Staked tree

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

Yup got it. If my reasonable shot impeded by staked tree was back to the fairway then my NPCR would not be at 1 as my club follow through would be striking the staked tree...I would head away from pt 1 and the fairway in a line not nearer the hole until my follow through was not impeded. If my reasonable shot was over the line of trees then my npcr would be at 1.

 

[rulefan]

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.

I read the OP as the second tree only caused interference if he took relief from the staked (ie first) tree. If the staked tree has not been there, there would have been no interference from the tree to the left.

 

[Colin L]

I read the OP as the second tree only caused interference if he took relief from the staked (ie first) tree. If the staked tree has not been there, there would have been no interference from the tree to the left.

Then that would be a very different matter as far as the legitimacy of his action is concerned.

 

[RulesGuy]

Relief from a staked tree is mandatory as it will be designated as a no play zone

 

[rulie]

Relief from a staked tree is mandatory as it will be designated as a no play zone

Not necessarily. A no play zone must be part of a penalty area or part of ground under repair, so the staked tree would have to be marked as ground under repair before it could become a no play zone.

 

[Colin L]

Mandatory relief is certainly the norm and since the purpose is to protect the young tree, it wouldn't make sense to leave relief as optional. It isn't necessary, however, to involve No Play Zones: it's enough just to state in the Local Rule that relief must be taken.

 

[rulefan]

Relief from a staked tree is mandatory as it will be designated as a no play zone

E-10 only says "To prevent damage to young trees when a player makes a stroke, a Committee can choose to designate them as a no play zone "

It is optional. If the committee want relief to be optional for some reason, they may simply deem the them to be GUR

 

[RulesGuy]

I was talking in practical terms. Obviously no one is seriously suggesting players should have the option of ripping a 5 iron through saplings. Players understand NPZ's. The words speak for themselves. Hence E10

 

[rulefan]

I was talking in practical terms. Obviously no one is seriously suggesting players should have the option of ripping a 5 iron through saplings. Players understand NPZ's. The words speak for themselves. Hence E10

Equally obviously the RBs seriously thought that there may be situations that there was no damage concern. Hence the reason for E10 being an optional local rule. eg a tree near a green where a chip below the lowest branch is the obvious and preferable shot and the npcr leaves a line of play issue

 

[Colin L]

I wouldn't consider a No Play Zone as that involves marking up GUR and additional marking/signage to define the NPZ. Using must in the Local Rule does the job.

 

[jim8flog]

Not necessarily. A no play zone must be part of a penalty area or part of ground under repair

Where do you get that from?

I understood that NPZ simply replaced " an area of the course from which play is prohibited"

eg we have loads of wild flower areas which we do not want players to play from so simply mark them as NPZ.

 

[rulefan]

Definition:
A part of the course where the Committee has prohibited play. A no play zone must be defined as part of either an abnormal course condition or a penalty area.

I suggest you post a Local Rule saying that all NPZs are GUR (unless marked as Penalty Areas - if you have such areas that need to be NPZs)

 

[Colin L]

Where do you get that from?

.......

The rule book.

 

[jim8flog]

The rule book.

What rule number etc please.

Does this mean we first have to declare our wild flower areas as GUR then NPZ if yes what a pallaver to get to the same outcome.

We have very much got in to the practice of just putting up NPZ notices for areas like newly seeded areas.

Can we just have a general notice on our course info board that says any area marked as NPZ is GUR.

 

[rulie]

What rule number etc please.

Does this mean we first have to declare our wild flower areas as GUR then NPZ if yes what a pallaver to get to the same outcome.

We have very much got in to the practice of just putting up NPZ notices for areas like newly seeded areas.

Can we just have a general notice on our course info board that says any area marked as NPZ is GUR.

It's in the definition of "No Play Zone" in the Rule book - see post #72.

 

[jim8flog]

It's in the definition of "No Play Zone" in the Rule book - see post #72.

The rule book.

Thanks.

I got the book out later and found it for myself.

As said its seems to be a bit of doubling up of purpose.

 

[Colin L]

What rule number etc please.

Does this mean we first have to declare our wild flower areas as GUR then NPZ if yes what a pallaver to get to the same outcome.

We have very much got in to the practice of just putting up NPZ notices for areas like newly seeded areas.

Can we just have a general notice on our course info board that says any area marked as NPZ is GUR.

Sorry, I was just being cheeky - Rulefan and already referenced the Definition of a No Play Zone.

On a closer look, I don't think the wording of E10 sits very comfortably with the Definition.

 

[rulefan]

Can we just have a general notice on our course info board that says any area marked as NPZ is GUR.

Yes. See my comment in post #72 with the caveat.

 

[jim8flog]

Yes. See my comment in post #72 with the caveat.

Thanks that had already been pointed out to me. It was a post that came after than my original post by which time I was out for a walk.

 

[jim8flog]

Yes. See my comment in post #72 with the caveat.

and also thanks to and others that pointed out what is in the rule book

We are just about to go to print with 2020 diaries which have the LRs in and it gave me the opportunity to get in the change.