Damaged and fallen tree

[antgal23]

Hi all

Second shot ended up behind a storm damaged still rooted tree ( tree had broken at the base but still attached) . All the other trees weren't damaged. Tree in question was on the course just inside course boundary . I asked for free relief no closer to the hole due to the tree, partner agreed.

A/ was I entitled to free relief?
B/ what is the ruling and why?

I read other threads about GUR and if the club intended to remove the tree but I didn't see any email re: same.

With the tree being where it is I am sure they will remove it over time

 

[Eesat 90210]

No relief, simple as that.

If you think you do, you should find a rule, not the other way round.

 

[antgal23]

Could I have moved the broken tree just like I could remove a broken branch on the ground?

 

[rulie]

Not if the tree is still attached to the ground as you said.

 

[doublebogey7]

Hi all

Second shot ended up behind a storm damaged still rooted tree ( tree had broken at the base but still attached) . All the other trees weren't damaged. Tree in question was on the course just inside course boundary . I asked for free relief no closer to the hole due to the tree, partner agreed.

A/ was I entitled to free relief?
B/ what is the ruling and why?

I read other threads about GUR and if the club intended to remove the tree but I didn't see any email re: same.

With the tree being where it is I am sure they will remove it over time

You may be right about the club removing the tree later, but you only get relief if the greenkeepets have piled debris with the intention of it being removed later.

So I am afraid by taking relief you played from a wrong place and should be subject to the General Penalty.

 

[rulefan]

Hi all

Second shot ended up behind a storm damaged still rooted tree ( tree had broken at the base but still attached) . All the other trees weren't damaged. Tree in question was on the course just inside course boundary . I asked for free relief no closer to the hole due to the tree, partner agreed.

A/ was I entitled to free relief?
B/ what is the ruling and why?

I read other threads about GUR and if the club intended to remove the tree but I didn't see any email re: same.

With the tree being where it is I am sure they will remove it over time

A/ No
B/ See the Definition of Loose Impediment

 

[salfordlad]

When you lift a ball and take relief when you were not entitled (as was the case here), you breach 9.4 in lifting the ball and 14.7 when you play from a wrong place. These get combined for a single general penalty (2 strokes) under 1.3c(4) Exception. However, the Committee must consider whether the wrong place was a serious breach (very possible in your case) which could mean DQ.
You had another option: employ Rule 20.1c(3) and play 2 balls, original as lies and second ball taking relief and consult the Committee before submitting the scorecard. See the rule for full details.

 

[NearHull]

I accept that the OP did not mention any issues of danger, however if a player come across a similar situation but the ball is under a partially fallen tree and it is obvious that the player would be in physical danger by playing it, do they then get relief?

 

[Neilds]

As in a lot of these sort of posts, they can be avoided if the club acted and made the tree GUR (or similar) and let everyone know. Surely the greens staff knew about the tree and it didn’t fall just before the OP got there.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I accept that the OP did not mention any issues of danger, however if a player come across a similar situation but the ball is under a partially fallen tree and it is obvious that the player would be in physical danger by playing it, do they then get relief?

He can take relief any time, under penalty.
However the tree is still fixed to the ground, so no free relief.

 

[salfordlad]

I accept that the OP did not mention any issues of danger, however if a player come across a similar situation but the ball is under a partially fallen tree and it is obvious that the player would be in physical danger by playing it, do they then get relief?

Lol, the rules give no protection for this scenario. Nor for poison ivy or cacti or flesh-eating plants. Crocs are okay for relief, (feral children perhaps ), but not non-animal living things.

 

[jim8flog]

I accept that the OP did not mention any issues of danger, however if a player come across a similar situation but the ball is under a partially fallen tree and it is obvious that the player would be in physical danger by playing it, do they then get relief?

No.

What is the danger you perceive? Question - do you see see this as - My ball is right next to a tree and I might hurt myself if I play the ball because I might hit the the tree as well. Imagine if everybody with a ball next to a tree made a similar claim.

As already said if the part of tree that has fallen is still attached to the part coming from the ground it is still a tree and not a loose impediment or an obstruction.

 

[jim8flog]

As in a lot of these sort of posts, they can be avoided if the club acted and made the tree GUR (or similar) and let everyone know. Surely the greens staff knew about the tree and it didn’t fall just before the OP got there.

The question was posted on a Saturday afternoon. I doubt that many clubs have green staff working much beyond a Saturday morning and they are normally there for greens mowing etc.

 

[NearHull]

No.

What is the danger you perceive? Question - do you see see this as - My ball is right next to a tree and I might hurt myself if I play the ball because I might hit the the tree as well. Imagine if everybody with a ball next to a tree made a similar claim.

As already said if the part of tree that has fallen is still attached to the part coming from the ground it is still a tree and not a loose impediment or an obstruction.

It’s an academic question really. I was considering what relief could be available to a player who may be in personal danger - in this example, by a falling tree/branch.

I can see the logic in not getting free relief - personal danger can be exactly as described , it’s a judgement from the player’s perspective.

 

[Swango1980]

It’s an academic question really. I was considering what relief could be available to a player who may be in personal danger - in this example, by a falling tree/branch.

I can see the logic in not getting free relief - personal danger can be exactly as described , it’s a judgement from the player’s perspective.

I remember Jordan Spieth playing from the edge of a cliff face at Pebble Beach. If free relief was allowed if a golfer perceives the shot to be dangerous, Spieth would have been getting free relief for that one

 

[rulie]

I remember Jordan Spieth playing from the edge of a cliff face at Pebble Beach. If free relief was allowed if a golfer perceives the shot to be dangerous, Spieth would have been getting free relief for that one

That part of the penalty area should be a no play zone. The Tour should not allow such dangerous situations/behaviour.

 

[Swango1980]

That part of the penalty area should be a no play zone. The Tour should not allow such dangerous situations/behaviour.

I did wonder what would have happened if he fell. Would have been one of the most shocking things seen on live TV, and not look good at all for the Health and Safety ppl at Pebble Beach

 

[Neilds]

The question was posted on a Saturday afternoon. I doubt that many clubs have green staff working much beyond a Saturday morning and they are normally there for greens mowing etc.

True, but I bet the tree was damaged well before . Storms were quite a few weeks ago

 

[rulie]

I did wonder what would have happened if he fell. Would have been one of the most shocking things seen on live TV, and not look good at all for the Health and Safety ppl at Pebble Beach

It's the PGATour Rules officials that set up the course - paint the lines, Local Rules etc. They have the authority to make that area a no play zone. I think they should, and even contacted them regarding that. It was not a pretty picture.

 

[jim8flog]

It’s an academic question really. I was considering what relief could be available to a player who may be in personal danger - in this example, by a falling tree/branch.

I can see the logic in not getting free relief - personal danger can be exactly as described , it’s a judgement from the player’s perspective.

Sadly there would all too many that would try it on.

It really is up to the Rules of Authorities to decide what is a dangerous situation and do not always agree with common sense
e.g. we have a lot of giant hogweed on a couple of holes. I asked the R&A for permission for a LR grant relief for a player who might touch the plant in taking stance or during swing and they said no. (giant hog weed can cause log term skin problems which can last for many years if you get the sap on your skin).