Relief from animal scraping under bush

[Swango1980]

Scenario: A player finds his ball under a bush. The only real sensible option would be to take a penalty, as it isn't playable. However, the ball also is in an animal scraping. The player says that, in this situation, they would normally get on their knees like Ballesteros, and then take a wild hack left-handed in the hope to get it out. Therefore, as they claim that this is what they will do, can they reasonably then claim that they get relief from the animal scraping? In most circumstances, forgetting the scraping, the only sensible option is to take the penalty drop. However, we have all seen players who seem determined to hack at a ball many times under a bush to try and get it out, where a penalty drop would guarantee they get it out into a similar position anyway. So, under the rules, then I think I am right in thinking that they do get free relief from the scraping (which might just get them away from the bush, or in a much more favourable position), simply because it is true that they could still technically play the ball, albeit probably unsuccessfully.

It's an interesting one, because it does come up from time to time. About 10 years ago I was playing at a league match at another course, and there were at least 5-6 occasions an opponent got free relief from a bush or a tree because his ball was on or near an animal scraping (they had quite a few scraping from rabbits, so basically anything that looked vaguely like a scraping near his ball, when he was in trouble, he was claiming relief for).

 

[rulefan]

In the light of the following and I 16.1a(3)/3 I would not give relief.
It is quite unofficial but my test is 'Would the player be better off trying to play the ball from where it is (ignoring the hole) than taking a penalty drop?'.


16.1a(3) No Relief When Clearly Unreasonable to Play Ball. There is no relief under Rule 16.1:

• When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as when a player is standing in temporary water or on an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush),
• Clarification →

1. Meaning of “Clearly Unreasonable to Play Ball” When Deciding If Relief Is Allowed:​

The purpose of Rule 16.1a(3) is to prevent a player from obtaining free relief when it is clearly unreasonable for him or her to make a stroke because of interference by something from which free relief is not available. But it does not apply, for example, if a player’s ball is embedded in the general area and he or she is standing on an immovable obstruction. In this case, the player may take relief from either condition unless relief is unreasonable because of something other than either condition.​

It is quite unofficial but my test is 'Would the player be better off trying to play the ball from where it is (ignoring the hole) than taking a penalty drop?'.

 

[duncan mackie]

In the light of the following and I 16.1a(3)/3 I would not give relief.
It is quite unofficial but my test is 'Would the player be better off trying to play the ball from where it is (ignoring the hole) than taking a penalty drop?'.


16.1a(3) No Relief When Clearly Unreasonable to Play Ball. There is no relief under Rule 16.1:

• When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as when a player is standing in temporary water or on an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush),
• Clarification →

1. Meaning of “Clearly Unreasonable to Play Ball” When Deciding If Relief Is Allowed:​

The purpose of Rule 16.1a(3) is to prevent a player from obtaining free relief when it is clearly unreasonable for him or her to make a stroke because of interference by something from which free relief is not available. But it does not apply, for example, if a player’s ball is embedded in the general area and he or she is standing on an immovable obstruction. In this case, the player may take relief from either condition unless relief is unreasonable because of something other than either condition.​

It is quite unofficial but my test is 'Would the player be better off trying to play the ball from where it is (ignoring the hole) than taking a penalty drop?'.

I like to consider you same test but with the substitution of could for would.
Slightly softer but, in a way, more definitive.
Whilst the words, and wording, are easier in the revised rules there is still the underlying problem that the player is only required to be able to make a stroke rather than a constructive stroke. In addition the reasonable test is in relation to making a stroke, not the beneficial outcome of the stroke.
Both our tests bring elements of reasonable to the stroke outlined which I'm comfortable is consistent with the principle of the rule but isn't fully supported by the wording of the rule!

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks guys.

So, I think I'm glad I asked the question, as my instinct is the same as yours (that I don't think it is reasonable to claim relief). On the other hand, I'd find it tricky to argue this with a player trying to argue the other way when they are trying to get out of an "almost" unplayable situation, if they simply say "I was going to play that shot rather than take a drop". It was brought to my attention yesterday as one of the guys I was playing with was claiming the same relief, although to be fair he then agreed it probably wasn't a scraping anyway, so took a penalty.

If the player, who insists they get relief in a stroke play competition, still disagreed, I guess they could then elect to play with 2 balls in the hole. With one ball, they swipe at the ball under the bush, the other they get their free drop. Can the Committee still decide that the swipe under the bush had to count, despite the fact that they did actually play at the ball (whether they hit it or not), and therefore the scraping was interfering indicating the free relief option should actually be allowed?

Like you, I don't think relief should be allowed, and the a referee would then probably rule the same. Even so, I guess there are grey areas in between, in which the bush is partially obstructing the swing, where some my take a drop whilst others would find a way in there and manage to somehow play a decent shot out. And I know plenty of players will claim free relief even if there is literally no way to even pick their ball out of the bush, let alone play it (similar to when a player finds a little bamboo stick under a fully mature tree / bush, and claim it is staked, even if there is no local rule allowing for relief from a staked tree)

 

[rulefan]

This sort of 'subjective' ruling is particularly difficult if you are not there. As you suggest, two balls would be sensible choice for the player if there is no referee available. And maybe if there is. If I were challenged by the player, I would take a couple of photos.

IMO a committee ruling should not consider the actual outcome but on the situation before the attempt.

 

[backwoodsman]

Also worth bearing in mind that rule 16.1a(3) says that there's no free relief when it is "unreasonable" to play the ball - it doesn't say when "impossible". So although it might actually be possible to make a stroke of some kind, it doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to free relief. Although I accept this doesn't get one off the hook as regards the argument about what is actually "reasonable".

 

[bobmac]

It's always been easy in my mind.........
Would I attempt the shot if the scrape wasn't there.
If yes then I should get the free drop.
If not then no free drop.

 

[Swango1980]

It's always been easy in my mind.........
Would I attempt the shot if the scrape wasn't there.
If yes then I should get the free drop.
If not then no free drop.

That's the point of the original question though. I see many many golfers, usually higher handicappers, who attempt the most ridiculous shots when the more sensible option would be to take a drop, which is what I would do. So, let's say I am playing with one of these golfers and they end up in a scraping under a bush. Then using that argument they are entitled to a free drop because they'd attempt the shot. However, if I was in exactly the same position I would NOT be entitled to a free drop because I wouldn't take the shot. Also, we'll also assume that we are both right-handed so that can't be used as a reasonable explanation as to why one can and the other can't play the shot.

 

[Hobbit]

That's the point of the original question though. I see many many golfers, usually higher handicappers, who attempt the most ridiculous shots when the more sensible option would be to take a drop, which is what I would do. So, let's say I am playing with one of these golfers and they end up in a scraping under a bush. Then using that argument they are entitled to a free drop because they'd attempt the shot. However, if I was in exactly the same position I would NOT be entitled to a free drop because I wouldn't take the shot. Also, we'll also assume that we are both right-handed so that can't be used as a reasonable explanation as to why one can and the other can't play the shot.

But you're applying a subjective opinion to the situation. What you wouldn't do someone else will try. And they might just get the right connection to move the ball 50yds, meaning they're then hitting a wedge in, not a 6 iron.

I know its galling sometimes when you see someone taking advantage of a rule but golf isn't a game of perfect. I don't get gnarly when someone does it, its all part of the game.

 

[Swango1980]

But you're applying a subjective opinion to the situation. What you wouldn't do someone else will try. And they might just get the right connection to move the ball 50yds, meaning they're then hitting a wedge in, not a 6 iron.

I know its galling sometimes when you see someone taking advantage of a rule but golf isn't a game of perfect. I don't get gnarly when someone does it, its all part of the game.

It's not galling seeing someone take advantage of a rule, when it is clear the rule is being applied correctly.

It could be galling if the application becomes subjective as to whether it be applied or not. Even if I agreed they could have a free drop, in a medal someone else in the field may be appalled that they could have a free drop. In a tight match play game, it may look for the world you will win the hole, then they claim a free drop which could put them right back in it, even though you personally would never dream of playing the shot.

To be fair, it can be an awkward one in itself, and sometimes it gets worse when there is debate whether it's even an animal scraping or not.

 

[Hobbit]

It's not galling seeing someone take advantage of a rule, when it is clear the rule is being applied correctly.

It could be galling if the application becomes subjective as to whether it be applied or not. Even if I agreed they could have a free drop, in a medal someone else in the field may be appalled that they could have a free drop. In a tight match play game, it may look for the world you will win the hole, then they claim a free drop which could put them right back in it, even though you personally would never dream of playing the shot.

To be fair, it can be an awkward one in itself, and sometimes it gets worse when there is debate whether it's even an animal scraping or not.

But isn't that the subjectiveness of it, "even though you personally would never dream of playing the shot" doesn't mean they wouldn't. If someone is obviously making an effort to stretch a leg out to claim relief from GUR by all means question it but just because someone might get on their knees to play a shot and says they want relief, why argue. They may well have tried to play the shot if they hadn't seen the animal scrape.

Yes it can be a kicker if you think you're about to win a hole but isn't that part of the game?

 

[rulefan]

It's part of the training and long experience of a referee

 

[rulie]

From the description in the original post, as a referee I would deny relief. I realize that it is a subjective call, but that's why referees get paid the big bucks to ensure the game is played within the Rules (as all players expect)!

 

[Colin L]

From the description in the original post, as a referee I would deny relief. I realize that it is a subjective call, but that's why referees get paid the big bucks to ensure the game is played within the Rules (as all players expect)!

Big bucks? Not at my lowly amateur level they don't. But I'm appreciative enough of a sleeve of Pro v1s, a free lunch and as much coffee as I can cope with.

In the situation illustrated, just because a player claims he would take a wild hack left handed while kneeling down doesn't mean you can't rule that playing such a shot is clearly unreasonable. You have to apply a more objective criterion than the player's over-heated imagination. What you hope for is a player as honest as Lee Westwood was this past season when he acknowledged when his ball was tangled up in a root but in an animal hole that without the abnormal condition he would have taken a penalty drop.

 

[Swango1980]

Big bucks? Not at my lowly amateur level they don't. But I'm appreciative enough of a sleeve of Pro v1s, a free lunch and as much coffee as I can cope with.

In the situation illustrated, just because a player claims he would take a wild hack left handed while kneeling down doesn't mean you can't rule that playing such a shot is clearly unreasonable. You have to apply a more objective criterion than the player's over-heated imagination. What you hope for is a player as honest as Lee Westwood was this past season when he acknowledged when his ball was tangled up in a root but in an animal hole that without the abnormal condition he would have taken a penalty drop.

For every Westwood, there is a Kuchar.

 

[rulie]

Big bucks? Not at my lowly amateur level they don't. But I'm appreciative enough of a sleeve of Pro v1s, a free lunch and as much coffee as I can cope with.

In the situation illustrated, just because a player claims he would take a wild hack left handed while kneeling down doesn't mean you can't rule that playing such a shot is clearly unreasonable. You have to apply a more objective criterion than the player's over-heated imagination. What you hope for is a player as honest as Lee Westwood was this past season when he acknowledged when his ball was tangled up in a root but in an animal hole that without the abnormal condition he would have taken a penalty drop.

True sarcasm! They doubled my salary this year, and it's still zero. I do appreciate the opportunity and free meals.

 

[Colin L]

it's funny! but my dog has eaten almost all the balls I played with... so I consider a little scratched ball not a big damage

There speaks someone who probably claimed her hamster had eaten her homework.

 

[RulesGuy]

The word reasonable could mean (i) what is reasonable to a prudent golfer in a given set of circumstances or (ii) what is reasonable to this particular golfer in a given set of circumstances. One man's (or woman's) reasonableness is another's unreasonableness. You pays your money and take your choice. The unplayable rule is one of the most disregarded rules in golf in that many will attempt shots which at best will see them in a similar position as they would be have been if they had taken a penalty and at worst will see them in the same or poorer position.

 

[duncan mackie]

The word reasonable could mean (i) what is reasonable to a prudent golfer in a given set of circumstances or (ii) what is reasonable to this particular golfer in a given set of circumstances. One man's (or woman's) reasonableness is another's unreasonableness. You pays your money and take your choice. The unplayable rule is one of the most disregarded rules in golf in that many will attempt shots which at best will see them in a similar position as they would be have been if they had taken a penalty and at worst will see them in the same or poorer position.

You represent this from a very singular perspective - I've played many shots (from a wide range of obscure situations) which have had everyone in the game go from ' just pick it up and let's move on' to 'wtf?'.
So there are are also many situations where everyone who has a view considers any shot as unreasonable and the result was significantly ahead of an relief option (all of these were without free relief options but the principle remains the same).
I would suggest that there are more issues with the rule over whether a relief situation actually exists than whether the exception is a factor.