Movable obstruction not moved and nearest point of relief taken.

[Douglas]

Players ball comes to rest near a small sign on the course (buggy direction sign). The sign interferes with any intended swing or stance.The sign “ later confirmed “ can be quite easily lifted which would allow the ball to be struck albeit not towards the green.The player decides to not to attempt lifting the sign but take nearest point of relief and within one club length. This effectively gives him the opportunity to play his ball towards the green.
At best this appears to be gamesmanship. At worst serious breach of rules.
The player claims to be applying rule 25.1.
How is his interpretation contradicted ??.

 

[Colin L]

Players ball comes to rest near a small sign on the course (buggy direction sign). The sign interferes with any intended swing or stance.The sign “ later confirmed “ can be quite easily lifted which would allow the ball to be struck albeit not towards the green.The player decides to not to attempt lifting the sign but take nearest point of relief and within one club length. This effectively gives him the opportunity to play his ball towards the green.
At best this appears to be gamesmanship. At worst serious breach of rules.
The player claims to be applying rule 25.1.
How is his interpretation contradicted ??.

Rule 24-1 applies to a movable obstruction. It does not sanction the player lifting his ball and proceeding as if it were an immovable obstruction as in Rule 24-2. That's your basic answer to this player: he has proceeded under the wrong rule.

When he lifts his ball he has breached Rule 18-2 (1 penalty stroke). When he fails to replace it as he is required by that rule to do, the penalty becomes 2 strokes.

 

[backwoodsman]

Players ball comes to rest near a small sign on the course (buggy direction sign). The sign interferes with any intended swing or stance.The sign “ later confirmed “ can be quite easily lifted which would allow the ball to be struck albeit not towards the green.The player decides to not to attempt lifting the sign but take nearest point of relief and within one club length. This effectively gives him the opportunity to play his ball towards the green.
At best this appears to be gamesmanship. At worst serious breach of rules.
The player claims to be applying rule 25.1.
How is his interpretation contradicted ??.

A query to the OP.

Did the player really claim to be applying rule 25-1 - as that relates to abnormal ground conditions - or is it a typo?

Obviously, 25-1 is the wrong rule and not applicable to the situation. Rule 24-1 is the correct rule, but does not have an option of a free drop using nearest point of relief.

Therefore, in either case, as Colin points out, the player is in breach of rule 18-2. And if it the ball is not replaced at the place it originally lay, he is playing from a wrong place - again as per Colin.

I'd just add that by acting as he did, the player was (according to OP) able to play towards the green whereas he wouldn't have been able to if he had correctly moved the movable obstruction. Presumably that could (should?) be regarded as a gaining a "significant advantage" by playing from a wrong place - and not correcting it, would put the player at risk of disqualification?

 

[rosecott]

Surely this hinges on the published Local Rules. Our Local Rules define all marker posts and bell posts as immovable obstructions even though some of them may be movable. This is to prevent players removing 150 yard markers then failing to replace them or replacing them in the wrong place. The player concerned may have been acting correctly if the sign was deemed to be immovable by Local Rule.

 

[jim8flog]

The important point within the definition is 'moved without unreasonable effort' I have come across many a 'movable' obstruction that I would not attempt to move as to do so may cause me in injury.

We have one direction post which most men but not all would find themselves capable of moving but most of the ladies definitely cannot.

In our local rules we simply state that all Obstructions should be treated as per rule 24.

 

[cliveb]

The important point within the definition is 'moved without unreasonable effort' I have come across many a 'movable' obstruction that I would not attempt to move as to do so may cause me in injury.

We have one direction post which most men but not all would find themselves capable of moving but most of the ladies definitely cannot.

So does this mean that the decision as to whether an obstruction is movable is down to the player?
That would make sense in the case of posts like the one mentioned above.

But if so, how do you prevent a player declaring an obviously movable obstuction as immovable (where proceeding under 24-2 gives him a better outcome than 24-1)?

 

[Colin L]

You prevent a player from declaring that a movable obstruction is an immovable one by the clear definition of what each is. A player cannot make one the other at his whim. In deciding, he can only be right or wrong.

A committee can, however, as Rosecott mentions, declare a moveable obstruction to be immovable. (That to my mind dos not change it from being a movable one - it still meets the definition. But it does tell me that although movable I have to treat it as immovable - which is an academic distinction that was probably not worth making.

 

[jim8flog]

. But it does tell me that although movable I have to treat it as immovable - which is an academic distinction that was probably not worth making.

This was the reason for not declaring the post as an immovable obstruction. Having it as such is a major disadvantage to players. We also wanted to simplify our local rules and try to get players to actually read the rule book.

The biggest problem we had was different Captains Committees changing what was movable and what was immovable without informing members that it had changed.

 

[cliveb]

You prevent a player from declaring that a movable obstruction is an immovable one by the clear definition of what each is.

Not quite sure what you mean.

If by "clear definition of what each is" you mean that the local rules specify each obstruction and define them accordingly, then fair enough (although it would seem an onerous task to do so).

On the other hand, if you are referring to the ROG definition that an obstruction is movable if it can be moved without unreasonable effort, then whose effort does that mean? As jim stated, there's a post on his course that can easily be moved by most men but not by most ladies. Does this mean that particular post is a movable obstruction for men but an immovable one for ladies? That doesn't seem to make sense. So if it's a movable one (because most men can easily move it), then what is a lady supposed to do when her ball ends up next to it?

Or am I just being overly analytical? Is it simply that if your ball ends up next to an obstruction and you personally can't move it, then it's an immovable obstruction? In which case, presumably we must rely on the integrity of the player not to pretend they can't move an obstruction if they'd prefer to get relief under 24-2?

 

[duncan mackie]

Not quite sure what you mean.

If by "clear definition of what each is" you mean that the local rules specify each obstruction and define them accordingly, then fair enough (although it would seem an onerous task to do so).

On the other hand, if you are referring to the ROG definition that an obstruction is movable if it can be moved without unreasonable effort, then whose effort does that mean? As jim stated, there's a post on his course that can easily be moved by most men but not by most ladies. Does this mean that particular post is a movable obstruction for men but an immovable one for ladies? That doesn't seem to make sense. So if it's a movable one (because most men can easily move it), then what is a lady supposed to do when her ball ends up next to it?

Or am I just being overly analytical? Is it simply that if your ball ends up next to an obstruction and you personally can't move it, then it's an immovable obstruction? In which case, presumably we must rely on the integrity of the player not to pretend they can't move an obstruction if they'd prefer to get relief under 24-2?

Yes to your last paragraph.

There's also a decision that cover's the matter in more clarity (from memory - I'm out and about without them at the moment!).

Just to touch on the approach of defining everything - this has a huge negative on visiting golfers who (reasonably imo ) assume that a normal move able one is movable and don't appreciate being penalised ! (Not all local rules are readable even with reading glasses)

 

[Flounder]

On a semi-related note, I was playing a round at the weekend when my ball came to rest against the 150 marker. The ground immediately around the marker tapered down to the post so there was no way of removing the post without the ball dropping in to the hole. How should I have proceeded assuming there was no local rule defining it as an immovable object?

 

[duncan mackie]

Yes to your last paragraph.

There's also a decision that cover's the matter in more clarity (from memory - I'm out and about without them at the moment!).

Just to touch on the approach of defining everything - this has a huge negative on visiting golfers who (reasonably imo ) assume that a normal move able one is movable and don't appreciate being penalised ! (Not all local rules are readable even with reading glasses)

A 1uick search suggests I was confusing the definition wording with a more helpful decision.

 

[duncan mackie]

On a semi-related note, I was playing a round at the weekend when my ball came to rest against the 150 marker. The ground immediately around the marker tapered down to the post so there was no way of removing the post without the ball dropping in to the hole. How should I have proceeded assuming there was no local rule defining it as an immovable object?

It's an immovable obstruction by definion; proceed under 24.2 unless there is a LR to the contrary.

 

[clubchamp98]

Not quite sure what you mean.

If by "clear definition of what each is" you mean that the local rules specify each obstruction and define them accordingly, then fair enough (although it would seem an onerous task to do so).

On the other hand, if you are referring to the ROG definition that an obstruction is movable if it can be moved without unreasonable effort, then whose effort does that mean? As jim stated, there's a post on his course that can easily be moved by most men but not by most ladies. Does this mean that particular post is a movable obstruction for men but an immovable one for ladies? That doesn't seem to make sense. So if it's a movable one (because most men can easily move it), then what is a lady supposed to do when her ball ends up next to it?

Or am I just being overly analytical? Is it simply that if your ball ends up next to an obstruction and you personally can't move it, then it's an immovable obstruction? In which case, presumably we must rely on the integrity of the player not to pretend they can't move an obstruction if they'd prefer to get relief under 24-2?

Not if your Tiger Woods He had the crowd move a massive boulder out of his line a few years ago , any player without a gallery would have to take a penalty drop.

If a player says he can’t move it for whatever reason that’s that.

Could a opponent refuse him a drop and remove it himself in matchplay and make him play it as it lies ?

 

[Colin L]

On a semi-related note, I was playing a round at the weekend when my ball came to rest against the 150 marker. The ground immediately around the marker tapered down to the post so there was no way of removing the post without the ball dropping in to the hole. How should I have proceeded assuming there was no local rule defining it as an immovable object?

I'm reading that to mean that the post could be removed without effort but as a result of removing it your ball would fall into the hole. If your ball is moved in the process of removing a movable obstruction, it must be replaced. If when replaced your ball falls into the hole, place it again and if it falls in again, find the nearest spot not nearer the hole where it can be placed and remain at rest. [Rule 20-3d]

 

[Colin L]

Not if your Tiger Woods He had the crowd move a massive boulder out of his line a few years ago , any player without a gallery would have to take a penalty drop.

If a player says he can’t move it for whatever reason that’s that.

Could a opponent refuse him a drop and remove it himself in matchplay and make him play it as it lies ?

Woods moving the boulder with a little help from his friends. It always comes up in discussions on this topic. The massive boulder was not an obstruction; it was a loose impediment and has no bearing on this discussion. Nothing is said to limit the size or weight of a loose impediment that can be removed. See Decision 23-1/2
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-23,d23-1-2.

I wouldn't accept that a player can say he cannot remove an obstruction for whatever reason. The only possible way in which it can be an immovable obstruction is is that to move would require unreasonable effort, would unduly delay play and would cause damage.

An opponent cannot refuse you anything. He cannot make you do anything. But obviously if he removed the obstruction before you played, there would no longer be any interference from an obstruction and so you would have to play the ball as it lay.

 

[Douglas]

Thank you all so far. 25.1 was in fact typo.
Further to the initial account I can add that the player was trying to imply that the small sign was immovable when in fact it was not. His partner moved to lift it and was told not to by the player, the implications of which are obvious. I would repeat that the sign was VERY easy to lift weighing around 250grms.
Do we therefore simply dismiss the players implication that the sign was immovable with the resulting conclusions as outlined by Colin and Backwoodsman ??

 

[backwoodsman]

Thank you all so far. 25.1 was in fact typo.
Further to the initial account I can add that the player was trying to imply that the small sign was immovable when in fact it was not. His partner moved to lift it and was told not to by the player, the implications of which are obvious. I would repeat that the sign was VERY easy to lift weighing around 250grms.
Do we therefore simply dismiss the players implication that the sign was immovable with the resulting conclusions as outlined by Colin and Backwoodsman ??

From what you say, the only reason that the sign could become an immovable obstruction, is if the local rules specifically say it has to be treated as immovable. (The committee can can do fhis, for example, if they really don't want something moved, even though it is easily moved). I doubt the committee had done this with the type of sign you describe (but it is always worth checking).

Rule 24.1 has no option of "nearest point of relief" - so if the player did not want the sign moved, then his only option was to play the ball as it lies with the sign in place. If he picked up the ball & moved it, he breached rule 18.2. If he did not put it back, he played from a wrong place..

Seems to me, that by insisting that the sign not be moved, the player was aware it would be much better for him to move the ball rather than to move the sign (ie he could play to the green if he moved the ball). In my mind, he was aware he was gaining a "serious advantage" so l am of opinion that he first incurred the 2 shot penalty for playing from wrong place, with subsequent DQ for the significant advantage gained by not playing from the "right place".

 

[jim8flog]

Not if your Tiger Woods He had the crowd move a massive boulder out of his line a few years ago , any player without a gallery would have to take a penalty drop.

If a player says he can’t move it for whatever reason that’s that.

Could a opponent refuse him a drop and remove it himself in matchplay and make him play it as it lies ?

The boulder was deemed to be a loose impediment by the referee and not an obstruction.

I have just seen Colin's earlier comment about the same.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thank you all so far. 25.1 was in fact typo.
Further to the initial account I can add that the player was trying to imply that the small sign was immovable when in fact it was not. His partner moved to lift it and was told not to by the player, the implications of which are obvious. I would repeat that the sign was VERY easy to lift weighing around 250grms.
Do we therefore simply dismiss the players implication that the sign was immovable with the resulting conclusions as outlined by Colin and Backwoodsman ??

The committee have to rule on whether the sign was a moveable obstruction or immovable taking into account all of the available information; the wording of the definition and the players comments at the time as well as the sign itself and the players disposition.

Whilst in general this is one where you would naturally make any close judgement in favour of the player (because the player is expected to play to the rules and, as such, if he judged that the sign was immovable for him then it would be immovable) as presented, and especially with respect of preventing another player even testing the moveable status, it doesn't seem a close call.
Equally, if the player was unable to make a stroke at the green from the original position of the ball but has a clear shot from the (wrong) place he has dropped it and played then the issue of a serious breach clearly comes into play. That the player has deliberately played from this place with a view containing an advantage makes this a clear cut case for me, and I would be for DQ.