Ball in tree base but standing on path?

[duncan mackie]

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

I think your case was entirely consistent with the excellent logic outlined by Bob.

The player didn't take a penalty drop but played the ball - the ultimate 'proof' that it wasn't impracticable!

From the other perspective I've had cause to suggest to another player in a stroke play event that he proceeded under 3-3 and let the committee decide (taking a couple of photos). He begrudgingly agreed, took his relief first then declined to even try and hit his ball nestled amongst some tree roots! Fortunately his relief option also complied with 28 but the amazing thing was he still went to the committee claiming his free relief!

 

[guest100718]

I have only had to mention this rule once, in a matchplay game where my oppo hit his ball in to a some bushes and there was no shot of any sort but he wanted relief from some burrows. He was OK with it.

 

[backwoodsman]

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.)

Point taken - my mistake. S'wot you get by reading too early in the morning without yer glasses on. Agreed: Impractical & impracticable are not the same .

But then I might argue that impracticable and impossible are also not quite the same. I think if I'd used impracticable I'd have still been making a valid point.

For example, ball in middle of a bush, wedged in the cleft of two branches. You can thread your club through the bush, at arms length, to a place with the clubhead just behind the ball. You've room to move the club head back by about an inch. I'd suggest that was clearly impracticable to make a stroke at the ball, but not impossible - not by the definition of a stroke that is. Same would apply if instead you decided to have an almighty thrash - not impossible by the definition of a stroke, but clearly impracticable. But that's enough I fear...

 

[Colin L]

You might like to take a look at Decision 14-1a/4
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-14,d14-1a-4