Played with a rules 'expert'

[North Mimms]

Maybe I'll trawl through this place for all the rules that turned out to be myths - or just myth-takes - gather them together and mix in some strange but true correct rulings for a Captain's Charity Quiz Evening at my club.

It would be very useful to have a thread for Mythbusting.
We could post the "rule" we have been told about then someone who knows their stuff could confirm that it's tosh, and direct us to relevant rule or decision if one exists.
Obviously sometimes there is nowhere in the rules to refute myths as they are so wide of the mark!

 

[bladeplayer]

I actually spoke to Mike & Jezz re something like this in the magazine at some stage

 

[North Mimms]

I actually spoke to Mike & Jezz re something like this in the magazine at some stage

Good idea! We can give them plenty of ammo!

 

[duncan mackie]

On the same topic but a different scenario.

My ball has come to rest under the lowest branches of a tree (a Leylandii). The lowest branches grow from the tree trunk horizontally about 1ft above ground level. Ground covering is the 'needle-drop' from the tree (is that an abnormal ground condition?). My ball is sitting in an animal scrape in that ground cover. I clearly cannot actually get to the ball to play a shot. Do I get relief? Relief would take me out from under the branches of the tree to a position where I would be able to play a shot.

longer answer -

the problem with such questions is that after you go to lengths explaining the situation you then state "I (clearly) cannot actually get to the ball to play a shot" - on which basis the the exception to 25-1b (clearly) applies!

however, if you were to say that, for example, the only practicable shot would have been a dubious chip out played from my knees and the condition from which relief is available would still interfere with this shot, then relief would be available; the nature of the shot is not relevant.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

longer answer -

the problem with such questions is that after you go to lengths explaining the situation you then state "I (clearly) cannot actually get to the ball to play a shot" - on which basis the the exception to 25-1b (clearly) applies!

however, if you were to say that, for example, the only practicable shot would have been a dubious chip out played from my knees and the condition from which relief is available would still interfere with this shot, then relief would be available; the nature of the shot is not relevant.

The situation (it was an opponent) was that he could have got onto his knees and swished the club horizontally to attempt to knock the ball out from under the tree - there was no impediment to him doing that. But he could not execute and any sort of proper 'swing' as such.

the other aside was whether or not a carpet of 'needle-drop' under a tree is abnormal ground condition - I would say not as there are plenty of circumstances you would be on needle-drop in trees and deciding upon relief or not would be too uncertain, difficult and random - but just checking.

 

[duncan mackie]

The situation (it was an opponent) was that he could have got onto his knees and swished the club horizontally to attempt to knock the ball out from under the tree - there was no impediment to him doing that. But he could not execute and any sort of proper 'swing' as such.

the other aside was whether or not a carpet of 'needle-drop' under a tree is abnormal ground condition - I would say not as there are plenty of circumstances you would be on needle-drop in trees and deciding upon relief or not would be too uncertain, difficult and random - but just checking.

1. the rules don't require 'a proper swing' in such situations; but they do require a swing. absence of any backswing would, for example, preclude any claim that the shot was practicable.

2. the pine needles are simply loose impediments, and as such could be removed. however, in such situations it is not wise to brush them away because there will normally be loose soil amongst them and moving this would be a breach of the rules! this presumes that the pine needles were neither piled for removal or defined as GUR in the LR.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

1. the rules don't require 'a proper swing' in such situations; but they do require a swing. absence of any backswing would, for example, preclude any claim that the shot was practicable.

2. the pine needles are simply loose impediments, and as such could be removed. however, in such situations it is not wise to brush them away because there will normally be loose soil amongst them and moving this would be a breach of the rules! this presumes that the pine needles were neither piled for removal or defined as GUR in the LR.

Thanks Duncan - to futher clarify

1. The 'swing' by FC would have had to make would have been holding the club in one hand and then stretching to reach and making a horizontal swishing that you'd have to do to knock the ball out from under the branches.

2. And so a full covering of needles is actually deemed to be just 'normal' ground conditions when under trees or indeed anywhere else on the course not covered by GUR or greenkeepers piled for removal. So no relief.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks Duncan - to futher clarify

1. The 'swing' by FC would have had to make would have been holding the club in one hand and then stretching to reach and making a horizontal swishing that you'd have to do to knock the ball out from under the branches.

.

The exception to rules 24 & 25 says (although neither apply in this case).

A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than the problem (my words) makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by the problem would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

 

[backwoodsman]

Thanks Duncan - to futher clarify

2. And so a full covering of needles is actually deemed to be just 'normal' ground conditions when under trees or indeed anywhere else on the course not covered by GUR or greenkeepers piled for removal. So no relief.

The pine needles are just leaves - the same as any other leaves. Presumably one would not expect substantial swathes of golf courses to be deemed AGC in autumn when the deciduous leaves fall and lie? May be different if gathered and piled for removal, but if they are just where they fell...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The exception to rules 24 & 25 says (although neither apply in this case).

A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than the problem (my words) makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by the problem would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

OK - so that seems clear enough to me. No relief for my Opponent

 

[duncan mackie]

OK - so that seems clear enough to me. No relief for my Opponent

that's not what post #48 says.....

 

[rulefan]

The 'swing' by FC would have had to make would have been holding the club in one hand and then stretching to reach and making a horizontal swishing that you'd have to do to knock the ball out from under the branches.

Sound pretty impracticable but I'd really have to be there to see it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

that's not what post #48 says.....

Sorry - I've got a bit confused by post #48.

So even although my FC could only hit his ball by getting on his knees; holding the club in one hand; and taking a pretty much 'blind' sweeping swipe at the ball - that is deemed to be a valid stroke under the rules (there being nothing about the situation of the ball stopping him making that 'stroke'). And so as his ball is sitting in a scrape he get's relief from that scrape.

I suppose the key point is whether or not my opponent could have played a shot to get the ball out from under the tree. In my situation he could have as there was nothing about where the ball was lying that would prevent him making some sort of stroke at the ball - albeit not with what would be deemed a normal stance or swing.

 

[chrisd]

I suppose the key point is whether or not my opponent could have played a shot to get the ball out from under the tree.

Exactly!

I played in a match with a guy who claimed relief and the only viable shot was a two yard whack, semi sideways, with a putter, it was a proper shot however, and relief was agreed

 

[HawkeyeMS]

That was my point. Hawkeye was adamantly denying any relief for a sideways shot.

Not quite, I just didn't explain it very well.

Let's say you find yourself in a spot where an AGC is in front of your ball interfering with your swing, but a tree behind you is preventing you from playing the shot towards the green. I hope we all agree no relief.

Now you decide to play sideways and the AGC is now to the left of your ball not affecting the swing for the sideways shot. You can't then take relief from the AGC. You in effect have to re-assess the AGC, if it affects the sideways shot then take relief, if it only affects the forwards shot that you can't play because of the tree then tough.

 

[delc]

Well, it doesn't necessarily follow that someone off 25/28 hasn't been playing long. It's possible but it's not a given.

And there's no reason why a 25/28 h/capper shouldn't be adamant about the rules, so long as they're right. On this occasion they weren't, but that's nothing to do with their h/cs, that's just because they don't know the rules.

The post smacked of h/c snobbery to me.

As it happened both players were fairly new to the game, and had probably been told about this non-existent rule by another supposed 'rules expect'!

 

[Region3]

Sorry - I've got a bit confused by post #48.

So even although my FC could only hit his ball by getting on his knees; holding the club in one hand; and taking a pretty much 'blind' sweeping swipe at the ball - that is deemed to be a valid stroke under the rules (there being nothing about the situation of the ball stopping him making that 'stroke'). And so as his ball is sitting in a scrape he get's relief from that scrape.

I suppose the key point is whether or not my opponent could have played a shot to get the ball out from under the tree. In my situation he could have as there was nothing about where the ball was lying that would prevent him making some sort of stroke at the ball - albeit not with what would be deemed a normal stance or swing.

There's that word again that I think is a source of a lot of misunderstandings.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There's that word again that I think is a source of a lot of misunderstandings.

My FCs ball was sitting in a animal 'scrape' from which I would ordinarily have granted him relief. But I was unsure whether he would get relief as his ball under the tree on the 'scrape' could only be hit in a way you'd normally use to recover a ball from such a place.

The difference being that the area under the tree was completely clear of obstructions - so kneeling down he could make a horizontal 'swipe' at the ball and knock it out - though not to somewhere he could get a good next shot toward the green. Referring to @Chris's last posting - it could no way be considered a 'proper' golf shot - but nonetheless he could swing a club at it and knock it out.

By getting relief from the animal 'scrape' he was able to drop at a position that gave him a shot towards the green.

 

[Region3]

But I thought the rules said relief is granted from a hole, cast or runway. A 'scrape' is none of those, therefore no relief. I'm confused

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But I thought the rules said relief is granted from a hole, cast or runway. A 'scrape' is none of those, therefore no relief. I'm confused

OK - it was an abnormal ground condition that I would have ordinarily given him relief. I'm not actually asking about that aspect of the situation.