Swango1980
Well-known member
That's fair in terms of the OP. I was just adding to this as many reading could interpret it that, if it is under the bush at all, they do not get free relief at any time. However, had the ball been in a rabbit hole in the side of the bush, so that the player could have some sort of hack out sideways, then they could claim relief.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!!
There would be some middle ground though. One extreme if ball is completely under bush and player cannot even get their ball (they don't get relief). The other extreme example it that it is in the very edge of the bush, and the player would actually still have a full swing at ball with only minimal interference from bush (they do get relief). You then have all the scenarios in between, from players still having a fair chance at hitting ball a good way out, all the way to lying on their stomach and hoping for the best. The referee ultimately needs to make a subjective decision.
Not knocking it, but it is a good reason as to why Phil Mickleson gets away with it so often, as was asked. If I see a golf ball under a bush and think there is no chance that is really playable, and then big Phil strolls over, says it is his ball and confidently tells me he could play a shot from there, I would struggle to argue with his genius. So, if he was in a rabbit hole, then he could justifiably claim relief I guess. If it was any golfer from my club whose ball was in the same position, "in your dreams" would be a more typical response to them claiming they have a shot