Colin L
Tour Winner
Can anyone give me a reference to where I find the authority to deem two contiguous immovable obstructions to be a single obstruction. I know I can do it, but I can't find the source.
Immovable obstructions
- Thread starter Colin L
- Start date
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
33-8/25 seems to confirm the principle, and takes it one stage further.
In the absence of a LR the player would proceed on the basis that they are separate obstructions even if they are touching, unless they constitute a single entity e.g. sleepers set into a bank to form a set of steps.
It you know all this, so I suspect I've not provided you with the reference youbare looking for! Good luck!
In the absence of a LR the player would proceed on the basis that they are separate obstructions even if they are touching, unless they constitute a single entity e.g. sleepers set into a bank to form a set of steps.
It you know all this, so I suspect I've not provided you with the reference youbare looking for! Good luck!
Colin L
Tour Winner
Thanks Duncan. 33-8/25 is certainly based on the same principle. I thought there was, however, a specific reference to the 2 obstructions somewhere. Could be misremembering of course.
I'm doing it anyway as the two obstructions are such that relief from one leads to dropping on the other which leads to the next NPR being back on the first. I'm keeping it simple so that I don't have to explain D1-4/8
I'm doing it anyway as the two obstructions are such that relief from one leads to dropping on the other which leads to the next NPR being back on the first. I'm keeping it simple so that I don't have to explain D1-4/8
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
There used to be a decision which detailed the precise procedure in the circumstance you describe. I cannot find it now so may have been removed. It used say something along the lines of 'the player must take separate drops and only when it is clearly established that is an endless cycle can relief be taken from both causes at once'.
( or it could have been an enquiry I made direct with the R&A)
In equity Decision 25-11b/11.5 appears to be vey close.
( or it could have been an enquiry I made direct with the R&A)
In equity Decision 25-11b/11.5 appears to be vey close.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Colin
The various decisions quoted seem to be concerned with different 'types' of obstacle. eg CW and IO.
In this case, are the obstructions an extension of or intergral to the other (eg a wooden bridge and a stone abutment) or two distinctly separate items (eg a wooden shed and an adjacent flagstone path, halfway house and its patio)?
Last edited:
Colin L
Tour Winner
The two obstructions are concrete storage bays for sand etc and an adjacent gravelled area. Continguous but distinct.
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
They would appear to be all integral parts of the same working area. The gravelled area to provide access and a manoeuvring area to service the bunkers (technical name for such storage areas
).IMO one single IO.
Colin L
Tour Winner
That's it exactly. You are obviously suggesting it is a single IO because of its function. I think I'll still make mention of its being a single obstruction for the sake of clarity.
I like bunker rather than storage bay. I also like continguous, but have to admit it should have been contiguous.
I like bunker rather than storage bay. I also like continguous, but have to admit it should have been contiguous.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Sensible
