rulefan
Tour Winner
Sincere apologies.I can stand corrected but I don't think I mentioned 'water hazard'...
It was Swinglowandslow who introduced it.
Sincere apologies.I can stand corrected but I don't think I mentioned 'water hazard'...
Exactly.I am sensing more confusion here. Certainly I am confused.
What do you mean by 'stance relief' and 'allowed to drop his ball in the bunker relative to his new stance position'?
I get all of that, but that doesn’t seem to address the issue of the stance following the drop in the bunker being in an abnormal ground condition in the GA and what the players options are for that, at that point.Exactly.
In my post 94 I point out ( re his second paragraph) to SILH that he’s got the relief the wrong way round. The relief is taken by dropping the ball in the bunker, and that is the position you play from. If it so happens that the stance is in the general area, then so be it.
Ball dropped in bunker first, stance second.
Cor BlimeyI get all of that, but that doesn’t seem to address the issue of the stance following the drop in the bunker being in an abnormal ground condition in the GA and what the players options are for that at that point.
Perfect thankyou - your 1. answers my query. Apologies to all others trying to get me to understand but due to my being...erm...well just sorry.Cor Blimey! Course it does address the issue. That’s what we’ve been addressing, much to KenL’s irritation
.
It goes like this…..you hit a ball into the bunker, when you get there it’s in water,.
You look where to drop it in the bunker. There’s lots of water. You can only drop it in the bunker towards the edge. So you do. But that means your stance is on the edge, in the general area.( If there wasn’t an area available to drop the ball in then you drop out under penalty in accordance with the sketch in the rule.)
So, you are stood on the edge ready to hit the ball out of the bunker. You came up with the question of…..what if standing there, you find yourself standing in water.
Can I get relief from that situation, free relief, and work it so that I’m able to hit the ball from a new position outside the bunker.
The experts here are saying that the players option are
1. Water in stance - tough. Play the ball from the bunker while. You’re stood in the GA water if you don’t want a penalty. OR
2. Drop the ball outside the bunker under penalty in accordance with the sketch in the rules and play from there.
Sorry it’s longwinded, but your post suggests you didn’t see the ‘order’ of events of taking relief.
The answer was not clear to me - it may have been in the words used and/or my misunderstanding of the words used - probably the latter. It's easy to understand the answer to a rules question when, as a reader, you already know the answer. But if you don't then it's sometimes not quite that clear and easy.
Always amusing when a simple relief question goes on for 3 pages when the answer was given very quickly
The answer was not clear to me - it may have been in the words used and/or my misunderstanding of the words used - probably the latter. It's easy to understand the answer to a rules question when, as a reader, you already know the answer. But if you don't then it's sometimes not quite that clear and easy.
…since you are making the point I might suggest that ‘regardless of where the stance is’ is ambiguous, as it can be read to refer to location rather than also encompass ground conditions underfoot.It was very clear - it couldn’t have been any clearer
“The ball is in the bunker, so follow the rules for abnormal course conditions in the bunker (Rule 16.1c) regardless of where the stance is. ”
That is as clear as you can get
…since you are making the point I might suggest that ‘regardless of where the stance is’ is ambiguous, as it can be read to refer to location rather than conditions underfoot.
That said I am comfortable that I now understand the appropriate ruling.
Oh OK then - not ambiguous at all. .There was no ambiguity at all
Very clear
It can’t be read any differently unless someone is attempting mental gymnastics to try and get free relief
Those words are the posters, it is the question about the nature of the stance which SILH queried, I.e. could it afford a way to better free relief.It was very clear - it couldn’t have been any clearer
“The ball is in the bunker, so follow the rules for abnormal course conditions in the bunker (Rule 16.1c) regardless of where the stance is. ”
That is as clear as you can get
Oh It was clear what SILH was looking forThose words are the posters, it is the question about the nature of the stance which SILH queried, I.e. could it afford a way to better free relief.
Perfectly reasonable to discuss it, imo.
I respect the views of the experts on here, but their view is not beyond “what if” arguments being thrown into the mix.
Pretty much the reason for this particular forum, I.e discussion etc
I’m not going to flog this, but I’ve just read 16(1)c and the bold words are not in it.Post 2 only needs one sentence
The ball is in the bunker, so follow the rules for abnormal course conditions for the ball in the bunker (Rule 16.1c) regardless of where the stance is.
I’m not going to flog this, but I’ve just read 16(1)c and the bold words are not in it.
So, they are the words of the poster- fair enough, his ( expert ) opinion, and I respect it, but still ,I think , not immune from query, surely?
Cor Blimey! I am not going to flog this but they are not the words of the poster; they are the words in the Rules of Golf - 16.1c. It is not opinion; it is fact. (But, shucks, thanks for thinking I'm an expert.)I’m not going to flog this, but I’ve just read 16(1)c and the bold words are not in it.
So, they are the words of the poster- fair enough, his ( expert ) opinion, and I respect it, but still ,I think , not immune from query, surely?
Really?I’m not going to flog this, but I’ve just read 16(1)c and the bold words are not in it.
The words I made bold from your post, I.e. the end ones…yes they aren’t in 16(1)cReally?
In my reading of it, it wasn’t …it was clear as far as it went, but to my reading it didn’t cover conditions underfoot - but there you go. As I said previously…some explanations or answers to a question are as clear as day to the reader who already knows the answer - but perhaps less so to the reader who doesn’t.Oh It was clear what SILH was looking for
But the ruling highlighted in post 2 was as clear as you can get