Relief or not?

[chrisd]

Playing Matchplay today my opponent landed in a wooded area. His ball was on a small but steep incline with branches holding his ball from dropping down the slope, one thick branch was right across the back of the ball. Any attempt to move the branches, twigs etc would have definitely caused the ball to move.

He then said that "there's plenty of rabbit scrapes around" and, in my opinion, took a stance just to ensure he stood on one but not necessarily the most natural stance to play a shot

How should we have proceeded please guys?

 

[KenL]

Definitely not in the spirit of the game but know there have been instances of pros inventing stances or shots they would play to get relief.

Did you accept this request? Where was the nearest point of relief?

 

[chrisd]

Definitely not in the spirit of the game but know there have been instances of pros inventing stances or shots they would play to get relief.

Did you accept this request? Where was the nearest point of relief?

Can I answer that please Ken when I get a consensus of what he should have done

 

[Foxholer]

Definitely relief - if it was a hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal (or reptile or bird). But only if proof (as in droppings) that it was a rabbit that caused it would be required imo! Too often, relief is given for squirrel scrapes - which are NOT burrowing animals!

 

[chrisd]

Definitely relief - if it was a hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal (or reptile or bird). But only if proof (as in droppings) that it was a rabbit that caused it would be required imo! Too often, relief is given for squirrel scrapes - which are NOT burrowing animals!

Even if it was highly doubtful that he had a shot and the stance in a scrape was somewhat contrived?

 

[Beezerk]

Even if it was highly doubtful that he had a shot and the stance in a scrape was somewhat contrived?

Wasn't this touched upon last year with the fella who took a stance with driver in the rough so he could get relief?
Iirc it's not for a fellow competitor to say how another players shot should be played, even if it doesn't seem to sit right.

 

[Foxholer]

Even if it was highly doubtful that he had a shot and the stance in a scrape was somewhat contrived?

Show me in the Rules where it states anything about 'having a shot'! Contrived shot is iffy - and really has to be seen to assessed properly. But if he didn't really 'have a shot' in the first place, can you really challenge a 'contrived' one? Seve certainly got relief from such conditions - saying he was going to play a pitch backwards to the fairway in just such a case!

 

[chrisd]

Show me in the Rules where it states anything about 'having a shot'! Contrived shot is iffy - and really has to be seen to assessed properly. But if he didn't really 'have a shot' in the first place, can you really challenge a 'contrived' one? Seve certainly got relief from such conditions - saying he was going to play a pitch backwards to the fairway in just such a case!

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

 

[rulefan]

How should we have proceeded please guys?

Rule 2-5

You should have told him that if he took relief from the supposed AGC, then you would make a claim to be resolved by the committee. You should note exactly where the ball was, the club he used to demonstrate the interference and the position of the scrape.

 

[chrisd]

Rule 2-5

You should have told him that if he took relief from the supposed AGC, then you would make a claim to be resolved by the committee. You should note exactly where the ball was, the club he used to demonstrate the interference and the position of the scrape.

Fair point

 

[duncan mackie]

Fair point

You won't be surprised that I agree with rulefan, given my view that 2-5 & 3-3 are the rules that everyone needs to know fully!

Picking up on the exception, I don't see any mileage in (a) here - he's perfectly able to make a stroke despite the thick branch. Whilst there might not be a whole load of control, nor might he hit the ball, he can claim to be able to play club/branch/ball which is fine.

The issue for focus is (b)

 

[chrisd]

You won't be surprised that I agree with rulefan, given my view that 2-5 & 3-3 are the rules that everyone needs to know fully!

Picking up on the exception, I don't see any mileage in (a) here - he's perfectly able to make a stroke despite the thick branch. Whilst there might not be a whole load of control, nor might he hit the ball, he can claim to be able to play club/branch/ball which is fine.

The issue for focus is (b)

As it turned out Duncan I'd say you're spot on.

I queried whether he had any realistic shot/ he said that there were rabbit scrapes. He stood in a strange stance but didn't offer the club near the ball (one touch of anything was likely to cause the ball to move). In reality I had the hole pretty well won anyway and he just took a swipe at the branches and the ball came out (in to another poor place) but clearly he did have a possible shot. I still think that the request for relief was not sustainable as i didn't see any other signs which, as Foxholer has said, could be squirrel scrapes, but we majored more on (a) than (b). I easily won the hole but lost on the 18th the match

 

[atticusfinch]

Can I answer that please Ken when I get a consensus of what he should have done

Why does it matter what he should have son? What DID he do? Did he take an abnormal stance to take advantage of the rule or not?

 

[chrisd]

Why does it matter what he should have son? What DID he do? Did he take an abnormal stance to take advantage of the rule or not?

I was keen to find out initially how we should have proceeded rather than be lambasted for getting things wrong as can happen on here.

The series of events that followed were.

He said that the were plenty of scrapes around and put his foot on one and took a stance, from which I didn't think he could play the ball so, imo it was an abnormal stance to prove that he could stand on the scrapes only. I said that I didn't think that he could be sure that he could actually play the ball as it lay, and, he definitely couldn't remove the branches, twigs etc etc without the ball moving, but as the ball lays, under the rules, if I was correct, he would not be entitled to relief for the AGC if the stroke was, as I felt, that any stroke would probably be, impractical.

Given that I was pretty much a bolt on certainty to win the hole he took a different stance which I got out of the way for so didn't observe his changed stance but it certainly changed from the one demonstrated, he whacked into the branches behind the ball which did shift it out of where it lay.

Given what he (very surprisingly) managed to do I obviously accept that he DID have a viable shot and that we should have studied the AGC claim more seriously and given relief if the AGC required it. However, the situation at the time was one of trying to decide whether relief was correct, and whether he had a practical shot and I genuinely felt he did not - it's so much easier in hindsight!

This was all in the context of a knockout Matchplay played in a very friendly manner and we never argued over the issue and I posted here just to be sure what to do if ever in a similar situation again.

 

[backwoodsman]

I was keen to find out initially how we should have proceeded rather than be lambasted for getting things wrong as can happen on here.

The series of events that followed were.

He said that the were plenty of scrapes around and put his foot on one and took a stance, from which I didn't think he could play the ball so, imo it was an abnormal stance to prove that he could stand on the scrapes only. I said that I didn't think that he could be sure that he could actually play the ball as it lay, and, he definitely couldn't remove the branches, twigs etc etc without the ball moving, but as the ball lays, under the rules, if I was correct, he would not be entitled to relief for the AGC if the stroke was, as I felt, that any stroke would probably be, impractical.

Given that I was pretty much a bolt on certainty to win the hole he took a different stance which I got out of the way for so didn't observe his changed stance but it certainly changed from the one demonstrated, he whacked into the branches behind the ball which did shift it out of where it lay.

Given what he (very surprisingly) managed to do I obviously accept that he DID have a viable shot and that we should have studied the AGC claim more seriously and given relief if the AGC required it. However, the situation at the time was one of trying to decide whether relief was correct, and whether he had a practical shot and I genuinely felt he did not - it's so much easier in hindsight!

This was all in the context of a knockout Matchplay played in a very friendly manner and we never argued over the issue and I posted here just to be sure what to do if ever in a similar situation again.

The way you describe it, l think it fair to say that the stance was abnormal and so no relief. I think the only real point to consider was, when he changed stance, was he still standing in the scrapes? Only if yes do you need to consider if they were "proper" scrapes. Otherwise i think you proceeded correctly.

 

[Colin L]

Just to tidy up a little - we need to remember that you can take an abnormal stance in particular circumstances and still be eligible for relief (e.g. one foot in a bunker and the other above it to play a ball lying on the edge, or kneeling down to play from under a bush). To be denied relief from an obstruction or abnormal ground condition, the stance has to be unnecessarily abnormal, i.e. there is no justification for adopting it.

 

[chrisd]

The way you describe it, l think it fair to say that the stance was abnormal and so no relief. I think the only real point to consider was, when he changed stance, was he still standing in the scrapes? Only if yes do you need to consider if they were "proper" scrapes. Otherwise i think you proceeded correctly.

We didn't get as far as discussing the scrapes as I had said that he shouldn't be looking for AGC relief as it's unlikely he can hit the ball

 

[chrisd]

Just to tidy up a little - we need to remember that you can take an abnormal stance in particular circumstances and still be eligible for relief (e.g. one foot in a bunker and the other above it to play a ball lying on the edge, or kneeling down to play from under a bush). To be denied relief from an obstruction or abnormal ground condition, the stance has to be unnecessarily abnormal, i.e. there is no justification for adopting it.

Absolutely fair point Colin, I did just feel it was a case of "there are loads of scrapes so I've got a drop" not "in taking my stance I'm standing on a scrape"