Large mound of soil in GUR

[woody69]

Playing a comp at the weekend and my FC asked if he was entitled to relief from a scenario where he had hit his tee shot almost up to a bunker that was clearly marked as GUR. The reason he wanted relief was because there was a large mound of excavated soil inside the GUR that was piled up and was blocking his line to the green. Effectively the only way over it would be to chip a high shot over and leave another shot into the green. His ball was about a yard outside of the GUR so neither his stance or swing were affected by the GUR. I didn't think he was entitled to anything as he wasn't on the green so the soil couldn't be categorised as a loose impediment. It is also not a moveable obstruction as it wasn't artificial. He did try to claim it could be an immoveable obstruction, but I felt that was a bit of a stretch.

In the end I suggested he played two balls if he felt he was entitled to relief (as per rule 3-3) and we could raise it later, but he just decided to play it as it was (and consequently blobbed the hole). He was absolutely fine about it, but his playing partner got a bit annoyed with me for not just agreeing he was entitled to relief. Nothing too bad, but it was blatant with his comments for the remainder of the round he wasn't happy I'd just said, "yes". It wasn't helped that my partner had just said, "yeah I think you can" so I looked like the bad guy!!

So was he entitled to relief? I still think no...

 

[Tongo]

Playing a comp at the weekend and my FC asked if he was entitled to relief from a scenario where he had hit his tee shot almost up to a bunker that was clearly marked as GUR. The reason he wanted relief was because there was a large mound of excavated soil inside the GUR that was piled up and was blocking his line to the green. Effectively the only way over it would be to chip a high shot over and leave another shot into the green. His ball was about a yard outside of the GUR so neither his stance or swing were affected by the GUR. I didn't think he was entitled to anything as he wasn't on the green so the soil couldn't be categorised as a loose impediment. It is also not a moveable obstruction as it wasn't artificial. He did try to claim it could be an immoveable obstruction, but I felt that was a bit of a stretch.

In the end I suggested he played two balls if he felt he was entitled to relief (as per rule 3-3) and we could raise it later, but he just decided to play it as it was (and consequently blobbed the hole). He was absolutely fine about it, but his playing partner got a bit annoyed with me for not just agreeing he was entitled to relief. Nothing too bad, but it was blatant with his comments for the remainder of the round he wasn't happy I'd just said, "yes". It wasn't helped that my partner had just said, "yeah I think you can" so I looked like the bad guy!!

So was he entitled to relief? I still think no...

I would say yes. Although it didnt block his stance or swing it wasnt an integral part of the course and was blocking his shot. If one of the top pros' line was blocked by a TV tower, for instance, but it wasnt effecting either their stance or swing i think they'd still be allowed a drop. This is purely a theoretical opinion mind you and not based on any facts or prior knowledge!

 

[guest100718]

I would say yes. Although it didnt block his stance or swing it wasnt an integral part of the course and was blocking his shot. If one of the top pros' line was blocked by a TV tower, for instance, but it wasnt effecting either their stance or swing i think they'd still be allowed a drop. This is purely a theoretical opinion mind you and not based on any facts or prior knowledge!

I think no. The pros have a specific lr for the grandstands. There is no relief for line of sight.

 

[chrisd]

My guess is yes as it's been left there by the greenkeepers/contractors to be later removed that relief is allowed

 

[SammmeBee]

No....stance or swing or lie if ball. He could have moved the soil though......

 

[MashieNiblick]

Can't really see how free relief is available given that Rule 25-1a states that unless both the ball and the AGC are on the green "intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule".

Same as having a puddle of casual water on the fringe between your ball and the hole.

 

[rulefan]

No relief. He could not move the soil as it is not a loose impediment when not on the green. There is no line of site/play relief from GUR.

 

[rulefan]

I think no. The pros have a specific lr for the grandstands. There is no relief for line of sight.

The key is of course, there is no LR in force but it woulsn't satisfy the requirement anyway.

"When temporary power lines, cables, or telephone lines are installed on the course, the following Local Rule is recommended: ......"

 

[Foxholer]

Nah!

You should have laughed at him!

 

[woody69]

No relief. He could not move the soil as it is not a loose impediment when not on the green. There is no line of site/play relief from GUR.

That was exactly my take on it.

 

[rulefan]

An alternative view is that if the whole bunker was declared to be GUR, then it became 'Through the Green' and no longer a bunker. However, the soil is still not a LI and my earlier conclusion still applies.

 

[freddielong]

Nah!

You should have laughed at him!

Yes that's what I thought