What I said was an official cannot tell you how to play a hole. In the instance above, Rory was trying to unfairly (or fairly) take a particular stance. If you tell an official Im going to try and hit a ball over the green with a 4 iron and then, pitch it back on, they cannot dictate your play as you are trying to take advantage of a rule. As the play will obviously change after a drop. This is what I was told by a USGA rules official. I am 100% certain of that…check that out. Again if you want to hit a driver on a 100yd hole, that’s your choice…stupid, but your choice…as long as u arent in a penalty area…u take the swing and the club will actually hit an obstruction you get a drop. The official cannot dictate stupidity… The official cannot tell you you gotta hit a wedge here sorry…if that’s what you are telling me…you are dead wrong.
I suggest you read the actual Rule, its 16.1, and the first two Interpretations to that Rule. You might also want to read Rule 20.2a, concerning Rulings made by a Referee.
You’re right, an official (referee) may not tell you how to play a specific shot. You can do anything you choose to, no matter how smart or how foolish. However, an official MAY determine that you are attempting to use a “clearly unreasonable” stance or swing or club or direction of play in order to try to justify relief from an Abnormal Course Condition, and to deny you that relief. And if an official is on hand and makes that decision, you must abide by that decision, and you have no right to appeal that decision.
Dave, again I’m not telling you what I’m saying. I’m telling you what a USGA rule official said when I said the player and shot in question was being unreasonable. We were/are not talking about an ABNORMAL course condition. We are talking about what a man made obstruction is…cart path, fence post not deemed an OB marker or in this picture a sign nailed to a tree. You can walk under that tree in the picture, just as it is, align yourself (not going through that tree) and take your driver, fairly take a stance, and tell the rules official, I want to do whatever and if your clubhead, shaft, or whatever brushes that sign, whether you are playing that ball backwards, sideways, laterally because you say my idea is to try and hit the ball 200 yards over the green and play it back from there, the rules official cannot and must not tell you that’s unreasonable and tell you can’t do or attempt that! Obviously, a drop will then change your thought process from the original play. Look, I was pissed, I’m like who is going to do that??? I’m trying to protect the field and the rules official said look he’s taking a stance, he doesn’t want to use a wedge, which would not hit the obstruction, but he wants to play the shot with a 4 iron and that does hit the obstruction…the player is granted relief.
Please now read the Definition of Abnormal Course Condition, it includes GUR, Temporary Water, and Immovable Obstructions. Your cart path is an Immovable Obstruction, which is classified as an Abnormal Course Condition, subject to Rule 16.1. You may NOT get relief from an Abnormal Course Condition
- When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.
That’s a direct quote from the Rules of Golf. If you can find me a quote from the Rules that says you can get relief because the ACC interferes with any cockamamie shot you can imagine, please quote it for me. I’d suggest that the words in the Rules of Golf take precedence over your memory of a single incident.
OK is hitting a ball 200 yds over a green and wanting to play it back from there unreasonable…please tell me where it says that’s unreasonable. It’s NOT! This is directly from a USGA rules official…that’s why players get some really strange relief. I don’t agree, I’m more of a play it as it lies guy in a tournament, but my way of wanting to play a hole or shot is very, very broad. No they may not grant you relief because you want to take a stance that is 5ft wide, but to say this is what I want to do because this is what this lie and condition is dictating in my mind…Believe me, I truly investigated it and I lost…the player was granted relief!
That might be perfectly reasonable in one circumstance, and totally unreasonable in another. Each situation has to be evaluated individually. But again, if a Rules Official is involved, he has the authority to determine that a specific course of action is unreasonable given the circumstances, and to deny relief, and his determination stands. If I’m the official, I’m going to give the player a certain amount of leeway, but the player doesn’t have infinite latitude to get relief whenever he wants it.
OK, so answer that question…player says…I’m looking at this and I want to get a drop, I’m like no way. Well I want to hit a 4iron 150 yds over the green and play it back from there and the 4 iron will hit the obstruction but I’m saying a PW won’t. The player in question says I don’t want to play that club…I want to use the 4 iron in this circumstance and my 4iron is hitting the obstruction… What do you say…you can’t do that? BTW it was not an optimal lie, the drop was a clear advantage to improve that lie. This is in the normal course of play. You cannot dictate to the player he must play the PW. The player has the right to play the shot he wants fairly taking a stance and swing, I may not agree with the thought process, but they can do so to take advantage of a rule whether I like it or not.
There is no way for even Slugger White to make an evaluation of this kind of hypothetical. On the face of it, this seems to be a clearly unreasonable shot to attempt, but without being there nobody knows for certain. If you’re playing with the kind of jerk that wants to cheat that way, the Rules of Golf won’t help you. If this is a serious competition, with actual enforcement of the Rules, you require him to play two balls, or you get an official on the spot to decide before he hits the shot, or you contest his score and have an official determine if he played in accordance with the Rules. As a player in a stroke play event, its up to you to protect the field. It is quite possible that a Rules Official would deny that player relief, and the player would be forced to play the ball as it lies. If he took relief when it wasn’t warranted, he’d have played from a Wrong Place (General Penalty), and could be subject to DQ if it was deemed to be a Serious Breach.
I’ll say it again, you should really read the Rules of Golf for yourself. There’s are tons of completely wrong opinions offered by self-described experts based on misunderstandings of single incidents and locker-room chit-chat. Read it for yourself, learn the actual rules, ignore opinions (including mine) if they aren’t consistent with the actual rules.
That’s what we did. We made the player hit 2 balls. With relief he made 5, without relief he made 7. With relief he won his division, without it he would have been in a playoff. We marked the ball position. The Rules official came out and said count the 5. Rules official, It was NOT UNREASONABLE for the player to envision his shot using the 4 iron. Because he was using the longer club and that club was hitting the obstruction he was entitled to relief. Look, I kinda disagreed, but the ruling was final. There were 2 other witnesses besides me. I mean I got into it with a “so called rules guru” about playing a ricochet off a tree like above but in that case a stance was interfered with by a cart path. I say the player can get free relief, he said the player was not entitled to it because he was only playing the ricochet shot to gain relief at which time I pointed out that Jimenez played a ricochet of the Road Hole from 4 inches away from the wall in the 2010 OPEN. The player is allowed relief period if there is interference with his swing or stance by an immovable obstruction like a sign or cart path. The player has to take proper relief and make the decision is the relief a real option to better my chance at making a stroke or, is it better to use the unplayable lie options. It does depend. But what is a reasonable play is very subjective. I’ve never hit a ricochet, but I have played out of a water hazard with some of my ball showing and put it on a green several times. It’s not that hard of a shot, just really messy. The rule about what is a reasonable stance and stroke can and should be loosely interpreted. Players, especially creative ones, that hit into alot of trouble can see things that others can’t. I can do things with a 60 that my partners only see on TV. I’m being serious there. End of the day…if I have a shot, any shot, and I want to play it I should not be denied, If it so happens the shot I want to play is interfered with legititmately by an obstruction or gopher hole or alligator, if that relief is to my advantage, I get to take it.
This is an interesting example, since neither the road nor the wall at that hole is an Obstruction under the Rules. The Wall is a Boundary Object, the road is defined as an Integral Object. There is not relief available from either one.
Once again, please read the Rules and tell me where it says this? I’ve quoted them earlier, they contradict you, so if you can find anything IN THE RULES to support your position, please let us know. Until you quote something from the Rules of Golf, we’ll just be talking in circles.
Dave,
You’re missing the point. We are talking what is considered a reasonable stroke. To me, our sport is pure imagination. I just showed an an example of a shot that could be considered unreasonable…so is it really? I never said the wall was an obstruction. I said he played a ricochet shot off a wall. Is a ricochet shot off a tree an unreasonable stroke? If your club hit’s that sign on a follow thru is it relief? I say, the way I see it, the ricochet is a reasonable stroke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q2T2XhuUCU
Let’s look at the Rule, and at least one possible circumstance involving a ricochet. Say you have a relatively straight shot towards the green, but you have to bend over a bit because of overhanging limbs. You could also try the ricochet shot, which would put your feet on a cart path, but would give you extremely random results. Here’s the rule (again), you do not get relief:
- There is no relief under Rule 16.1…
When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.
Based on that wording, the choice of the ricochet is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, and is designed only to get interference from the path. I would deny relief. Perhaps a different official might grant relief.
Dave…
Again…what is unreasonable…I have hit middle of the FW shots that have extremely random results. BTW, are you a rules official or just interpreting things as you see them? I say golf is a game of extreme imagination anymore…I gave up on what I thought was interference after seeing what the rules official said wasn’t interference. I no longer argue with a player who says this is what I’m thinking, this is what I want to do and if an obstruction is in their way of executing what they want to do I grant relief…I mean if they have a lie and want to try to hit it backwards, I gotta give them leeway and if an obstruction is stopping them that’s why the relief rule is there…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PslA4WcSos
I am new to officiating, took the USGA/PGA top-level Rules Workshop this spring, scored 92 on the 100-question exam, which according to the USGA gives me “Expert” status. I’d say my knowledge if the Rules is superior to most, while at the same time there’s a whole lot to continue to learn.
To your question, “unreasonable” depends on the individual circumstances. A left-hand shot may be reasonable for a right-handed golfer when there’s no room for a right-handed stroke, its unreasonable when the player assumes that stance only to get his feet onto the cart path. Its like defining “smut”, I know it when I see it.
So maybe you should have been the USGA official to protect the field when I’m telling you using a 4 iron from 60 yds away to me was unreasonable and the player could have used a shorter shafted club. That was the longest iron in this players bag and swinging it hit the path, any other club missed it. I know I can execute some pretty fancy trick shots…I have some pretty good imagination, I know I could play several different shots looking at that tree pic above and make sure my club hit that sign, if relief the relief was going to give me an advantage. Sometimes the rules work for you, sometimes against you. If you know them, and you know your game the definition of UNREASONABLE Stroke is very much up to interpretation.
Seeing this kerfuffle brought this thread to mind. Officials can and do deny relief to players when warranted.:
the back and forth during that was hilarious. brooks tells the official to “call one of his buddies” and then something brooks says makes sergio do a spit-take
The drainage cover was a full 6-8 inches from his intended swing path that they were showing the official. So relief denied. I’m certain they didn’t want to hit out of the weeds there. When you are reviewing options, as a player, it didn’t seem to me he was intending to go anywhere except for the green because it was match play. In stroke play, I would bet he could have opted for a couple of differing scenarios that may have put that drainage cover in his path. Look I get it, it’s course of fairly taking a stance, It’s course of normal swing path, Look these guys get line of sight relief all the time, us mortals usually dont. A referee cannot dictate to you how and where you are playing a shot. In this case a full 6-8 inches from my swing path, to the right of the ball…I would tend to agree with the refs. BUT, if he was left handed that drain could, COULD, have impeded a fair stance and relief may have been granted, BUT the had to get onto the green or risk loss of hole, not loss of stroke.
Have you ever seen me swing a club, bro?
Was the line…
Line of sight relief is only ever available for Temporary Immovable Obstructions under a Local Rule, of course we don’t see those, we don’t play around grandstands. That’s a totally different Rule, and a totally different circumstance, and is completely immaterial to discussing relief from Abnormal Course Conditions.