What do you think?

[HawkeyeMS]

I have asked the club for official comment on this so will update in due course but in the meantime I wondered what the general view on this would be...

On our 2nd hole, a dogleg right par 5, there used to be a tree on the inside of the dogleg at around 230yds form the tee. This tree fell down and was replaced by a smaller tree that has now been joined by 2 others which is all good, no issues so far.

However, the two new trees have had built in front of them what I can only describe as a fence. Two posts about 2 feet apart and maybe 12 to 15 feet high with a wire mesh between them which a golf ball wouldn't fit through. Clearly these are there to protect the trees as they are facing the area of the fairway from which many players would be playing their second shots. As far as I could see, the trees weren't attached to the fence in anyway so the couldn't be considered a stake so what are they? My best guess would be immovable obstuctions but some people have claimed that it is possible that you could hit one of these fences and rebound OOB to the right, which I guess you could. My own view on that is that you could do that off of the tree so there is no difference apart from the fact that these are not trees and are man made. My main concern is not hitting them with my second shot but finding myself stuck behind one after my drive (that is an area I quite often find myself near) and having no option but to play sideways.

So my questions are, while I wait for the response from the club...

1) Am I right in thinking that these would be immovable obstructions and that you could take relief accordingly or does the club have to state this for that to be the case?
2) Would it be permissible for the club to have a local rule stating that a shot must be replayed if the fence is hit?

Just so I'm clear, I have no qulams with whatever the ruling is, I just wondered what it could be.

 

[fundy]

Personally think they should be integral parts of the course and its just tough if behind them or hit them, but I guess if Id played the hole and suffered from one or the other I may think differently

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Personally think they should be integral parts of the course and its just tough if behind them or hit them, but I guess if Id played the hole and suffered from one or the other I may think differently

That's also another option.

I wonder, if the club don't comment prior to Saturdays comp, do they default to integral parts of the course of immovable obstructions?

 

[fundy]

That's also another option.

I wonder, if the club don't comment prior to Saturdays comp, do they default to integral parts of the course of immovable obstructions?

I shall leave that to the rules experts, you would hope that it is clarified before the comp for everyones sake and to save the potential argument later on

 

[Old Skier]

Needs clearing up before any comp and you should keep pressing committee for a decision.

 

[Spuddy]

Sounds to me that unless the committee say otherwise it's an immovable obstruction. You can take relief from your stance or swing but not the line of play.

 

[atticusfinch]

1. There does not have to be a declaration that something is an IO. Its nature is evident. To convert it to an integral part of the course requires a local rule so declaring. There is no default to this position.
2. No. That is a garden variety rub of the green. the ball must be played as it lies. the only permissible local rule requiring replay is overhead power lines.

 

[chrisd]

Personally I would say it's an immovable obstruction and should be treated as such.

 

[pbrown7582]

sound like immoveable objects to me, if you one and go OOB unfortunate but you all know its there so play with that in mind.

 

[rulefan]

The construction is, by Definition, an Immovable Obstruction.

As no relief is available for line of play, if the committee think such relief is necessary, they should contact the R&A and seek their advice on using Decision 33-8/18 as a basis for providing a dropping zone.

Alternatively, ask about declaring it a Temporary Immovable Obstruction (assuming it is temporary). But that is a complicated rule to apply.

 

[Fyldewhite]

It IS an immovable obstruction unless it is specifically declared integral part of course. The OOB issue is irrelevant as you say. You could theoretically bounce off any other obstruction, or anything natural OOB so just rub of the green. So, in absence of anything else you take relief if it impedes stance or swing but NOT line of sight......which is clearly going to be the issue. It's hard to visualise the exact situation but a drop zone may be appropriate if the ball comes to rest in a defined area but if the fence is only stopping you hitting the tree then wouldn't you have to play sideways anyway? Could be a case for doing nothing.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Sounds to me that unless the committee say otherwise it's an immovable obstruction. You can take relief from your stance or swing but not the line of play.

Seems that way to me also :thup:

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Thanks for all the replies, it sounds like it is an immovable obstruction unless otherwise stated by the club. I'm sure i will get a response before the weekend (not that it looks like the comp will be on anyway )

 

[rulefan]

it sounds like it is an immovable obstruction unless otherwise stated by the club. )

It doesn't just sound like. It is.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

It doesn't just sound like. It is.

Picky