Ball in tree base but standing on path?

[JT77]

Playing a medal yesterday, one of the guys played tee shot into the par 3 and flushed it through the green into the base of a tree that sits about 5 yards behind the back edge of the green.
The ball was lodged in a bush at the side of the tree, and was unplayable, however, there is a path that sits along the side of the tree, and around our place you get relief from path ways.
As it happens he took an unplayable and made a four.
Now, as we walked up the next the point was raised that he could have had a free drop as he would have been standing in the path, after plenty discussion we just weren't sure, it made no diff to his card, as he was 8 over at the time, but for future ref how would you have seen it?
TIA

 

[guest100718]

It's a rule that I always struggle with. If belive if there is no shot on then you can't claim relief.

 

[JT77]

It's a funny one really as he could have said he wanted to play it, he could have smashed his club through the bush I guess, so in theory he could maybe have used the rules to his advantage but we just weren't sure.

 

[Colin L]

It's a rule that I always struggle with. If belive if there is no shot on then you can't claim relief.

That's correct. There is an exception to both Rule 24-2b (relief from an obstruction) and Rule 25-1b (relief from an abnormal ground condition) which states that the player does not get relief if his shot is made impossible by something other than the obstruction/condition. In this case if it was clear that the player was unable to play his ball because of the tree, he would therefore not be allowed relief from the path.

 

[guest100718]

It's a funny one really as he could have said he wanted to play it, he could have smashed his club through the bush I guess, so in theory he could maybe have used the rules to his advantage but we just weren't sure.

Even if he could have chipped out sideways then that would have been ok and he could have taken relief. Even if that then meant he had a clear shot to the green

 

[JT77]

Thanks Colin, and paddy, however, in theory he could have had a stab at this ball, was unlikely to do much with it, but theoretically he could have tried to play it.
Hence our not being sure, I think he made the correct choice by taking an unplayable but in a match say, or if you were on a score, would you have used the rules to your advantage ?

 

[JT77]

Thanks paddy you must have been typing as I was.

 

[guest100718]

Thanks Colin, and paddy, however, in theory he could have had a stab at this ball, was unlikely to do much with it, but theoretically he could have tried to play it.
Hence our not being sure, I think he made the correct choice by taking an unplayable but in a match say, or if you were on a score, would you have used the rules to your advantage ?

Just play by the rules and sometimes they give you a little something ☺

 

[KenL]

That's correct. There is an exception to both Rule 24-2b (relief from an obstruction) and Rule 25-1b (relief from an abnormal ground condition) which states that the player does not get relief if his shot is made impossible by something other than the obstruction/condition. In this case if it was clear that the player was unable to play his ball because of the tree, he would therefore not be allowed relief from the path.

Interesting. Do you know the rule or decision that explains this?

 

[Colin L]

Interesting. Do you know the rule or decision that explains this?

The same rule that I referenced in post #4

 

[Colin L]

Interesting. Do you know the rule or decision that explains this?

The same rule that I referenced in post #4 and you have just quoted

 

[rulefan]

Interesting. Do you know the rule or decision that explains this?

In addition see the following decisions

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-24,d24-2b-16

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-24,d24-2b-17

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-24,d24-2b-18

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-24,d24-2b-19

 

[JT77]

I haven't clicked on links so apologies but why would we be using usga rules as opposed to r&a?

 

[Colin L]

I haven't clicked on links so apologies but why would we be using usga rules as opposed to r&a?

The rules are the same but the USGA website is friendlier to the user.

 

[backwoodsman]

Even if he could have chipped out sideways then that would have been ok and he could have taken relief. Even if that then meant he had a clear shot to the green

That's correct. There is an exception to both Rule 24-2b (relief from an obstruction) and Rule 25-1b (relief from an abnormal ground condition) which states that the player does not get relief if his shot is made impossible by something other than the obstruction/condition. In this case if it was clear that the player was unable to play his ball because of the tree, he would therefore not be allowed relief from the path.

Thanks Colin, and paddy, however, in theory he could have had a stab at this ball, was unlikely to do much with it, but theoretically he could have tried to play it.
Hence our not being sure, I think he made the correct choice by taking an unplayable but in a match say, or if you were on a score, would you have used the rules to your advantage ?

The thing to note is that although Colin uses the word "impossible", the exception in the rule uses the words "clearly impractical" in relation to ones ability to make a stroke. So it is less easy to "get round" the exception than might be thought. Just because you might just about be able to somehow get a club at the ball, it won't stop things being "clearly impractical" so the exception would still apply and free relief therefore not available.

 

[bobmac]

I was told many moons ago about how to approach this kind of situation.
Ball in the rubbish but claiming free drop from the path.............

Ask yourself would you normally attempt to play the ball if the path wasn't there?
If you would, (playable) then free drop
If you wouldn't (unplayable) then no free drop.

 

[Colin L]

The thing to note is that although Colin uses the word "impossible", the exception in the rule uses the words "clearly impractical" in relation to ones ability to make a stroke. So it is less easy to "get round" the exception than might be thought. Just because you might just about be able to somehow get a club at the ball, it won't stop things being "clearly impractical" so the exception would still apply and free relief therefore not available.

The thing to note is that Colin used the word "impossible" because the rule uses the words clearly impracticable which mean clearly impossible. Impractical does not have the same meaning: an action may be possible but impractical i.e. you can carry it out but it is not very sensible or realistic to do so. Provided it is possible to make a stroke you are not denied relief on the basis of that part of the Exception even if it is impractical - unwise to make it or unrealistic to expect much of an outcome from it. (I'll just mention that there are other factors to the Exception in determining whether relief is given.)

 

[MashieNiblick]

Like Bob I think it's case of letting your conscience be your guide.

Less easy if it's someone else but maybe in stroke play it's a good situation to suggest that rule 3-3 be invoked. Let the other chap take relief and and choose that ball to count but only if he also plays the original ball as it lies!

 

[chrisd]

I had a situation recently in a Matchplay (and posted on here) where my opponent asked for relief for a rabbit scrape. His ball was being held on the side of a slope by loads of twigs/branches etc. I didn't feel he had a cat in hells chance of moving the ball so suggested that it was impossible/impractical. He took an almighty swing and (amazingly) the ball did come back into play although he didn't actually make contact with it.

Next time I'd be very careful about suggesting that a drop be denied

 

[JT77]

its a tough one for sure, the guy made the choice himself to take the penalty drop, but I agree chris, just because it looks impractical doesnt mean it cant work.