Exploited the rules

[freddielong]

On Sunday I played in the Monthly Medal I didn't win anything and infact went up point one, so its not really an issue.
But on our 11th hole there is a drainage problem. I turned my drive over a bit and finnished up down the left side, my ball was on the edge of a small bush with no shot to the green. Where my ball was if I was to try to play to the green, I would have to have stood in a puddle. So I took a free drop because of the casual water and ended up with a clear shot to the green and made a birdie.
I don't think I cheated as it was in accordance with the rules(Sound like an MP) and I seem to remember Seve doing the same at Woburn once. The question is do you think I cheated what would you have done and would you be happy if your playing partner did it?

 

[EchtLoon]

'exploited' is correct. Fine by me, would have done the same.

 

[USER1999]

Sometimes the rules work to your advantage, most times they don't. If you act within the rules, then why not take advantage.

 

[viscount17]

wrong I think

Rule 25-1

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

 

[EchtLoon]

wrong I think

Rule 25-1

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

Indeed, but Freddie states that the casual water interefered only if he was to play towards the green, so for me, he's used the rules to his advantage.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I tend to agree with Echtloon in that he was intending to play towards the target. I think if he'd asked me as his partner I'd have definitely given him the benefit of the doubt. Seemed pretty clear cut and showed good rule knowledge and initiative

 

[bobmac]

The question you have to ask yourself is
'would I attempt the shot if the puddle wasnt there?' In this case the answer clearly is no.
As freddie says it was not possible to play for the green, whether the water was there or not doesnt matter.
In my opinion, sorry, no relief.

 

[SammmeBee]

The question you have to ask yourself is
'would I attempt the shot if the puddle wasnt there?' In this case the answer clearly is no.
As freddie says it was not possible to play for the green, whether the water was there or not doesnt matter.
In my opinion, sorry, no relief.

But he didn't say we was going to chip out 50 yards towards the green with foot in said puddle....that is then the smooth that goes with the rough....well done Freddie...

 

[Imurg]

Has anyone mentioned the word complicated recently?????

If we can't even get casual water right then what chance do we have?

 

[RGDave]

Where my ball was if I was to try to play to the green, I would have to have stood in a puddle. So I took a free drop because of the casual water and ended up with a clear shot to the green and made a birdie.

Sounds good to me. You had no shot to the green, but if you wanted to play that shot (even if it was impossible), you had casual water....
Simples.

 

[bobmac]

You had no shot to the green, but if you wanted to play that shot (even if it was impossible), you had casual water....
Simples.

If I was in a situation where it was impossible or even unreasonable to try and play towards the green, then I wouldn't attempt the shot. If I took up a stance to attempt the impossible shot and then stood in casual water, then no relief.
As I said before, if the water wasn't there, would you attempt the impossible shot? No. So sorry, I would say no relief

 

[Herbie]

Im reading this and not understanding the OPs actual location?

Were you on the fairway or in the rough or first cut?

You see, I have trouble understanding how you would have a small bush on the fairway interfering with your next shot, and I dont understand why drainage problems were not addressed with alocal ruling during this problem?

The rules can work in your favour sometimes, eg. staked trees, but the rules can be complicated when dealing with other issues like I think this one suggests.

 

[mono217]

Completely fine with me.

 

[DCB]

If the puddle had not been there, and the ball was in it's landing spot at the edge of the bush, would the shot to the green have been possible ?

If the shot to the green was not possible from the original lie when taking a normal stance (assuming no puddle was there) and a normal swing then I'm with Viscount and bobmac. No relief in this instance.

 

[freddielong]

On reading the attached and looking at the Rule properly I am confused but think I may have done wrong. I could have played the ball forward but would have broken my club for at best 30 yrds towards the fairway, its a shot I would not have taken on,but it was a valid shot that someone more gung ho may have attempted. If the puddle was not there I would more than likely pitched out further left.

 

[viscount17]

so far as I am aware there is nothing in the rule book that says you should be entitled to play a shot toward the green.
so if that is the case, should not the rules for relief, unplayable lies etc only apply if <u>no</u> stroke is possible?

 

[CrapHacker]

Not to bothered about whether or not you're going for the green.

Can you address the ball in a 'normal' manner and make a swing at the ball in a realistic way, ( irrespective of where you decide to aim ), whilst standing in casual water ?

If so, then relief is legit. If the casual water is under the bush, so no realistic stance could be taken, and the potential shot is just theoretical, then no relief should be taken.

 

[backwoodsman]

Not to bothered about whether or not you're going for the green.

Can you address the ball in a 'normal' manner and make a swing at the ball in a realistic way, ( irrespective of where you decide to aim ), whilst standing in casual water ?

If so, then relief is legit. If the casual water is under the bush, so no realistic stance could be taken, and the potential shot is just theoretical, then no relief should be taken.

I think Craphacker has it?

Basically, if the bush prevented any shot then it was not valid to take relief due to the casual water. However, if there was no shot to the green but a sideways shot was playable, and the casual water affected it, then relief is fine - and if the line of play is improved, it's just good luck (Decision 25-1b/3)

The second "however" though, is that if the sideways or possibly backwards shot was an unreasonable option, then relief not valid. (think of this along lines of an opponent thinking " aw c'mon, you're only playing that shot to get the relief - if relief wasn't available, you'd never play that shot.")