Valimaki

Mervyn G

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2024
Messages
7
Visit site
Mexico, if Valimaki's ball had been playable, he would have got relief from the sand/path... if he hadn't called it unplayable (his choice), could he have asked for relief with no penalty..
 

Mervyn G

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2024
Messages
7
Visit site
Boundary fence, but not OOB, or he would had to play provisional.. he could have hit the ball from other side of fence legally, but he would be standing on path, so I believe he could claim relief..
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,687
Visit site
Boundary fence, but not OOB, or he would had to play provisional.. he could have hit the ball from other side of fence legally, but he would be standing on path, so I believe he could claim relief..
Having difficulty in picturing it.

You say the ball was not OOB but was the path on the OOB side of the fence?
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,687
Visit site
Still puzzled by this picture. The article said
A two club-length drop got him close enough to a cart path that he’d be standing on it. This meant his nearest point of relief — because the sandy area was part of the cart path obstruction, as the official explained — was on the other side of the path in the grass. Is the area in the picture the 'sandy area'?
1708956568805.png
 

Mervyn G

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2024
Messages
7
Visit site
Yes, which is where my confusion statrted, he marked the ball, took 1 club relief but was still standing in the sand (path), so took futher relief the other side of the path onto the grass. I believe, if he had said it was playable, he would have still got relief because his stance would still have been on the sand/path.... think he missed a trick there, dont think it would have changed the result, but who knows..
 

IanM

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
12,488
Location
Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
www.newportgolfclub.org.uk
As I heard it on the commentary...

He took 2 club lengths for an unplayable. (Left of the photo) This put him on the sandy path from which he was entitled to a free drop (apparently) which got him back on something playable.

The second shot he played was "number 3."

I've no idea what that fence was. I didn't see any posts etc.

I'm sure there were specific regs, but to me watching, it seemed odd.
 

Mervyn G

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2024
Messages
7
Visit site
As I heard it on the commentary...

He took 2 club lengths for an unplayable. (Left of the photo) This put him on the sandy path from which he was entitled to a free drop (apparently) which got him back on something playable.

The second shot he played was "number 3."

I've no idea what that fence was. I didn't see any posts etc.

I'm sure there were specific regs, but to me watching, it seemed odd.
The fence was OOB, but he was still in, the sand in the picture was part of the path.. plus he only got 1 club first time so still standing on the sand which the ref said was part of the path.. Still think it was because he declared it unplayable which he didn't need to do, but once declared, he couldn't retract.. so his fault I guess, not the ref's.. a bit too quick.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,687
Visit site
As I heard it on the commentary...

He took 2 club lengths for an unplayable. (Left of the photo) This put him on the sandy path from which he was entitled to a free drop (apparently) which got him back on something playable.

The second shot he played was "number 3."

I've no idea what that fence was. I didn't see any posts etc.

I'm sure there were specific regs, but to me watching, it seemed odd.
That's the way I read the report.
Wayward drive (1)
Unplayable relief (2)
Path relief (free)
Stroke (3)
Par put.

What puzzled me was the reference to the sandy area/path. If the ball was lying on the sandy area/path (which it seemed to be), why didn't the referee advise him that free relief was available before he took unplayable relief.
 

Mervyn G

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2024
Messages
7
Visit site
Think he must have declared it 'unplayable' before the ref intervened, probably because he didnt realise the sand was part if the path... only explanation I can cone up with.
 

chico

Club Champion
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
670
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
Think he realised winning was a long shot and wanted to guarantee second place. He asked the referee the what third place was on. I'm not 100% sure that was before he made his decision but I think it was.
The commentators where saying what he got for second place, not just the money he would get automatic entry into other upcoming events.
 

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,912
Visit site
The fence was a boundary object; there is no free relief from a boundary object. He was not entitled to free relief from the sandy area (which the Committee had designated as part of the cart path) because the fence made his intended stroke clearly unreasonable. The Rules say that there is no free relief from an immovable obstruction (or abnormal course condition) if something from which the player would not get free relief makes the stroke clearly unreasonable. In this case, the fence made the stroke clearly unreasonable. The same might occur if the ball was in a bush and the stance was on a cart path - each situation is evaluated wrt the "clearly unreasonable" part of the Rule.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,687
Visit site
The fence was a boundary object; there is no free relief from a boundary object. He was not entitled to free relief from the sandy area (which the Committee had designated as part of the cart path) because the fence made his intended stroke clearly unreasonable. The Rules say that there is no free relief from an immovable obstruction (or abnormal course condition) if something from which the player would not get free relief makes the stroke clearly unreasonable. In this case, the fence made the stroke clearly unreasonable. The same might occur if the ball was in a bush and the stance was on a cart path - each situation is evaluated wrt the "clearly unreasonable" part of the Rule.
Thanks, you've put me out of my misery.
Yes. I thought I knew that but I simply couldn't find the statement in 16.1a. I have of course found it now (16.1a(3).
The annoying thing is, I was involved in a debate a few days ago about MOs when that clause does not appear but I knew it applies to IOs. :mad::mad::mad::mad:
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
14,957
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
He had a full discussion with the referee and the ref used his radio to consult (presumably with another higher rated ref) before taking any action.
 
Top