for people. I’m not the only one out there that will struggle with the definitions

 

[Neilds]

Maybe my mistake in reading it. As a dyslexic I read movable obstruction and outside influence that way. See what I mean about how things can get confusing for people. I’m not the only one out there that will struggle with the definitions

Totally agree, there are too many definitions that can be interchangeable in certain circumstances. As I mentioned in another thread, why is there a need for both a no play zone and Ground under repair? Just have 1 and make people move the ball at all times.

 

[Steven Rules]

I love the fact something can be both an immovable and movable obstruction.

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

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

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

And that makes it so much clearer especially for those that struggle with written words

Totally agree, there are too many definitions that can be interchangeable in certain circumstances. As I mentioned in another thread, why is there a need for both a no play zone and Ground under repair? Just have 1 and make people move the ball at all times.

My point exactly rules should be simp and clear to understand not requiring chapter and verse to decipher or decipher with terminology that mean the same but different

 

[Ratness]

The Director for Rules Education at the USGA has guided thus for this type of scenario: if an object is both outside influence and a movable obstruction (as is the case here), it needs to be treated as a movable obstruction as that is the more specific definition. [Aside, some objects can meet multiple definitions simultaneously.]
This stroke must be replayed, per 11.1b(2), as some others have noted.

Excellent work, thanks for this.
In determining the precedence of Movable Obstruction vs Outside Influence, the USGA means “More specific…” in the sense that the separate Obstruction definition mentions mowers..? Love it.

 

[doublebogey7]

Totally agree, there are too many definitions that can be interchangeable in certain circumstances. As I mentioned in another thread, why is there a need for both a no play zone and Ground under repair? Just have 1 and make people move the ball at all times.

Because forcing a player to take relief could leave them in a much worse position than had they been able to simply play the ball as it lies. As a referee I recognise that the rules are not simple, but I'd challenge anyone to make them simpler without making the game harder to play than it already is.

 

[Neilds]

Because forcing a player to take relief could leave them in a much worse position than had they been able to simply play the ball as it lies. As a referee I recognise that the rules are not simple, but I'd challenge anyone to make them simpler without making the game harder to play than it already is.

As people often say on this forum, sometimes the rules work for you, sometimes they don't.