Staked tree

[mikejohnchapman]

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.

Is this true if there is a group of staked trees? If by taking relief for each one serially you could get to the point of full relief you could take a lot of time and end up further away from the original point than if you regarded them as a group.

Common sense would dictate you take the NPR from the group wouldn't it?

 

[Colin L]

I've lost the place in this discussion! I don't see what the stroke after he has taken relief has to to with whether his determination of his NPCR was legitimate.

To break it down as I see it.

Het gets relief if there is interference to his intended swing - the swing he would have used had the Abnormal Ground Condition [AGC] not been there. It is not unreasonable for a player to make a choice between a risk shot through or over trees blocking the direct line to the hole and a safety shot sideways out on to the fairway. (It happens to me regularly!) If his choice would have been the direct shot had there been no AGC, his Nearest Point of Complete Relief [NPCR] is determined in one place. If his choice would have been the safety shot and there was interference to stance or swing, his NCPR would likely be in a different place.

The choice is the normal tactical choice the player has between the risky direct shot and the safety one, but only once that choice has been made should the questions of whether there is interference and if so where the NCPR is be answered. What I'm uncomfortable about in the OP's description is that it sounds as if he was deciding which shot he would have played on the basis of where his reference point for relief would be for each. That is not legitimate. He cannot use the outcome of getting relief as a factor in deciding which shot he would have taken. His choice of intended shot has to be made without any reference to the AGC, as if it did not exist.

 

[duncan mackie]

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.

Why is it impossible to play forwards?

From where the ball currently lies, as drawn, the only thing preventingnhim playing straight at the green is the staked tree. If the staked tree wasn't there there is no suggestion that the player would make the stroke being suggested as reasonable.

However - I strongly suspect that this is one of those situations where you have to be there to be able to make any judgement on reasonable. For example, in my mind if there was another, third, tree in between his ball and the green it would appear entirely reasonable.

 

[Colin L]

Is this true if there is a group of staked trees? If by taking relief for each one serially you could get to the point of full relief you could take a lot of time and end up further away from the original point than if you regarded them as a group.

Common sense would dictate you take the NPR from the group wouldn't it?

Taking relief from one staked tree at a time is the correct answer.

That being said, I once got called to a player whose ball was in a dense copse of conifers every single one of which of which had wire netting its base. He was unsurprisingly at a loss as to what he could do. By the time I got to him, two groups had already played through and another was waiting and so I took the unorthodox (evasive word for incorrect) decision to guide him to relief from the lot. Otherwise there were going to be maybe 20 or so drops to make to get him out and I was mindful of the effect on timings and especially on the other two players in his flight who were hanging around all this time. I wouldn't do that if it were a more common matter of a few successive drops but this was exceptional. Call that a "common sense" approach if you like; others would call it plain wrong of me. Either way, it's not a solution available to a player on his own.

 

[doublebogey7]

Taking relief from one staked tree at a time is the correct answer.

That being said, I once got called to a player whose ball was in a dense copse of conifers every single one of which of which had wire netting its base. He was unsurprisingly at a loss as to what he could do. By the time I got to him, two groups had already played through and another was waiting and so I took the unorthodox (evasive word for incorrect) decision to guide him to relief from the lot. Otherwise there were going to be maybe 20 or so drops to make to get him out and I was mindful of the effect on timings and especially on the other two players in his flight who were hanging around all this time. I wouldn't do that if it were a more common matter of a few successive drops but this was exceptional. Call that a "common sense" approach if you like; others would call it plain wrong of me. Either way, it's not a solution available to a player on his own.

It seems to me that the club is at fault here, where there is a copse of many multiples of staked tree's then surely the whole area ought to be marked as GUR.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It seems to me that the club is at fault here, where there is a copse of many multiples of staked tree's then surely the whole area ought to be marked as GUR.

No fault - just something they haven't done.

Not so long ago I stuck myself in a small plantation of staked trees. If I'd stopped short of the plantation I'd have had no shot down the fairway and would have had to play out sideways back onto the fairway. It took me about four applications of taking relief from staked trees but I eventually 'found' my way out of the plantation and into the 1st cut rough (equivalent I guess to the scenario ColinL mentioned but didn't require of the player) where I took my final drop under relief and had a shot down the fairway - the process of taking relief four times had changed my line sufficiently. Result. And all valid. And I didn't think that the club should have declared the whole plantation for relief. It took a few minutes - but not that much of a delay.

My irritation is when I am in this plantation these days and not all of the trees are staked...

 

[Swango1980]

I'm with rulie and duncan on this one. If I read the situation correctly, the player realised his nearest point of relief, had he played his original ball forwards, would put him in an unfavourable position. Based on that unfavourable nearest point of relief, he then decided it was reasonable to play sideways. However, it may only have been reasonable to play sideways from the nearest point of relief position, but NOT necessarily the original position. So, he cannot then choose a different Nearest Point of Relief from the original position that is more favourable simply based on the fact that he found it reasonable to play sideways from the first nearest point of relief position that he is ultimately not taking.

Question is, and I'm sure this has been answered before. Let us say that, from the original position, there are 3 different right-handed players in the same position. There is a tree also in their line to the green:

Player A: He hits a high ball, so he knows he could fly it over the tree, so his reasonable shot is to play forwards;
Player B: He hits a low ball, no chance to clear the tree, so he can reasonable say he will play sideways
Player C (but could apply to B): Also cannot clear the tree. But, he finds it reasonable that he could still play forwards to a point short of the tree in his line, and then play from there. So, he cannot say it is reasonable for him to play sideways.

So, I guess it is down to the ability of the player whether they get a drop or not from the same position, and therefore benefit or not (and I guess the same is true depending on whether you are left or right handed). So, is it up to the player to convince his marker or referee that is is impossible to play forward based on his ability, or just that although it would be reasonable to play forward, it would also be reasonable to play sideways? I've seen these discussions between pros and referees before, so I guess this is just one that can be very subjective depending on the situation?

 

[Swango1980]

PS, just going back to the OP, as I went off on one there.

From the diagram, where the ball originally lies, there is no tree between the ball and the pin. So, how could it be considered reasonable to play sideways??? If the nearest point of relief happens to put him behind a tree in line to the pin, then that is just too bad, surely???

 

[rulefan]

I think I was reading something in to the situation that isn't so.

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.
So far so good

NPR would normally be on the close left side of the tree,
No. Wherever it is it is always there.

but then line of play to the hole would be impeded by another tree.
OK

He opts for playing back to the fairway
He may do that. It is his choice

which means that he can take the free drop on or near the fairway (not closer to the hole).
This has me confused.
Is he taking relief using some other 'illegal npr' or the true npcr?
Or has he played to the side and is now proposing to take relief from something?
I now assume the former

After the drop he has no interference from neither of the trees and has a clean shot to the green.

Having tried to make sense of what he is doing, my conclusion it that it all boils down to there only being one npcr.

Is this acceptable according to the rules?
No

 

[rulefan]

From the diagram, where the ball originally lies, there is no tree between the ball and the pin. So, how could it be considered reasonable to play sideways???

As we are only concerned with playing the ball as it lies and relief is not being considered, reasonable is not an issue. A player is entitled to aim wherever he wants.

 

[rulefan]

I am assuming the player has interference from the staked tree and that the (only) npcr takes him to the left.
That relief area is behind another tree but there is no interference from that tree. Whether it is staked or not is irrelevant. Although it is on his line of play, that does not afford relief.
The LR does not say that he must take relief from the staked tree. So he decides to play it as it lies. Any attempt to play towards the hole is at worst impossible and at best inconvenient.
He chooses to punch it towards the fairway where there is absolutely no trouble.
Can anyone point me to a rule that says he cannot do that because it is unreasonable?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I am assuming the player has interference from the staked tree and that the (only) npcr takes him to the left.
That relief area is behind another tree but there is no interference from that tree. Whether it is staked or not is irrelevant. Although it is on his line of play, that does not afford relief.
The LR does not say that he must take relief from the staked tree. So he decides to play it as it lies. Any attempt to play towards the hole is at worst impossible and at best inconvenient.
He chooses to punch it towards the fairway where there is absolutely no trouble.
Can anyone point me to a rule that says he cannot do that because it is unreasonable?

Though a local rule could state that relief must be taken from a staked tree?

 

[backwoodsman]

Have followed the thread with interest- and was generally inclined to agreed with Rulefan's view of things because of a players ability to choose his direction of play. But I have finally settled on my opinion that playing sideways would be "an unreasonable stance or direction of play". My thinking as follows ...

The ball lies such that the staked tree impedes a normal righted handed stroke towards the hole. The staked tree is the only impediment to making the stroke towards the hole. So relief is allowable - but seems that NPoR is in an unfortunate position. The player can of course choose to play in any direction.

He could choose to play sideways towards the fairway - and also still be impeded by the staked tree, and therefore get a different NPoR to that arising from the "normal" shot. But equally, he could choose to play slightly backwards (or nearly so) also to reach the fairway. This latter would not even be impeded by the staked tree (and ergo, no relief allowable).

By my reckoning, this means that the only reason the player is choosing to play sideways is to facilitate a more favourable NPoR than would arise from playing the "normal" shot towards the hole. To my mind, this equates to "unreasonable" in the way I believe that 16.1a(3) is intended. Therefore I don't think relief is allowable for a shot deliberately chosen for this only reason.

 

[Swango1980]

I am assuming the player has interference from the staked tree and that the (only) npcr takes him to the left.
That relief area is behind another tree but there is no interference from that tree. Whether it is staked or not is irrelevant. Although it is on his line of play, that does not afford relief.
The LR does not say that he must take relief from the staked tree. So he decides to play it as it lies. Any attempt to play towards the hole is at worst impossible and at best inconvenient.
He chooses to punch it towards the fairway where there is absolutely no trouble.
Can anyone point me to a rule that says he cannot do that because it is unreasonable?

I agree with backwoodsman analysis here.

Rule 16.1a (3) says No Relief When Clearly Unreasonable to Play Ball... When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

I do agree with the difficulty, who is to say what is unreasonable? For example, if I was sat in the middle of the fairway, who is to say I cannot hit it back towards the tee box. I mean, that would be unreasonable, but I could still do it if I wanted to (and was crazy).

In the OP situation, I'm assuming that even if the tree was not staked, the player could play it forwards as well rather than sideways (obviously assuming this, but seems a decent assumption. I doubt it would be impossible to play forwards, maybe the OP could clarify). They've simply elected to play sideways because they get a better relief option. Is that reasonable, even if it came to light that they could have knocked it forwards as well as sideways?

 

[rulefan]

He could choose to play sideways towards the fairway - and also still be impeded by the staked tree, and therefore get a different NPoR to that arising from the "normal" shot.
By my reckoning, this means that the only reason the player is choosing to play sideways is to facilitate a more favourable NPoR than would arise from playing the "normal" shot towards the hole. To my mind, this equates to "unreasonable" in the way I believe that 16.1a(3) is intended. Therefore I don't think relief is allowable for a shot deliberately chosen for this only reason.

I was not saying he could take relief for a sideways line of play but that he could actually play it as it lies towards the fairway.
You will see that my post #29 finishes with the word No in answer to the OP question.

 

[Jacko_G]

Just carry a chainsaw. End of problem and discussion!

 

[backwoodsman]

I was not saying he could take relief for a sideways line of play but that he could actually play it as it lies towards the fairway.
You will see that my post #29 finishes with the word No in answer to the OP question.

Ah... point taken. For some reason, your post #29 was not visible to me at the time - even though I did my response the best part of an hour after yours was posted.

 

[Swango1980]

I too didn't get the full picture from Post #29. Apart from Post #29 rulefan, I was assuming from your other posts that you were indicating that the player COULD take the drop to the right as is was reasonable for them to play sideways. But, from post #29 it appears that you conclude that the CANNOT take relief to the right, and there was only one NPR which was to the left and with a tree in their line. The confusion probably is related the amount of detail that is being discussed, and possibly the full scenario of the OP being clear at the beginning.

Anyway, is the conclusion (by I think all posters now) that the answer was (or most likely based on the OP description) No, the player could not do this according to the rules? Cheers

 

[rulefan]

I too didn't get the full picture from Post #29. Apart from Post #29 rulefan, I was assuming from your other posts that you were indicating that the player COULD take the drop to the right as is was reasonable for them to play sideways. But, from post #29 it appears that you conclude that the CANNOT take relief to the right, and there was only one NPR which was to the left and with a tree in their line. The confusion probably is related the amount of detail that is being discussed, and possibly the full scenario of the OP being clear at the beginning.

Anyway, is the conclusion (by I think all posters now) that the answer was (or most likely based on the OP description) No, the player could not do this according to the rules? Cheers

 

[mikejohnchapman]

It seems to me that the club is at fault here, where there is a copse of many multiples of staked tree's then surely the whole area ought to be marked as GUR.

I think you are right in as much as it should be designated as a plantation with relief being taken from the point of entry.