Improving Stance?

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Probably a very simple one this. Playing a fourball match my partner hits his ball to close to a young unstaked tree with whippy branches. Trying to take stance he finds a particular branch is a real nuisance when taking his stance and would prevent him having a half decent swing - awkward as much as preventing So few questions.

1) I'm 100% sure that he can't try and tangle the branch into others out of his way so he can have a decent stance and swing

2) Can he take a stance with the branch behind him and pressing against his back and step backwards into position to address the ball - so he is holding the branch away from it's natural position to get a comfortable stance and a half-decent swing? (I'm sure the answer to this is yes as we do this all the time when taking stances in deep rough, against bushes etc - but I'll ask in any case)

3) Can I take the branch and hold it clear of my partner so that my partner can take a decent stance and swing? (I assume that as we are a team, it matters not whether he asks me to do this or I offer)

4) Can he request someone who is not me to do 3) ?

5) Can he accept an offer from someone who is not me to do 3) ?

 

[Colin L]

1) You're right, he can't.
2) No. You can bend a branch back like that if it is the only way you can take your stance, but you say the player has taken a stance and is backing into the branch to make for a more comfortable set-up. Also you can't bend a branch in order to give yourself room for your swing.
3. No
4. No
5. No

All rather negative, sorry!

Decision 13-2/1 gives you useful guidance on this area.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-13/#13-2/1

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Pretty much as I expected.

2) hmmm. He (actually the generic 'he' was a she) couldn't actually address the ball without pushing the branch back and even then would have had to stoop quite a bit - but it's tough pushing back a tree branch especially if you don't want to damage it or risk getting catapulted forward as you take your swing. That's why I actually did...3) - I didn't want my partner to get hurt (me being a gentleman). My partner's problem was not swinging the club once she could address it - the branch wasn't obstructing her swinging it - just actually addressing it. But I guess I broke the rules.

 

[Colin L]

I wouldn't want to be too adamant on 2). One of these situations which you really need to see. But if you mean that she was able to take her stance but then would have to have the branch bent in order to make a swing, that wouldn't be on. But I am finding it hard to visualise how the branch wasn't obstructing her swing yet was preventing her addressing the ball.

​

 

[JustOne]

Examples of actions which do constitute fairly taking a stance are:

· backing into a branch or young sapling if that is the only way to take a stance for the selected stroke, even if this causes the branch to move out of the way or the sapling to bend or break.

· bending a branch of a tree with the hands in order to get under the tree to play a ball.

They can back into a branch and if it snaps then so be it... but they can't be seen to dive in there and simply snap a branch off.
The rules do work on your favour sometimes. The worst scenario is when there's a branch between your legs as you're not permitted to stand on it although you do see people try and move the branch to one side as they make their stance (awkward one this...)

 

[Colin L]

They can back into a branch and if it snaps then so be it...

But only if there is no other way of taking their stance. In the situation you mention of the branch between your legs (not too high a branch, one hopes), if you are able to take your stance with a foot on either side of the branch you should not be bending the branch to get both feet on the same side. The player is not entitled to a "normal" stance.

 

[JustOne]

^
^
^
I concur, and likewise if you can't see the ball you can't bend a branch out of the way so that you suddenly can see it, fairly common to see people doing this (and normally with a foot on a branch or against their leg somewhere).

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I wouldn't want to be too adamant on 2). One of these situations which you really need to see. But if you mean that she was able to take her stance but then would have to have the branch bent in order to make a swing, that wouldn't be on. But I am finding it hard to visualise how the branch wasn't obstructing her swing yet was preventing her addressing the ball.

​

Simply a situation where the branch was basically upright - so not a sticky out branch - was a branch from low in the tree growing upwards. Quite a strong branch so needed a fair effort on her behalf to push back to get to a stance where she could address the ball. Imagine the branch aligned with back vertically. So pressing back it was exerting a lot of pressure on her back which was getting quite painful for her (I wouldn't have been bothered as what's a bit of pain if you don't have to declare unplayable and take a drop!) - and swinging with essential a compressed spring against her back was (she being small in stature and a high handicap new player) was likely to cause her to overbalance and fall. My view was simply that if I or a stronger lady could have taken the stance then why could I not just help her out and avoid pain and embarrassment. She wasn't building a stance nor was she removing any obstruction from her swing. She was just little (and a lady )

 

[Colin L]

It sounds altogether rather painful but legitimate. I feel a right heel in pointing out, however, that your admirably chivalrous wish to save the lady the pain and the risk of being catapulted backwards from the tree would put her in breach of Rule 14-2a, "a player may not make a stroke while accepting physical assistance .....".

I bet that kind of consideration didn't stop Liz the First from trampling Raleigh's best cloak into the mire.