What would you have done/what should I have done?

[chrisd]

No one answered my earlier question

Is it a fact that that an object is moveable or immovable?

The OP said that the player thought the sign fixed and therefore immovable - is she obliged to try an move it to determine it's status?

I referred back to the Tiger Woods incident where he got several people to move a large rock which therefore made it moveable where a golfer out with a mate couldn't have moved it, thus rendering it immovable.

So, the point - she called it immovable and proceeded to act under that rule, so was she wrong at that point - I know that she didn't act correctly with the dropping etc but that isn't my question.

 

[bobmac]

No one answered my earlier question

Is it a fact that that an object is moveable or immovable?

The good book says

"An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without
unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage."

 

[louise_a]

Wow, this thread crtainly as some legs.

The sign was a small "trolleys this way" sign I lifted it with one hand wit hno effort, she didnt even try.

On the card its says "Immovable obstructions include the workshop buildings, shelters, bridges and stalked trees. Relief may be gained under rule 24-2.

So no specific reference to signs but the word "include" makes it ambiguous.

 

[bobmac]

I lifted it with one hand with no effort

In which case it's moveable.
Clear cut to me, you
move the sign, not the ball so no relief.
Next question please.

 

[chrisd]

The good book says

"An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without
unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage."

So there is a certain amount of discretion. One persons " I can move that" could be another persons " I could do my back in lifting that"

In which case it's moveable.
Clear cut to me, you
move the sign, not the ball so no relief.
Next question please.

In this particular case it was clearly a penalty but I was asking on the wider issue of "when does an object become immovable rather than moveable" and your quote clarifies the rule whilst still leaving a personal decision about "unreasonableness" so a certain amount of room for doubt!

 

[duncan mackie]

So there is a certain amount of discretion. One persons " I can move that" could be another persons " I could do my back in lifting that.
In this particular case it was clearly a penalty but I was asking on the wider issue of "when does an object become immovable rather than moveable" and your quote clarifies the rule whilst still leaving a personal decision about "unreasonableness" so a certain amount of room for doubt!

Yes is the answer to your earlier question - it's a question of fact from a rules perspective. However, it would be for the committee to decide in such cases, with any doubt being settled in the favour of the player ie if she said she couldn't easily move it then the committee would only rule against that view if there was good reason to support the premise that she could...

 

[North Mimms]

Wow, this thread crtainly as some legs.

The sign was a small "trolleys this way" sign I lifted it with one hand wit hno effort, she didnt even try.

On the card its says "Immovable obstructions include the workshop buildings, shelters, bridges and stalked trees. Relief may be gained under rule 24-2.

So no specific reference to signs but the word "include" makes it ambiguous.

She's having you on!

Those little signs are ALWAYS MOVEABLE, how else do they cut the grass?

Anone who is physically unable to pull those out of the ground is unlikely to be able to swing a golf club!!

 

[SocketRocket]

In which case it's moveable.
Clear cut to me, you
move the sign, not the ball so no relief.
Next question please.

EuroMillions winning numbers please.

 

[louise_a]

As I stated in my initial post, when I pulled it out, she said she thought it was classed as immovable she didnt try herself to move it before lifting and dropping.

 

[Heidi]

she must think ur zipped up the back Lou! at least you can watch out for her shenannigans now!

 

[North Mimms]

I'm rather disappointed that a more experienced golfer should be so cavalier about the rules.
Yes, she may have been allowed a drop from casual water, but there is a right and a wrong way to do it. And the first thing you do before taking any sort of relief or drop is to tell your marker what you intend to do.
Before you do it.

 

[duncan mackie]

One question Duncan. In the OP we were told that the player thought it was a fixed sign, so, is it a matter of fact whether it's moveable or not ?

I remember the Tiger Woods (?) incident where he got several people to help move a giant boulder where a lone golfer couldn't have. So, had the player not been able to pull it out would she have been ok to call it an immovable abstruction?

whilst I picked up the first part of this question later in the thread I suddenly remembered I'd forgotten the latter part!

the reason for following up was because the boulder in the TW incident is not a movable obstruction - which probably explains the confusion. The boulder was deemed a lose impediment, in the same way as, for example, the broken bough of a tree would be. As such the rules permit a player to have assistance to move it (if willing and available!).

 

[chrisd]

I'm rather disappointed that a more experienced golfer should be so cavalier about the rules.
Yes, she may have been allowed a drop from casual water, but there is a right and a wrong way to do it. And the first thing you do before taking any sort of relief or drop is to tell your marker what you intend to do.
Before you do it.

At the risk of being hung by forum members for my view, I would have pointed out the first time that I need consulting on a drop and be there to oversee it, and wouldn't be happy were she to not call me over first

whilst I picked up the first part of this question later in the thread I suddenly remembered I'd forgotten the latter part!

the reason for following up was because the boulder in the TW incident is not a movable obstruction - which probably explains the confusion. The boulder was deemed a lose impediment, in the same way as, for example, the broken bough of a tree would be. As such the rules permit a player to have assistance to move it (if willing and available!).

Point taken and thanks Duncan