In which order are rules applied?

[Bunkermagnet]

Say for example you ball comes to rest in a area with tree cuttings, with lots of fallen branches. You ball is resting against some of them,but you cant move them as one of them is embedded in the ground so would be unplayable without penalty. Nearby. in the vicinity of the ball and where you might stand, are rabbit scrappings with waste evidence. In what order are the rules applied here, and more importantly for me, all over.
Do I assume penalty rulings first followed by freebies?

 

[duncan mackie]

Generally you get to choose.

If an action is available to you then you may choose it - whether another situation subsequently comes into play will effect whether you have further options.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

So with my (poorly put) example, the fact it would be a drop under penalty for unplayable lie that is bypassed for a free drop due to rabblt srapings?

 

[Foxholer]

So with my (poorly put) example, the fact it would be a drop under penalty for unplayable lie that is bypassed for a free drop due to rabblt srapings?

It's NOT 'bypassed'! It's merely one of the options that may be available to you. All options are 'ranked' equally, with no 'order' applied!

You simply get to choose the one that you prefer!

Remember that even when you are an inch from the hole, you still have the option of 'Stroke and Distance' - replaying, under penalty of 1 shot, from where you last played (Rule 27-1)! And, of course, you could also declare the ball 'unplayable' as ithat status purely down to you! I don't believe there would be many players who would exercise either of those option - or even consider them!

In your example, you have the option to play it as it lies, taking an unplayable (one option of which is to replay under 27-1, so no need to repeat that option) or to take (free) relief from the rabbit scrapings.

It's down to you which one you choose!

Btw. It's quite important that you understand the implications of your options before you pick your ball up! I have twice seen players take 'free' relief from a path, only to 'discover' that their nearest point of relief is actually deep in a Rhododendrum bush! The consequence of them picking their ball up was that they had to change their 'choice' to the Stroke and Distance/27-1 option!

 

[jim8flog]

There are some rules where you only get relief if the only thing that is interfering with your shot is the what you are seeking relief from.

Rule 25 Abnormal ground conditions.
Is one of them
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

 

[rulefan]

Say for example you ball comes to rest in a area with tree cuttings, with lots of fallen branches. You ball is resting against some of them,but you cant move them as one of them is embedded in the ground so would be unplayable without penalty. Nearby. in the vicinity of the ball and where you might stand, are rabbit scrappings with waste evidence.

In this particular case, the question is - disregarding the rabbit scrapes, can you actually make a practicable stroke at the ball?

If you can't, you don't get free relief from the scrapes. If you can, then you do.

See the exception in the post above.

 

[*TQ*]

In this particular case, the question is - disregarding the rabbit scrapes, can you actually make a practicable stroke at the ball?

If you can't, you don't get free relief from the scrapes. If you can, then you do.

See the exception in the post above.

Demonstrated perfectly by Phil Mickelson trying to convince a rules official that if a sprinkler head wasn't there he would actually play a shot from deep within the middle of a bush.

 

[atticusfinch]

You are entitled to relief from interference described in the rules. If you have more than one cause of interference in the same location, you can pick the one you want. If that relief does not also eliminate the other interference, then you may take appropriate relief from that interference.

(Of course, if you are playing with donald trump at mar a lago, any relief is taken without a stroke penalty....but you have to ride in the cart with trump through all 18 holes and buy something from his daughter's company.)

 

[duncan mackie]

There are some rules where you only get relief if the only thing that is interfering with your shot is the what you are seeking relief from.

Rule 25 Abnormal ground conditions.
Is one of them
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

I'm not sure this helps the question being asked here.

The reason is that this exception simply denies a relief option; therefore it's not a choice - the end.

Having established valid options under the rules you get to choose how you wish to proceed.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There are some rules where you only get relief if the only thing that is interfering with your shot is the what you are seeking relief from.

Rule 25 Abnormal ground conditions.
Is one of them
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

I think I got done in a match by not knowing this ruling.

My opponent's ball finished up under the very low hanging (18" clearance max ground clearance) bottom branches of a very large Leylandii tree. As you'd expect the ground was bare but for a thin covering of small pieces of 'spray' (or whatever it's called) dropped by the tree. His ball was sitting in what he claimed was an animal scrape - and it certainly looked like it might be. Even although he could clearly not take any form of stance he claimed that as he could sweep a club under the branches to knock his ball out he got relief from the animal scrape - and so got free relief. This enabled him to drop his ball out from underneath the tree and give himself a clear shot.

I lost the hole.

Was I duped? Or did my opponent make excellent use of the rules?

 

[pogle]

Without seeing the situation for myself, it sounds like your opponent made excellent use of the rules. The exception doesn't say you have to make a normal stroke, just not an unnecessarily abnormal one. If such a stroke was actually possible and about the only thing he could do, then he's entitled to relief.

When I'm officiating and have to deal with such a situation I usually ask the player to demonstrate what he would do if the abnormal ground condition wasn't there. Most are happy to show that they can do it although one just flatly stated that he'd take an unplayable and was a bit miffed when I then denied him free relief!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Without seeing the situation for myself, it sounds like your opponent made excellent use of the rules. The exception doesn't say you have to make a normal stroke, just not an unnecessarily abnormal one. If such a stroke was actually possible and about the only thing he could do, then he's entitled to relief.

When I'm officiating and have to deal with such a situation I usually ask the player to demonstrate what he would do if the abnormal ground condition wasn't there. Most are happy to show that they can do it although one just flatly stated that he'd take an unplayable and was a bit miffed when I then denied him free relief!

For clarity - his ball was well in under the tree - maybe nearly three feet in. He could only hit his ball by kneeling down and sweeping the club horizontally one-handed. But as it was completely clear under the lowest branches he could easily make a sweeping motion to knock the ball out.

 

[backwoodsman]

For clarity - his ball was well in under the tree - maybe nearly three feet in. He could only hit his ball by kneeling down and sweeping the club horizontally one-handed. But as it was completely clear under the lowest branches he could easily make a sweeping motion to knock the ball out.

Which pretty much confirms it. It would be an abnormal stroke, but given the circumstances, it would not be an unreasonably abnormal stroke, so he was allowed relief from the AGC. So, the rules allowed him a lucky escape, so yes, i guess you were "done" by the rules.

Only thing if it were me in that situation, I'd want some serious convincing that it was in fact a scrape, but your post suggest you were content about it, so all's fair in love & war ...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Which pretty much confirms it. It would be an abnormal stroke, but given the circumstances, it would not be an unreasonably abnormal stroke, so he was allowed relief from the AGC. So, the rules allowed him a lucky escape, so yes, i guess you were "done" by the rules.

Only thing if it were me in that situation, I'd want some serious convincing that it was in fact a scrape, but your post suggest you were content about it, so all's fair in love & war ...

I didn't feel like disagreeing - I am never really convinced about 'animal scrapes' tbh as no-one has ever definitively shown me or accurately defined for me what makes an animal scrape. That he could have made some sort of one-handed sweeping attempt on his knees to hit and move his ball was why I just said fine.