Staked tree

[Jakob Schrik]

Righthand player:



A player’s ball ending up a foot right of a staked tree and the local rules allowing a free drop according to rule 16.
NPR would normally be on the close left side of the tree, but then line of play to the hole would be impeded by another tree.
He opts for playing back to the fairway which means that he can take the free drop on or near the fairway (not closer to the hole).
After the drop he has no interference from neither of the trees and has a clean shot to the green.

Is this acceptable according to the rules?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There is 'normally' only one NPR - and for staked trees you need a LR in place to give you relief. I believe that the staked tree must interfere with your stance or swing you'd take if the tree and stake were not there for relief to be taken (but I may be wrong - and can't believe I have had a sudden brain fade on it) and that if it does then it is mandatory that you take it. Only ball position 1 I am afraid. Other trees then in the way - tough...

But fret not - much more informed rulies will make it all clear for you very soon

 

[louise_a]

I would say it depends on whether the shot he claimed he would play would be the obvious shot to play, if there were trees in the way maybe it was.

 

[louise_a]

The model local rules states ….relief if the tree interferes with the players stance or area of intended swing..

 

[rulefan]

Assuming the staked trees are both identified as independent obstructions, then you must take relief from them one at a time. In this case it looks like you simply go further left.

HOWEVER, Line of Play is not a criterion for relief, so there would be no relief from the second tree.

 

[rosecott]

Righthand player:



A player’s ball ending up a foot right of a staked tree and the local rules allowing a free drop according to rule 16.
NPR would normally be on the close left side of the tree, but then line of play to the hole would be impeded by another tree.
He opts for playing back to the fairway which means that he can take the free drop on or near the fairway (not closer to the hole).
After the drop he has no interference from neither of the trees and has a clean shot to the green.

Is this acceptable according to the rules?
View attachment 29155

I don't think the player's choice of shot - playing back to the fairway - has any bearing on the location of the NPR. As stated, there is only one NPR.

 

[chrisd]

NPR is not necessarily the Nicest Point of Relief!
(Unfortunately)

 

[Jakob Schrik]

The model local rules states ….relief if the tree interferes with the players stance or area of intended swing..

I agree. But intended swing could mean: if the obstruction wasn’t there the player could have stated he would have played the ball back to the fairway due to the other bushes/trees (non staked) in line of play.
I do think option 1 is the only option, albeit not the nicest.... but rule 16 in my opinion is not 100% clear and conclusive.

 

[rulefan]

Playing towards the fairway certainly sounds preferable to going to the left and not having a clear shot

 

[Jakob Schrik]

But even in that case he needs to drop the ball because he has no stance or swing..

 

[rulie]

Playing towards the fairway certainly sounds preferable to going to the left and not having a clear shot

That sounds a little dubious. He can't just change direction of his intended shot because he doesn't like where relief for the intended shot would be. What shot would he play if the staked tree were not there is the key, not where his relief point would be for interference with that stroke. Rule 16.1a(3) would need to be considered imo.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

Our course shut down two years to resolve a serious drainage issue. The 1906 Donald Ross course was dug up completely and then rebuilt with every effort to retain the original architect's vision. Some trees were lost in the blasting, however, and that meant a lot of new baby trees with marking stakes as mentioned above.

We were instructed, rather forcefully, to take drops with the health of the young trees getting consideration over strict rule interpretation should a conflict arise.
It wasn't really a probelm, though. It was just implementation of a local rule like any other.

 

[rulefan]

That sounds a little dubious. He can't just change direction of his intended shot because he doesn't like where relief for the intended shot would be. What shot would he play if the staked tree were not there is the key, not where his relief point would be for interference with that stroke. Rule 16.1a(3) would need to be considered imo.

What is 'clearly unreasonable' about playing sideways if it is impossible to play forwards. See 16.1a(3)/1

I think you are thinking about the situation where some other obstacle than the one for which relief is being given interferes.
In this case, once the npr and relief area from the staked tree is determined, he may play in any direction.

 

[rulie]

What is 'clearly unreasonable' about playing sideways if it is impossible to play forwards. See 16.1a(3)/1

I think you are thinking about the situation where some other obstacle than the one for which relief is being given interferes.
In this case, once the npr and relief area from the staked tree is determined, he may play in any direction.

In my opinion, this player has the opportunity to play towards the flagstick, so any other direction is unreasonable - second bullet of 16.1a(3). What stroke would he play if the staked tree was not there?

 

[rulefan]

In my opinion, this player has the opportunity to play towards the flagstick, so any other direction is unreasonable - second bullet of 16.1a(3). What stroke would he play if the staked tree was not there?

If the relief area is immediately behind a bush or tree or any other obstacle, why would a sideways shot be unreasonable?
Under what rule would you deny that facility?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In my opinion, this player has the opportunity to play towards the flagstick, so any other direction is unreasonable - second bullet of 16.1a(3). What stroke would he play if the staked tree was not there?

I think simply that you can't have a golf rule that is dependent upon the ability of a player and specific to do with such as trees. Here we have trees in the way of the NPR and the flag. How tall are these 'blocking' trees? How close is the player to these 'blocking' trees? Could all ability of golfer play a shot to clear these 'blocking' trees? That answers to all three of these questions vary according to scenario and player, means to me that there cannot be a ruling in respect of 'reasonableness' that applies to only certain combinations of player and 'blocking' trees.

 

[rulefan]

There appears to be a misunderstanding of the relevance of 'unreasonable'
It is only considered when a player is trying to claim free relief from a situation (IO, GUR etc) by taking a stance, swing or playing direction that is unreasonable.
eg a RH player's ball is 12" to the left of a distance post (IO) to the right of the fairway. He claims relief by saying wants to play backwards towards the tee. His stance for that shot would place him on the other side of the post and it would interfere with his swing. Such a direction of play would clearly unreasonable.

However, if a player has legitimately claimed and taken relief (from a path say), once he has determined the npr and legitimately dropped in the relief area, he may now play in any direction he wishes, whether others think it unreasonable or not. It is as if he was playing unencumbered from anywhere on the course.
The 'unreasonable' test only applies for the stroke to be made when he is claiming relief. NOT when he has taken relief.

In this case, if he correctly takes relief from the staked tree, his drop would take him clear of that tree but now leaves him with an unstained tree on his line of play. He is perfectly entitled to play away from that tree out towards the fairway.

However, the OP says he is allowed, not that he must. So even though he is entitled to take relief from the staked tree he doesn't have to. He may simply play it as it lies. In which case he may hit it towards the fairway.

 

[rulie]

If the relief area is immediately behind a bush or tree or any other obstacle, why would a sideways shot be unreasonable?
Under what rule would you deny that facility?

I'm talking about relief from the spot where the ball lies originally and, imo, playing sideways to the fairway from that spot would be unreasonable; it seems that you might be talking about about a second situation that only occurs after he has already taken relief from the original position.

 

[rulie]

I think simply that you can't have a golf rule that is dependent upon the ability of a player and specific to do with such as trees. Here we have trees in the way of the NPR and the flag. How tall are these 'blocking' trees? How close is the player to these 'blocking' trees? Could all ability of golfer play a shot to clear these 'blocking' trees? That answers to all three of these questions vary according to scenario and player, means to me that there cannot be a ruling in respect of 'reasonableness' that applies to only certain combinations of player and 'blocking' trees.

The Rule provides the option of relief from the original situation for a reasonable stroke, and guarantees that the player will have relief from the original situation. However, the Rule does not guarantee that a player will be able to make any stroke after taking that relief.

 

[rulefan]

I'm talking about relief from the spot where the ball lies originally and, imo, playing sideways to the fairway from that spot would be unreasonable; it seems that you might be talking about about a second situation that only occurs after he has already taken relief from the original position.

If he is playing from the original spot he is not taking relief so can play in any direction.
What rule says he can't?