Free relief from immovable obstruction or not?

[AmandaJR]

Will try to explain this as best I can!!

17th hole at our place has two flipping huge trees about 60yds away from the green and on the very left edge of fairway. In front and to the right side of the right tree is the bell (dogleg potential blind tee shot). FC hit 2nd shot and ball came to rest up close to the trunk of the right hand tree. No direct route forwards so only option to come out sideways. "Do I get relief from the bell?" - "Only if it impedes your shot" - "It does" (turning completely sideways on to the left and clanging club into bell) - "I don't think that's your shot so not sure you get relief" - "To hell with it then" (chipping it out comfortably, forwards left, but short).

Was he entitled to relief from the bell?

 

[palindromicbob]

Will try to explain this as best I can!!

17th hole at our place has two flipping huge trees about 60yds away from the green and on the very left edge of fairway. In front and to the right side of the right tree is the bell (dogleg potential blind tee shot). FC hit 2nd shot and ball came to rest up close to the trunk of the right hand tree. No direct route forwards so only option to come out sideways. "Do I get relief from the bell?" - "Only if it impedes your shot" - "It does" (turning completely sideways on to the left and clanging club into bell) - "I don't think that's your shot so not sure you get relief" - "To hell with it then" (chipping it out comfortably, forwards left, but short).

Was he entitled to relief from the bell?

From your description the answer is no due to the exception to Rule 24-2.

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an immovable*obstruction makes the*stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an immovable*obstruction would occur only*through use of a clearly unreasonable*stroke or*an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

 

[AmandaJR]

The bell didn't impede a stroke towards the hole - the tree did. I'd say he was hoping from relief from the bell to then enable a shot to the green.

Hitting the bell would not be the stroke he'd attempt if he got relief from it...

 

[atticusfinch]

If the sideways shot is reasonable under the circumstances he is entitled to relief. If he forces the interference by taking an unusual stance or area of swing it is not reasonable and there is no relief.

 

[AmandaJR]

Defintely a case of forcing the interference imo but a tricky one. The chip away from the tree was the reasonable shot which he executed comfortably with no interference from the bell.

 

[palindromicbob]

Defintely a case of forcing the interference imo but a tricky one. The chip away from the tree was the reasonable shot which he executed comfortably with no interference from the bell.

Based on the info you have provided the I'd say they are guilty of trying create the situation where the obstruction impedes by attempting an unnecessarily abnormal direction of play.

 

[williamalex1]

Defintely a case of forcing the interference imo but a tricky one. The chip away from the tree was the reasonable shot which he executed comfortably with no interference from the bell.

A similar situation involving a plus 2 h/capper i was playing along with.
He hooked his drive 280 to within a foot of the OOB fence, he said to play the shot i want" i have to play it left handed , and that tagged tree will interfere with my swing" , which it did.

He the took a drop at the NPR played the shot RIGHT handed onto the green, missed the birdie putt but got a par. All within the rules.

 

[mefromhere]

Surely if he were to argue that chipping towards the bell would give him his favourite yardage then that could be considered reasonable grounds?
I think this would then come down to the honesty of the player in question

 

[atticusfinch]

Based on the info you have provided the I'd say they are guilty of trying create the situation where the obstruction impedes by attempting an unnecessarily abnormal direction of play.

Playing away from the usual direction of a hole isnt necessarily abnormal> Some hazards require that you play backwards toward the tee to "advance" the ball.

 

[palindromicbob]

Playing away from the usual direction of a hole isnt necessarily abnormal> Some hazards require that you play backwards toward the tee to "advance" the ball.

yeah but the from op info they line up one way then has to turn around to force an situation where the bell interfers. without seeing it then it's hard to make a call but from that info it sounds like playing in an unnecessarily abnormal direction.

 

[backwoodsman]

Playing away from the usual direction of a hole isnt necessarily abnormal> Some hazards require that you play backwards toward the tee to "advance" the ball.

"Require" is the key word here. If something is necessary because it's the only option, then it is necessarily abnormal.But if there are more reasonable options, then it is unnecessarily abnormal - which are the words in the exception

 

[Smiffy]

Personally? I would have waited until my playing partner wasn't watching and slyly moved the ball with my foot to a better position therefore enabling me to play to the green.

 

[chrisd]

Personally? I would have waited until my playing partner wasn't watching and slyly moved the ball with my foot to a better position therefore enabling me to play to the green.

The least complicated the game, the easier it all seems!