relief from rabbit scrape

S

shagster

Head Pro
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
305
Location
eastbourne
Visit site
i need to pick the experts brains on here with regard to relief from a rabbit scrape
i had a fellow competitor who was behind a tree, about 4ft back. he could have played out to his left, or played a low cut, he is right handed, but because there was a rabbit scrape near the ball, and he was going to play with a putter, held close to the body, he was then able to position his foot on the scrape, and so claim relief. the ball was about 240 yards from the green.
i have looked at the rules, that seem to suggest that this may have been against the exemption in rules, but the definitions see to give several variations.
i would appreciated your opinions
regards
shagster
 
If the shot he demonstrated that would allow relief is a reasonable shot to play in the circumstances, then he gets relief whether or not you think it's the right shot to play.

From what you've said I think he was taking liberties and therefore no relief.
Easy to say on here though and another to tell the guy at the time.

Was there a good reason for using the putter rather than another club, other than the fact that it allowed him to take his stance near the scrape?
 
There are two principal reasons for not allowing relief from an obstruction or abnormal ground condition
a) the shot is impracticable eg a ball is in an animal hole but is under the root of a tree such that you could not get your club to the ball;
b) the player is doing something unusual with his stance, swing or direction of play simply in order to force the abnormal ground condition or obstruction into play eg the player whose feet in his usual stance are a shoulder width apart, stands in order to place a foot in GUR with his feet so far apart it brings a tear to the eye just to watch.

In this instance, the shot is practicable but as Region3 is asking, was the player deliberately doing something unusual for the sole purpose of bringing the scrape into play? Can't reallytell, is my answer, as there are too many things you would need to ask and see. For instance, what was his normal stance with a putter; could he reasonably have used another club with the same stance and if not, why chose a putter; how would he have played the shot if the scrape had not been there...... It does, however, sound like a try on.
 
Did he take his putter because he had to play the shot left handed and this enabled him to use the back of the club?
 
Without being able to see the exact situation.........I think I'd ask the question if I was in the same situation.....nothing ventured etc..
 
Robobum said:
Without being able to see the exact situation.........I think I'd ask the question if I was in the same situation.....nothing ventured etc..
Click to expand...



the problem really relates to who is being asked at club level, and how it's handled.

where there are ROs available it all works fine because there will be consistent decisions across the field, and even throughout events in a season. apart from recording pace of play timings the most common rulings relate to relief situations like this.

at club level, as intimated in an earlier post, some players can gain an advantage simply by trying it on because they won't be questioned; a simple reality I am afraid. everyone seems to shy away from suggesting a player in such situations proceeds under 3-3, and not everywhere will have a committee member or authorised individual available to resolve it when they get back in either!

the first person you should be asking is of course yourself :)
 
shagster said:
i need to pick the experts brains on here with regard to relief from a rabbit scrape
i had a fellow competitor who was behind a tree, about 4ft back. he could have played out to his left, or played a low cut, he is right handed, but because there was a rabbit scrape near the ball, and he was going to play with a putter, held close to the body, he was then able to position his foot on the scrape, and so claim relief. the ball was about 240 yards from the green.
i have looked at the rules, that seem to suggest that this may have been against the exemption in rules, but the definitions see to give several variations.
i would appreciated your opinions
regards
shagster
Click to expand...

Did he play his shot with the putter after taking relief ?.
 
williamalex1 said:
I know thats allowed , but i wanted to know if he did or not.
Click to expand...

I think you have your question the wrong way round - whether he played the illustrated shot with the putter if he didn't get free relief would be the relevant one.

David Frost and the path being the recent 'case history' where he illustrated a shot, and line of play, that would give him relief but was refused relief as that line wasn't deemed reasonable - so he went ahead and hit it that way anyway!

IN this case the player is only using a putter because of the situation his ball is in, which is fine, but after relief I can't see why anyone would then use the putter :confused:
 
duncan mackie said:
the problem really relates to who is being asked at club level, and how it's handled.

where there are ROs available it all works fine because there will be consistent decisions across the field, and even throughout events in a season. apart from recording pace of play timings the most common rulings relate to relief situations like this.

at club level, as intimated in an earlier post, some players can gain an advantage simply by trying it on because they won't be questioned; a simple reality I am afraid. everyone seems to shy away from suggesting a player in such situations proceeds under 3-3, and not everywhere will have a committee member or authorised individual available to resolve it when they get back in either!

the first person you should be asking is of course yourself :)
Click to expand...

Without a shadow of a doubt, I would be suggesting to the RO that relief is in order - arguing whether I am trying it on if their answer is affirmative is a wasted breath.

"Taking a drop from this rabbit scrape" is a statement I hear given to playing partners in the monthly medal - I've yet to see anyone refuse (especially from 30yds away on the other side of the fairway!) - rather than a question.
 
does anyone remember SEVY having a proper strop at a rules refere a good few years ago over the rabbit dropping scenario,ball lodge under a tree in a little hollow,SEVY claiming it was a rabbit scraping but the ref would have non of it and made him play his shot,if my mind is correct SEVY never spoke to him again even when he became the top ref in the country,same bloke did the young lad in the masters.
 
Thanks for all the answers lads.
no the putter was not used, a 3 wood was as he was 250 from the green and this was his second shot
he was intending to play the correct way with the putter, and could have used any iron to knock out with, but took the putter option to gain relief, as the srape was deep and could have interfered if he was going to play the putter
i should have argued, but i will point out the exception in rule 25, as he was only using the putter as the tree was blocking his shot not his swing with any club.
i look forward to more responces, as the decisions seem to contradict

thanks
shagster
 
If he could have played a similar shot with another club in such a way that he was not standing in the scrape then I think taking the putter should be considered unnecessarily abnormal and relief should not have been taken. He didn't have to use the putter and putters aren't normally necessary for that type of shot.

It was a try on.

I do wonder if perhaps clubs should exercise the option to make a LR stating that interference by an abnormal ground condition with a player’s stance is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under Rule 25-1. I assume such a local rule could limited to holes made by burrowing animals so that interference with the stance by another abnormal condition such as casual water would still get relief.
 
Yes, that facility is already available in the Note to Rule 25-1a.

Note: The Committee may make a Local Rule stating that interference by an Abnormal Ground Condition with a player’s stance is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under this Rule.
 
Can that LR be phrased so it applies only to particular types of abnormal conditions such as holes made by burrowing animals or would it have to apply to all? I looked in the Appendix for a specimen rule but couldn't find one.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sjw
Reference point location
Replies
18
Views
600
Steven Rules
S
F
GUR - compulsory relief or play it as it lies?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
fullongolf
F
SwingsitlikeHogan
Lateral Relief Stance
Replies
7
Views
888
SwingsitlikeHogan
SwingsitlikeHogan
Pants
Relief from immovable obstruction
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
SwingsitlikeHogan
SwingsitlikeHogan
D
Status of holed ball
Replies
8
Views
926
D-S
D
Top