Rules question, free drop

[sawtooth]

The rule is clear. You drop the side that provides nearest point of relief. If that side has a tree or bush in the way then thats tough luck.

 

[rosecott]

he said the rules are there to help you if you know them . but i had a doubt about the spirit in which he played

You don't get to +2 by not knowing how to use the rules to your best advantage.

 

[chrisd]

he said the rules are there to help you if you know them . but i had a doubt about the spirit in which he played

This phrase is a pet hate of mine - the rules either allow something or they dont, using them to your advantage is not going to "raise a doubt about the spirit" for me it's clear cut, if it's not against the rules (and it wasn't) then it's perfectly fine!

 

[williamalex1]

he could have played back towards the tee right handed without hitting the tagged tree on his follow thro, if he had really wanted to.

 

[chrisd]

he could have played back towards the tee right handed without hitting the tagged tree on his follow thro, if he had really wanted to.

I dont think that he's limited to a shot that you want to see him play and we all play left handed shots from certain situations from time to time. You cant criticise hime for using the rules to his advantage, they hurt you often enough and its right to use them to help if you can - see MacDowell comments.

To be fair I admire the guys ingenuity

 

[williamalex1]

I dont think that he's limited to a shot that you want to see him play and we all play left handed shots from certain situations from time to time. You cant criticise hime for using the rules to his advantage, they hurt you often enough and its right to use them to help if you can - see MacDowell comments.

To be fair I admire the guys ingenuity

fair comment

 

[Foxholer]

I think it is just "the rub of the green". Sometimes you get bad luck in this game other times you get good luck. I have played from places that I could take a free relief from before as the closest point of relief has put me in a worse place.

Absolutely spot on.

So before touching your ball, determine what your options are and choose the one that you believe causes you the least problem for the next shot(s). I have seen a player pick a ball up from a path and then realise that the nearest point of relief was in a bush!

 

[Foxholer]

is the following situation within the rules of a free drop. a right handed player pulls his tee shot left to within 2 inches from oob fence,he can' get in to play right handed , so he says he has to play the shot left handed , and after taking left handed practice swing, says that a staked and tagged small tree is interfering with his swing, which it was. he proceedes to drop nearest point then 1 club length , now the best bit he plays his normal right handed shot to within 2 feet. this was a plus 2 guy . who was tossed out a couple of years later for other offences. but was he right on that occasion

Perfectly reasonable imo. Left-handed was the ONLY possible way he could play the shot without penalty - and he is entitled to do that. Had he had a cramped, but playable lie for a right handed shot, then I believe it would be different.

Doesn't necessarily apply to animal scrapes and trees/bushes in the same way though. If it clearly impractical to play a shot because of the tree/bush, then relief from the animal scrape is NOT allowed. Decision 25-1b/19.

 

[chrisd]

Doesn't necessarily apply to animal scrapes and trees/bushes in the same way though. If it clearly impractical to play a shot because of the tree/bush, then relief from the animal scrape is NOT allowed. Decision 25-1b/19.

I wonder just how many competitions have been won after dodgy drops that havn't applied this exception?

 

[palindromicbob]

Here is an interesting example of not taking relief from an immovable obstruction such as a path and using the rules to your advantage.

http://www.usga.org/ourexpertsexplain.aspx?id=21474846883

 

[MashieNiblick]

Here is an interesting example of not taking relief from an immovable obstruction such as a path and using the rules to your advantage.

http://www.usga.org/ourexpertsexplain.aspx?id=21474846883

Interesting article. Explains the situation extemely well. Thanks for posting.

 

[duncan mackie]

Perfectly reasonable imo. Left-handed was the ONLY possible way he could play the shot without penalty - and he is entitled to do that. Had he had a cramped, but playable lie for a right handed shot, then I believe it would be different.

Doesn't necessarily apply to animal scrapes and trees/bushes in the same way though. If it clearly impractical to play a shot because of the tree/bush, then relief from the animal scrape is NOT allowed. Decision 25-1b/19.

I think you are mixing your trees and bushes here, and let's not get into what constitutes impracticable (note it's not 'impractical') here.

In 25-1b/19 the bush is not a tree from which relief is available as in the posts about a staked tree, it is an integral part of the course that makes play of the ball 'impracticable' (think impossible) such that any other relief that may be available is denied by the exception to 25-1. 24-2 (IO's) has the same exception.

 

[williamalex1]

Perfectly reasonable imo. Left-handed was the ONLY possible way he could play the shot without penalty - and he is entitled to do that. Had he had a cramped, but playable lie for a right handed shot, then I believe it would be different.

Doesn't necessarily apply to animal scrapes and trees/bushes in the same way though. If it clearly impractical to play a shot because of the tree/bush, then relief from the animal scrape is NOT allowed. Decision 25-1b/19.

he could have played his second shot right handed if he had played back towards the tee away from the hole, without the tree interfering, all be it close to the fence.

 

[duncan mackie]

he could have played his second shot right handed if he had played back towards the tee away from the hole, without the tree interfering, all be it close to the fence.

that's not relevant to the establishment of the relief from the tree

establishing relief relates to a reasonable stroke, stance and swing (I paraphrase the rules for this relative explanation) and in this context the target is relevant to the reasonableness. The target may not be a direct line to the green but it would need to be a reasonable approach to playing the hole.

having established that relief is available there is a related issue with the exception that states that even if the above applies, if it is clearly impracticable for the player to make any shot then relief is denied. At this point the reasonableness of the shot is no longer relevant with regard to direction, swing etc because all that is at question is whether the player could play the ball.

example - player's ball is burried in tree roots, but if he takes a normal stance to play the ball towards the green (ignoring the tree!) he is standing in a puddle of casual water. he is not actually able to get a club to the back of the ball regardless of where he stands. (1) interference is established (2) relief is denied because it's clearly impracticable for him to play any shot.

same situation, same tree, but now the ball lies between 2 parallel roots about 4" high, 6" apart running across his swing path to play at the green. (1) interference is established (2) the player is able to play a shot at 90 degrees to the green. Relief allowed. It is important to note that it is irrelevant that the player may not have interference from the casual water when demonstrating the shot at 90 degrees - only that he has such a shot.

 

[bladeplayer]

Here is an interesting example of not taking relief from an immovable obstruction such as a path and using the rules to your advantage.

http://www.usga.org/ourexpertsexplain.aspx?id=21474846883

Great rules quizes on this link aswell , bit Americanised in terms used , but still good , worth a go ..

 

[Region3]

same situation, same tree, but now the ball lies between 2 parallel roots about 4" high, 6" apart running across his swing path to play at the green. (1) interference is established (2) the player is able to play a shot at 90 degrees to the green. Relief allowed. It is important to note that it is irrelevant that the player may not have interference from the casual water when demonstrating the shot at 90 degrees - only that he has such a shot.

This confuses me, but I'm probably reading it wrong.

Are you saying that the player gets relief from the casual water that he would be standing in if he were playing towards the green (impossible), even though he's not standing in it playing the only reasonable shot between the roots at 90° to the green?

 

[williamalex1]

hypothetically then a right handed player can opt to play left handed at any time to get relief from some immovable object that was not in the way of his normal right handed swing. and in doing so gets a free drop and clears his line of site which a tree which was originally between him and the green. can that be right ?

 

[bobmac]

hypothetically then a right handed player can opt to play left handed at any time to get relief from some immovable object that was not in the way of his normal right handed swing. and in doing so gets a free drop and clears his line of site which a tree which was originally between him and the green. can that be right ?

No.
If he was able to play the shot normally, why would he want to play it left handed. It wouldn't be reasonable

 

[Region3]

hypothetically then a right handed player can opt to play left handed at any time to get relief from some immovable object that was not in the way of his normal right handed swing. and in doing so gets a free drop and clears his line of site which a tree which was originally between him and the green. can that be right ?

No. You have to show that the shot you intend to play is reasonable and that it is the shot you would choose to play if you were not seeking relief from something.

To play a left handed shot when an equally sensible right handed shot is available would not be reasonable to me.

If the options are right handed sideways or left handed towards the green then I guess it's a bit muddier.

Edit :Beaten to the punch because my phone rang!!

 

[williamalex1]

No.
If he was able to play the shot normally, why would he want to play it left handed. It wouldn't be reasonable

if he wanted to draw left to right for a leftie to play arround, the hypothetical tree , being ambidextros