Free Relief?

[TerryA]

An interesting situation occurred yesterday. One of my playing partners hit her ball into a small bush. On inspection, we could see the ball stuck in a small rabbit hole. In fact, the whole area of the bush was riddled with rabbit holes. I said that just because she couldn’t reach the ball with her club didn’t mean that she shouldn’t get relief and the nearest point of relief was outside the bush because of the fact that the whole area underneath the bush was covered in rabbit holes. Her argument was that she should not get relief as the primary reason it was not playable was that it was in the bush not the fact that it was in a rabbit hole. I said that just because it was in a bush was immaterial, she was in a hole and entitled to take free relief - no different to being under a tree in an animal scraping. I said this was one occassion when the rules worked in the player’s favour. She thought I was wrong and played under penalty of stroke and distance. Who was right?

 

[fundy]

An interesting situation occurred yesterday. One of my playing partners hit her ball into a small bush. On inspection, we could see the ball stuck in a small rabbit hole. In fact, the whole area of the bush was riddled with rabbit holes. I said that just because she couldn’t reach the ball with her club didn’t mean that she shouldn’t get relief and the nearest point of relief was outside the bush because of the fact that the whole area underneath the bush was covered in rabbit holes. Her argument was that she should not get relief as the primary reason it was not playable was that it was in the bush not the fact that it was in a rabbit hole. I said that just because it was in a bush was immaterial, she was in a hole and entitled to take free relief - no different to being under a tree in an animal scraping. I said this was one occassion when the rules worked in the player’s favour. She thought I was wrong and played under penalty of stroke and distance. Who was right?

you were

Edit, ignore me, seems im wrong

 

[fundy]

She was.
View attachment 33109

is that new?

and why doesnt it apply to the likes of Phil Mickelson?

 

[nickjdavis]

An interesting situation occurred yesterday. One of my playing partners hit her ball into a small bush. On inspection, we could see the ball stuck in a small rabbit hole. In fact, the whole area of the bush was riddled with rabbit holes. I said that just because she couldn’t reach the ball with her club didn’t mean that she shouldn’t get relief and the nearest point of relief was outside the bush because of the fact that the whole area underneath the bush was covered in rabbit holes. Her argument was that she should not get relief as the primary reason it was not playable was that it was in the bush not the fact that it was in a rabbit hole. I said that just because it was in a bush was immaterial, she was in a hole and entitled to take free relief - no different to being under a tree in an animal scraping. I said this was one occassion when the rules worked in the player’s favour. She thought I was wrong and played under penalty of stroke and distance. Who was right?

She was.

If there was no way she could reach the ball with her club then there was no way she could legitimately play a stroke. Therefore she cannot claim relief from the rabbit hole.

This was the case pre 2019 and nothing has changed in the latest set of rules. 16-1a(3) specifically uses a bush as an example.

 

[fundy]

At the risk of being corrected, I think it has always been the case...

Ah ok, i stand corrected (and apologise for inadvertently cheating in the past!)

Still like to know how lefty is allowed to and were not though!

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Common mistake when it comes to the burrowing animal rule.
You can't take relief if it's unreasonable to play a stroke.

See part way down the page in the link below.

https://www.randa.org/Rog/2019/Rules/The-Rules-of-Golf/Rule-16

 

[robinthehood]

Ah ok, i stand corrected (and apologise for inadvertently cheating in the past!)

Still like to know how lefty is allowed to and were not though!

Becasue he's better than us I think I remember when you mean, his view was that he did have a shot on and shoud get releif.

 

[fundy]

Becasue he's better than us I think I remember when you mean, his view was that he did have a shot on and shoud get releif.

the one i was thinking of, his ball was in the middle of a bush couldnt get close to the ball and then claimed there was something in the middle of the bush, referee didnt hesitate to allow him relief

 

[rulefan]

is that new?

and why doesnt it apply to the likes of Phil Mickelson?

Have you got a link to the incident?

 

[fundy]

Have you got a link to the incident?

no and not going to search to find it, few years agao, ball in middle of bush close to a road, no chance of getting to play it, referee gave him relief.

 

[Colin L]

no and not going to search to find it, few years agao, ball in middle of bush close to a road, no chance of getting to play it, referee gave him relief.

You say that very decisively. You weren't there and the referee on the spot came to a different conclusion . How you do you account for the difference?

 

[fundy]

You say that very decisively. You weren't there and the referee on the spot came to a different conclusion . How you do you account for the difference?

just commenting on what I watched, and what others said about the incident at the incident at the time

how do i account for the difference, i think Leftie got a drop that no more than a handful in the field wouldve asked for, let alone got

 

[rulie]

https://golf-martial-lapointe.com/l...ion-mickelson-and-the-knowledge-of-the-rules/

As Colin has stated above, the referee at the site will make the call whether the stroke that is being described by the player is reasonable or not and then make the ruling. What is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances and the capabilities of the player involved. "Lefty" is much more capable than others.

 

[rulefan]

And this is what he can do

https://heavy.com/sports/2019/10/phil-mickelson-video-golf-shot-bushes/

 

[rulie]

And this is what he can do

https://heavy.com/sports/2019/10/phil-mickelson-video-golf-shot-bushes/

And why didn't he ask for relief since he was standing on the cart path? Because he knew that the nearest point of complete relief would have been further into the weeds.

 

[Swango1980]

Let us say that this lady player COULD have played the ball, but it would require a Seve Ballesteros type shot, such as on her knees and just trying to swipe it out of the bush, hopefully with the aim of knocking it a few yards out of the bush.

So, she could play the ball as it lies. 90% of us would take the better option of taking an unplayable, but of course we've all seen the players who try to take it on (often resulting in 5 or 6 hacks that get result in ever increasing anger and frustration). Could a referee than give her free relief?

 

[rulie]

Let us say that this lady player COULD have played the ball, but it would require a Seve Ballesteros type shot, such as on her knees and just trying to swipe it out of the bush, hopefully with the aim of knocking it a few yards out of the bush.

So, she could play the ball as it lies. 90% of us would take the better option of taking an unplayable, but of course we've all seen the players who try to take it on (often resulting in 5 or 6 hacks that get result in ever increasing anger and frustration). Could a referee than give her free relief?

Depends if the referee considers the player's stroke reasonable or not - it's a judgement call, made at the scene. (and often criticized by arm-chair referees who are sitting elsewhere)

 

[Swango1980]

Depends if the referee considers the player's stroke reasonable or not - it's a judgement call, made at the scene. (and often criticized by arm-chair referees who are sitting elsewhere)

So, if it is Phil Mickleson, the referee is likely to side with him, because he has the ability to pull off miracle shots. But, if it was this lady, he would say absolutely not, she has no chance?

 

[rulie]

So, if it is Phil Mickleson, the referee is likely to side with him, because he has the ability to pull off miracle shots. But, if it was this lady, he would say absolutely not, she has no chance?

Perhaps. It is the referee's responsibility to determine the reasonableness of the stroke the player intends to make, using Rule 16.1a(3) as the guide/authority.

(3) No Relief When Clearly Unreasonable to Play Ball. There is no relief under Rule 16.1:

• When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as when a player is standing in temporary water or on an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush), or
• When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

 

[nickjdavis]

So, if it is Phil Mickleson, the referee is likely to side with him, because he has the ability to pull off miracle shots. But, if it was this lady, he would say absolutely not, she has no chance?

Well according to the OP the lady in question couldn't even reach the ball with her club...I defy anybody to play a stroke in such circumstances....even Mickelson!!