Free relief?

[Matty]

In a round today my playing partner took a penalty but I think he might have had a free drop.

He took his tee shot on a par three and the ball ran through the green and came to rest in-bounds but tight up against a fencepost so there was no back swing. On a fence posts a matter of a few feet away and that would have been close to him when taking his stance there was a wasps nest about the size of a tennis ball with a good few wasps buzzing about.

He took a penalty drop away from the fence post and completed the hole. My question is, could he have taken free relief from the wasps nest as it interfered with his stance?

 

[Colin L]

I take that the fence post was part of a boundary fence?

Decision 1-4/10 allows relief to be taken from a dangerous situation, but as with all matters of free relief, you cannot take relief if something else prevents you from having a practicable shot. The question then is whether he had any practicable shot from the position of his ball being up against the post. If you set aside the matter of the wasps' nest, could he have played the ball as it lay? If he could have played the ball as it lay, then he could take relief within a club length of the nearest place that is not dangerous. If he had no practicable shot because of the post, then he would not be able to take relief from the wasp's nest. He could proceed under penalty to drop within 2 club lengths (Rule 28) and then, if there was still a danger from the wasps' nest, take relief from the dangerous situation.

 

[duncan mackie]

I take that the fence post was part of a boundary fence?

Decision 1-4/10 allows relief to be taken from a dangerous situation, but as with all matters of free relief, you cannot take relief if something else prevents you from having a practicable shot. The question then is whether he had any practicable shot from the position of his ball being up against the post. If you set aside the matter of the wasps' nest, could he have played the ball as it lay? If he could have played the ball as it lay, then he could take relief within a club length of the nearest place that is not dangerous. If he had no practicable shot because of the post, then he would not be able to take relief from the wasp's nest. He could proceed under penalty to drop within 2 club lengths (Rule 28) and then, if there was still a danger from the wasps' nest, take relief from the dangerous situation.

yes...but you neatly the duck the issue of whether a few wasps in the area in which the player's ball lies actually constitutes a dangerous situation

weeding today (rather than playing ) I had bees all around me due to the flowers and warmth - at least as many in the direct vicinity as would be around the described wasps nest. although this is clearly a case of having to be there to assess the full situation I would be inclined to consider that unless the player's stroke has any chance of actually striking the nest it did not, in itself, represent a dangerous situation.

 

[Matty]

Thanks for the advice, I think the definition of "practicable shot" then comes into the debate.

As the ball was only a few inches away from a fence post there was certainly a very difficult shot in prospect. I suspect he chose to drop away for a more "practicable shot" and then did not need relief from the wasps nest anyway. (This was a nest too, not a few wasps or bees buzzing around some flowers, a proper pulp nest).

I was in a similar position up against a boundary fence. I manage to bring the club straight down onto the ball and pop is forward a foot to 18 inches and then from there chipped on to the green to make a bogey putt. I guess I'll know I can make a drop under penalty next time instead off hammering my wedge into the mud.

 

[stevie_r]

yes...but you neatly the duck the issue of whether a few wasps in the area in which the player's ball lies actually constitutes a dangerous situation

Good question you raise there Duncan. I believe that the assessment of danger would be down to the individual golfer. I am ridiculously hypersensitive to wasp stings and therefore I would consider it potentially dangerous to me.

There's a good chance you'd be phoning the pro shop to get a buggy out for me

 

[Foxholer]

I presume the fence line as also running on some sort of angle as well - somewhat along the same line as the hole.

If it had been straight across the back area of the green (90 degrees to the direction of the hole) it might have been difficult to drop 'not nearer the hole'.

 

[duncan mackie]

Good question you raise there Duncan. I believe that the assessment of danger would be down to the individual golfer. I am ridiculously hypersensitive to wasp stings and therefore I would consider it potentially dangerous to me.

There's a good chance you'd be phoning the pro shop to get a buggy out for me

whilst there are alway's individual issues the rules tend to be looking wider, in an effort to be consistent to the average golfer.

the key point I was trying to make was that the existence of a wasps nest in the vicinity wouldn't necessaryily consitute a dangerous situation (under the rules) but if there was a possibility that the player, with a reasonable stroke under the circumstances, would strike the nest then that would clearly represent a dangerous situation.

 

[palindromicbob]

Good question you raise there Duncan. I believe that the assessment of danger would be down to the individual golfer. I am ridiculously hypersensitive to wasp stings and therefore I would consider it potentially dangerous to me.

There's a good chance you'd be phoning the pro shop to get a buggy out for me

I think any reasonable minded golfer would consider the prospect of disturbing a wasps nest, thus unleashing the black and yellow terror storm, a dangerous situation. Regardless of hypersensitivity or not. If I was playing with someone who did not consider this a dangerous situation I'd pick up my ball and bid them adieu.

In fact decision 1-4/10 would agree.

 

[Colin L]

yes...but you neatly the duck the issue of whether a few wasps in the area in which the player's ball lies actually constitutes a dangerous situation

Ah, you noticed.

 

[duncan mackie]

I think any reasonable minded golfer would consider the prospect of disturbing a wasps nest, thus unleashing the black and yellow terror storm, a dangerous situation. Regardless of hypersensitivity or not. If I was playing with someone who did not consider this a dangerous situation I'd pick up my ball and bid them adieu.

In fact decision 1-4/10 would agree.

some people might interpret 1-4/10 to enable them to drop out on the fairway in this case - all of which is why this would generally fall into one of those 'you have to be there to assess it' when dealing with proximity issues. If your club has any possibility of striking the nest (any size) then it's clear cut.

 

[palindromicbob]

some people might interpret 1-4/10 to enable them to drop out on the fairway in this case - all of which is why this would generally fall into one of those 'you have to be there to assess it' when dealing with proximity issues. If your club has any possibility of striking the nest (any size) then it's clear cut.

Actually when you put it like that I can imagine a few people I know who would consider a wasps nest 40 feet above them a reason to call on this rule. Having fallen victim to the little buggers having simply brushed past bush they were nested then any close proximity would be dangerous not solely a risk of striking the nest itself. Thankfully for us this isn't a common occurrence.

 

[stevie_r]

Actually when you put it like that I can imagine a few people I know who would consider a wasps nest 40 feet above them a reason to call on this rule. Having fallen victim to the little buggers having simply brushed past bush they were nested then any close proximity would be dangerous not solely a risk of striking the nest itself.

I agree, the situation has the potential to be dangerous without actually striking the nest, probably why 1-4/10 allude to that.

 

[Matty]

I presume the fence line as also running on some sort of angle as well - somewhat along the same line as the hole.

Quite right, the fence runs along the side of the green with OOB at the back. The ball was against the side fend but maybe 3 yards from the back OOB so there was a little piece of ground to drop without being nearer the green.

A penalty was taken, but having read this thread I don't think it should have been - we'll know for next time.

 

[Colin L]

Since from what you say, the fence does not seem to be a boundary, you could take relief from it as an obstruction unless your local rules say otherwise.

 

[Foxholer]

I think any reasonable minded golfer would consider the prospect of disturbing a wasps nest, thus unleashing the black and yellow terror storm, a dangerous situation. Regardless of hypersensitivity or not. If I was playing with someone who did not consider this a dangerous situation I'd pick up my ball and bid them adieu.

In fact decision 1-4/10 would agree.

Isn't this the equivalent of the relief from burrowing animal when the major interference is actually a bleeding great tree and some rhododendrons? Certainly free relief if out in the open though. That 'exclusion' is actually stated at the bottom of 1-4/10. Slightly different (or harsh? or fortunate?) in that the dangerous situation would normally mean that you are required to take relief.

 

[Matty]

Since from what you say, the fence does not seem to be a boundary, you could take relief from it as an obstruction unless your local rules say otherwise.

Colin,

I'll double check the score card but I would think the fence is a boundary as behind it is a car park.

 

[Colin L]

Don't worry, I think I misread your post.

 

[backwoodsman]

I think any reasonable minded golfer would consider the prospect of disturbing a wasps nest, thus unleashing the black and yellow terror storm, a dangerous situation. Regardless of hypersensitivity or not. If I was playing with someone who did not consider this a dangerous situation I'd pick up my ball and bid them adieu.

In fact decision 1-4/10 would agree.

Me confused now. Doesn't the latter part of 1-4/10 make it clear that the proximity of the fence means no free relief?

 

[rulefan]

It certainly does. Rule 28 is always available.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

btw - one for the rules experts - is the term 'free relief' a tautology?