Must I strike the ball first?

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

At a bit of a tangent - I am actually not that worried about damaging an iron - they are simply the 'tools of the trade'. If one is a bit scraped or has a nick taken out of it - well that's a bit of bad luck and a disappointment - but I don't worry myself over it and so am not that overly protective of my clubs. If a bit of damage won't make any difference to how the club plays then just so be it. That said - I don't go around deliberately doing things that might cause damage if I have an option to avoid doing so.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The rule does not say "light" it says loose. The tiger stone was heavy but it was not solidly embedded...it was sitting flat on the ground. The fans provided enough muscle to easily move the stone.

This was the incident I referred to earlier.

I thought they changed the rules after this but maybe they just clarified them. As I recall it took a while for a group of spectators to move the loose impediment. Not good for pace of play!

The boulder had been placed there as part of the design - it had not rolled there by accident.

So to take it to an extreme - could you get a greenkeeper to move a boulder with his tractor or a 4X4 to drag it away providing it was loose?

How could he tell it was loose - no single person could move the boulder it took a group of men to shift it?

If Brandon Grace reads this he will get a JCB to follow him around just in case.

 

[rulefan]

I thought they changed the rules after this but maybe they just clarified them.

No. They simply explained that the decision had been around for 40 years.

As I recall it took a while for a group of spectators to move the loose impediment. Not good for pace of play!

As it happens, Woods was having to wait for a problem up ahead. No time was lost.

The boulder had been placed there as part of the design - it had not rolled there by accident.

Loose Impediments don't have to have arrived by accident. They just are what they are, where they are.

So to take it to an extreme - could you get a greenkeeper to move a boulder with his tractor or a 4X4 to drag it away providing it was loose?

Yes, providing it didn't cause undue delay

How could he tell it was loose - no single person could move the boulder it took a group of men to shift it?

Its weight or difficulty in moving is not the test. The criterion is being solidly embedded.
It could be seen that the bottom was resting on the ground.

 

[jim8flog]

Tiger Woods is famous for doing this after a ref declare the stone was not a loose impediment because it was partially embedded.


The ref did no such thing. Woods was allowed to move it because it was a loose impediment and was not embedded.
A decision dated some 40 years before confirmed his action

You are quoting the wrong incident. I am referring to the one where Woods left the embedded rock (about the size of 3 golf balls ) in place and hit the rock then the ball.

 

[jim8flog]

You got it backwards jim. The ref agreed with woods it was a LI.

You are not referring to the same incident.

 

[rulefan]

Originally Posted by mikejohnchapman

They stopped that afterwards by saying the impediment had to be easily moveable.

You are not referring to the same incident.

Is this the incident ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4lVCF8c5zk

 

[atticusfinch]

You are not referring to the same incident.

I see the relevance of your post to the initial post. I got lost in the digressions.

 

[atticusfinch]

The boulder had been placed there as part of the design - it had not rolled there by accident. of L The rule does not distinguish between those types of LIs.

So to take it to an extreme - could you get a greenkeeper to move a boulder with his tractor or a 4X4 to drag it away providing it was loose? Yes, as long as it did not unduly delay play.

How could he tell it was loose - no single person could move the boulder it took a group of men to shift it?daylight If you see the tape, the boulder had "daylight" showing under it. If it had been embedded there would be no space under it. Again, it required several people to move it because it was heavy, not because it was embedded.

 

[clubchamp98]

No. They simply explained that the decision had been around for 40 years.



As it happens, Woods was having to wait for a problem up ahead. No time was lost.


Loose Impediments don't have to have arrived by accident. They just are what they are, where they are.



Yes, providing it didn't cause undue delay



Its weight or difficulty in moving is not the test. The criterion is being solidly embedded.
It could be seen that the bottom was resting on the ground.

There was some debate over this as I remember.
as some said a lesser player with no gallery would not be able to move the Boulder.

I don't think in the spirit of the game you should be able to enlist the crowd or a JCB to improve your line of shot.

In the forth coming changes to the rules I think it should read.

If a player and his caddy can't move said obstruction themselves then it's not a moveable obstruction.

Getting the crowd to do it is not fair to the other players IMO.

But that's another story.

 

[atticusfinch]

Are we talking about loose impediments or obstructions? This is why people get lost in these discussions because they change in mid stream, or seem to.

 

[rulefan]

If a player and his caddy can't move said obstruction themselves then it's not a moveable obstruction.

The definition and rule relating to a movable obstruction already make provision for it being moved without unreasonable effort.

But the object we are discussing is a loose impediment. Quite a different animal.

 

[clubchamp98]

The definition and rule relating to a movable obstruction already make provision for it being moved without unreasonable effort.

But the object we are discussing is a loose impediment. Quite a different animal.

yes it is , my apologies ! but I would say the same thing for loose impediments and movable obstructions .
If you or your caddy can't move it then it stays where it is, enlisting the crowd IMO of course is or should not be an option!

The course designer put that there for a reason just because it's not embedded Dosnt mean you can get a JCB and move it.

I can't remember now but did they put it back ? Because if another player landed behind it in its new spot that penalises him if he has no gallery or JCB handy.

As has been said forty years ago this would not have been the definition of a loose impediment . That could have been moved easily.

Just watched the vid Jonny Miller called it a dumb rule and almost all the commentators thought it was wrong, but not against the rules and that's what matters.

 

[clubchamp98]

Situation is: Ball in red staked hazard, but dry, and comes to rest side by side and touching a stone (roughly golf ball sized)


Even if I could accurately nick just the ball forward or back without touching the stone, other obstacles mean its not an option


Is it within the rules to address and play it a bit like a snooker canon shot i.e address at the back of the stone so I'd hit the stone first which then moves the ball x distance (hopefully back into play)

And does the answer change if ball/stone are not touching?

Thanks[/QUOTE
I think this is a bit dangerous don't you .

Golfers have been killed by breaking shafts
splints of rock in eyes

can't think there would ever be a situation where I would do this.

 

[rulefan]

As has been said forty years ago this would not have been the definition of a loose impediment . That could have been moved easily.

I don't know where that was said but forty years ago this was the definition of a Loose Impediment.

Loose Impediments
The term 'Loose impediments' denotes natural objects not fixed or growing and not adhering to the ball, and includes stones not solidly embedded, leaves, twigs, branches and the like, dung, worms and insects and casts or heaps made by them.
Snow and ice are either casual water or loose impediments, at the option of the player.
Sand and loose soils are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere on the course.

In effect, it hasn't changed

 

[atticusfinch]

1952: The term "loose impediments" denotes natural objects not fixed or growing or adhering to the ball, and includes stones not solidly embedded, leaves, twigs, branches and the like, dung, worms and insects and casts or heaps made by them.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[rulie]

yes it is , my apologies ! but I would say the same thing for loose impediments and movable obstructions .
If you or your caddy can't move it then it stays where it is, enlisting the crowd IMO of course is or should not be an option!

The course designer put that there for a reason just because it's not embedded Dosnt mean you can get a JCB and move it.

I can't remember now but did they put it back ? Because if another player landed behind it in its new spot that penalises him if he has no gallery or JCB handy.

As has been said forty years ago this would not have been the definition of a loose impediment . That could have been moved easily.

Just watched the vid Jonny Miller called it a dumb rule and almost all the commentators thought it was wrong, but not against the rules and that's what matters.

Your arguments are being correctly dismissed. Maybe you should stop digging that hole and recognize that what transpired was within the Rules for the last half century, and still is? Imo, it's time to move on.

 

[clubchamp98]

Your arguments are being correctly dismissed. Maybe you should stop digging that hole and recognize that what transpired was within the Rules for the last half century, and still is? Imo, it's time to move on.

Really I think it's the rules that need to move on !
You should not be able to get a posse to move a boulder the course designer has placed on the course.
The interpretation of a loose impediment needs to be updated and if you can't move it yourself then it stays where it is.

Other rules are being updated so don't see why this can't be.

I thought the RandA wanted the thoughts of golfers on the updates.

 

[clubchamp98]

Your arguments are being correctly dismissed. Maybe you should stop digging that hole and recognize that what transpired was within the Rules for the last half century, and still is? Imo, it's time to move on.

Did you read my last sentence?
i know it's in the rules but that Dosnt mean it's right IMO of course

 

[rulefan]

Really I think it's the rules that need to move on !
You should not be able to get a posse to move a boulder the course designer has placed on the course.
The interpretation of a loose impediment needs to be updated and if you can't move it yourself then it stays where it is.

Other rules are being updated so don't see why this can't be.

I thought the RandA wanted the thoughts of golfers on the updates.

Why do you suggest it is out of date (ie needs updating) as opposed to changing? Why is this any less right now than in the past? What has happened to cause a review?

There was plenty of opportunity to review it at the time of the Woods incident.

 

[jim8flog]

Is this the incident ?

No that is not the incident I was referring to. It was the incident I described.

I was amazed at the time that he would play such a shot as in my mind he could have broken his or sprained his wrist and the US Open was only a couple of weeks away

On reflection (it was quite a few years ago) the stone may have been greenside of the ball.