Staked tree

[rulefan]

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.

Unless the ball is lost in the AGC the Reference Point must be the nearest point of complete relief in the general area. Only if the ball is lost in the area must it betaken by reference to the point of entry

 

[Colin L]

In

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.

In the particular situation I found there would have been no reason for making the area GUR as the trees were mature. The problem was that the netting put round them I expect when they were newly planted to protect from rabbits had been left in place. It would have been best if it had been removed and anyone hitting a ball into the trees would just have to get on with it - play his ball out or decide it was unplayable.

I'd agree that where you have a number of closely planted young trees you need to protect it could be much simpler to make the whole area GUR with mandatory relief.

 

[Colin L]

Unless the ball is lost in the AGC the Reference Point must be the nearest point of complete relief in the general area. Only if the ball is lost in the area must it betaken by reference to the point of entry

Unless you live in Malaysia.

[That's just an aside to Rulefan. It won't make sense to anyone else.]

 

[doublebogey7]

Club still st fa

In


In the particular situation I found there would have been no reason for making the area GUR as the trees were mature. The problem was that the netting put round them I expect when they were newly planted to protect from rabbits had been left in place. It would have been best if it had been removed and anyone hitting a ball into the trees would just have to get on with it - play his ball out or decide it was unplayable.

I'd agree that where you have a number of closely planted young trees you need to protect it could be much simpler to make the whole area GUR with mandatory relief.

Club stillat fault then.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

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.

I haven't read all the posts. I only needed to get as far as this one.
This one is 100% correct and says it all.
Although we are all allowed to give our points of view, the fact remains that this post says it all and no other comment is needed?

 

[berniethebolt]

Forgive me if I have missed something in this lengthy thread. The general opinion seems to be that the original player acted in breach of the rules. Given that the definition of nearest point of relief includes “Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke you would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.” (my underlining), the only breach I can see was that his choice of shot was not ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances i.e. if the tree was not there he would never have played as he said he intended to. I assume that if the shot had been ‘reasonable’ then the NPR he picked was correct.
He claimed he was going to play out sideways. Rule 16 only requires that the stroke you claim you intend to make shall not be ‘unreasonable’ – a very imprecise term subject to many variables including the ability of the player and the actual layout of the hole not to mention individual interpretation. Given the diagram in the original post it probably was unreasonable but, as someone said earlier, it would require much more information to make a definitive decision.
What I would like to know is if there is anything in the rules (other than rule 1.2 perhaps), saying that if you take relief in a particular way because you are intending to play a certain type of shot, then you must play it or can you smile quietly and claim good luck if a better shot becomes available!

 

[rulefan]

What I would like to know is if there is anything in the rules (other than rule 1.2 perhaps), saying that if you take relief in a particular way because you are intending to play a certain type of shot, then you must play it or can you smile quietly and claim good luck if a better shot becomes available!

If you have taken relief legitimately, then once the ball has been dropped correctly there is a new situation and the player may play any stroke, with any club in any direction

 

[RulesGuy]

So you pretend the tree isn't there. You decide what shot you would take in that situation. There may be 2 options depending on the physical layout, your ability, your score at the time, your confidence etc. You decide which shot you would have taken and this determines the NPR. Sometimes I will take on a one in 10 chance other times I won't take on a six in 10 chance preferring the safer option.

It is difficult to unless you are there. That's why I like to teach people the rules on the course.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

It is difficult to [explain] unless you are there. That's why I like to teach people the rules on the course.

I understand completely.
The Most Honorable Dukes of Decrepitude Weekday Morning Senior Golf League teach one another the rules on the course all the time.
A careful blend of the Royal & Ancient with the Marquess of Queensberry works out quite nicely.

 

[Colin L]

So you pretend the tree isn't there. You decide what shot you would take in that situation. There may be 2 options depending on the physical layout, your ability, your score at the time, your confidence etc. You decide which shot you would have taken and this determines the NPR. Sometimes I will take on a one in 10 chance other times I won't take on a six in 10 chance preferring the safer option.

It is difficult to unless you are there. That's why I like to teach people the rules on the course.

That's spot on. My concern above was that it sounded as if the player determined which shot he would have played on the basis of where each NPCR would be. But in practical terms who would know?

 

[louise_a]

The condition he is taking relief from is the staked tree so surely his shot would be dependant on what he would play if the tree wasn't staked, which could be sideways or backwards

 

[rulie]

Let's go back to the drawing in the original post (below). It certainly appears to me that, if the staked tree were not there, the player would be playing towards the hole. As I've said previously, in this particular situation, playing sideways would be unreasonable and I would deny relief for such a stroke. Most players I know will do their utmost to advance the ball towards the flagstick/hole.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Let's go back to the drawing in the original post (below). It certainly appears to me that, if the staked tree were not there, the player would be playing towards the hole. As I've said previously, in this particular situation, playing sideways would be unreasonable and I would deny relief for such a stroke. Most players I know will do their utmost to advance the ball towards the flagstick/hole.

I am struggling to see any confusion or debate here. We have a right-handed player whose only shot not taking relief is backwards - and our player would not do that if the tree were not there. He’d hit it forward towards the green or sideways towards the fairway. He cannot do either of these things due to the staked tree - but regardless of the shot he might have played there is the same NPR(at 1) for the right- handed player and that is it (The left handed player would not suffer the same interference by the staked tree). After taking relief at that NPR he will then be able to choose whatever shot he feels best for him - over the trees towards the flag or back towards the fairway.

I’m not seeing any point of debate unless missing something.

 

[Colin L]

I think you may be missing that the NPCR for a shot played towards the hole will not be the same as the one for a shot played out sideways considering that your stances could be about 90 degrees different. The relief areas will not be the same.

 

[rulefan]

Nearest Point of Complete Relief
It is the estimated point where the ball would lie that is:

• Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke the player would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.

Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

 

[Swango1980]

Nearest Point of Complete Relief
It is the estimated point where the ball would lie that is:

• Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke the player would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.

Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

Just to clarify "if the condition was not there"

Is the condition the tree, or the fact the tree is staked. In other words, if it was the tree itself, then if the tree was not there the player could have played towards green. It would be unreasonable to say they would play sideways.

If it was simply the fact the tree was staked, then if it wasn't staked the player might be able to say they would reasonably play sideways, if that tree interfered with their swing.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Just to clarify "if the condition was not there"

Is the condition the tree, or the fact the tree is staked. In other words, if it was the tree itself, then if the tree was not there the player could have played towards green. It would be unreasonable to say they would play sideways.

If it was simply the fact the tree was staked, then if it wasn't staked the player might be able to say they would reasonably play sideways, if that tree interfered with their swing.

Eh? I see what you are saying, however, the condition is the tree, not the stake?
If it was just a stake I doubt it would interfere with the stroke. And if there was such a stake out there on its own, could it not be moved for the purposes of the stroke? That is a genuine question, I am not au fait with the rules re other stakes, i.e. those which can be moved and those which cannot.

 

[Swango1980]

Eh? I see what you are saying, however, the condition is the tree, not the stake?
If it was just a stake I doubt it would interfere with the stroke. And if there was such a stake out there on its own, could it not be moved for the purposes of the stroke? That is a genuine question, I am not au fait with the rules re other stakes, i.e. those which can be moved and those which cannot.

The reason I asked was based on post 31 by rulefan.

It was raised MUST the player take a drop, or was it optional to take relief. If they MUST, the tree would be the interference. If it was optional, then they could play the shot, and it would be legitimate to play sideways. (ie I wasnt inferring that the stake was physically interfering with the swing, just the status of the tree itself and the how the various option of the player could be different)

 

[Foxholer]

Nearest Point of Complete Relief
It is the estimated point where the ball would lie that is:

• Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke the player would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.

Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

That's all well and good - though somewhat lacking according to this (perhaps out of date?) definition from https://www.randa.org/RulesEquipment/Rules/Rules-of-Golf-Definitions/
<Begin Def>
The "nearest point of relief" is the reference point for taking relief without penalty from interference by an immovable obstruction (Rule 24-2), an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a wrong putting green (Rule 25-3).

It is the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies:

1. that is not nearer the hole, and
2. where, if the ball were so positioned, no interference by the condition from which relief is sought would exist for the stroke the player would have made from the original position if the condition were not there.

Note: In order to determine the nearest point of relief accurately, the player should use the club with which he would have made his next stroke if the condition were not there to simulate the address position, direction of play and swing for such a stroke.

In this case, I'm almost certain He'd have opted back onto the fairway - though if that was somehow not allowed, He'd have hit a miraculous shot onto the green!

<End Def>

In the case of a STAKED tree (where relief is compulsory), I believe the it's the player's option to decide what their best option for relief - and consequent shot - will be. That definition simply provides the mechanism for MEASURING where the NPR is - not whether relief in the particularl direction is actually allowed! So I'd allow my oppo in a match to take whichever of the 2 options stated above. My 'metric' - at least for opponents - has always been 'What would Seve ask for/demand/get away with!

 

[Colin L]

Whether or not relief is compulsory, the staked tree is the condition, not the stake. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed stroke, it is the stroke which would have been played had the tree not been there. The OP does say, however, that he didn't choose the shot directly to the green because of another tree which intervened on his line of play.