Movable obstruction not moved and nearest point of relief taken.

[chrisd]

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.

I haven't been back over the entire thread but just wondered, if say the player claimed to have a bad back so because if this couldn't move the sign where it wouldn't have been a problem to anyone else, would he be able to drop away from the sign?

 

[duncan mackie]

I haven't been back over the entire thread but just wondered, if say the player claimed to have a bad back so because if this couldn't move the sign where it wouldn't have been a problem to anyone else, would he be able to drop away from the sign?

No reference to any requirement for any assessment to be made against solely the player in the rule

"An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise it is an immovable obstruction."

As I suspect your question is quite general we won't get into whether a 250g obstruction should, in itself, represent a challenge for someone actively swinging clubs of a similar mass!

 

[Colin L]

I haven't been back over the entire thread but just wondered, if say the player claimed to have a bad back so because if this couldn't move the sign where it wouldn't have been a problem to anyone else, would he be able to drop away from the sign?

The definition does not say that the obstruction has to be moved by the player concerned. If you have a bad back you just ask someone else to move it for you and if he/she can do so without unreasonable effort etc, it's a movable obstruction.

 

[chrisd]

The definition does not say that the obstruction has to be moved by the player concerned. If you have a bad back you just ask someone else to move it for you and if he/she can do so without unreasonable effort etc, it's a movable obstruction.

Just a thought though, if the NPR is in a poor spot so refuses to help ?

 

[Flounder]

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]

Thank you, that was exactly the situation.

 

[rulefan]

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

No.
The boulder was a Loose Impediment by definition. However, the Referee ruled that it was not solidly embedded.

"Loose impediments" are natural objects,
including: stones,
provided they are not:
solidly embedded,

 

[williamalex1]

I seem to remember the saying " a free drop from course furniture " meaning benches, signs ,marker posts, tee markers etc, is this mentioned anywhere in the rules.?

 

[Colin L]

I seem to remember the saying " a free drop from course furniture " meaning benches, signs ,marker posts, tee markers etc, is this mentioned anywhere in the rules.?

Yes - in the definition of an obstruction although not specifically in terms of "course furniture". All the objects which you mention are artificial.

 

[Colin L]

Yes - in the definition of an obstruction although not specifically in terms of "course furniture". All the objects which you mention are artificial.

I think I may have misunderstood you. Was this a local rule somehow declaring that "course furniture" was to be considered immovable?

 

[duncan mackie]

I seem to remember the saying " a free drop from course furniture " meaning benches, signs ,marker posts, tee markers etc, is this mentioned anywhere in the rules.?

Simple answer is no, nothing like that wording.

Even the term free drop isn't in the rules at all as far as I am aware.

As Colin says there may be a local rule (badly) worded like that which would be permissable (because its at least consistent with rule 24).

 

[atticusfinch]

As Colin says there may be a local rule (badly) worded like that which would be permissable (because its at least consistent with rule 24).

IF the furniture is manmade. An unfashioned boulder used as a bench may be furniture, but it is also a loose impediment.

 

[williamalex1]

I think I may have misunderstood you. Was this a local rule somehow declaring that "course furniture" was to be considered immovable?

No local rule I can recall , but as I posted " I seem to remember the saying free drop from course furniture".
Along time ago granted

 

[duncan mackie]

IF the furniture is manmade. An unfashioned boulder used as a bench may be furniture, but it is also a loose impediment.

There's the potential for a bit of a circular argument here...I would counter with a loose impediment isn't course furniture :thup:

 

[thanhthanh]

On certain holes we probably will