There’s a very good diagram in Rule 16.1 that shows this pretty clearly.
Interpretation 16.1/1 makes this very clear. Sometimes you may get to drop in the fairway when your original was in the rough. Other times, the nearest relief will put you in the middle of a hedge. ALWAYS know where your relief will be before you pick up the ball!
Interesting. A sign qualifies as an Obstruction, and it certainly appears to be Immovable. So the next question becomes, does the following apply from 16.1, last bullet point:
“There is no relief when…When interference exists only because you choose a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.”
I think that would probably deny relief in this situation.
I don’t disagree. That phrasing is interesting, though, because that leaves a lot up to interpretation - which the rules like to avoid in most cases. That’s the biggest argument against fairway divots being ground under repair and a free drop. Too many, “Well what is considered a divot” questions.
In this case, who determines what is unreasonable? A desperate golfer could make a case for just about any shot from anywhere.
Also this seems to come into play: “When playing your ball as it lies is clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as, when you are standing on an immovable obstruction but you are unable to make a stroke because of where your ball lies in a bush)”.
Is part of the call on this that he would get relief if and only if the sign would come into play when at the same time the tree wouldn’t?
It certainly does call for judgement and interpretation, what IS a reasonable shot to attempt. There are times when a left-handed shot by a right-handed golfer might seem reasonable, but not in every case. This is a spot where, in a significant competition, a Rules Official would probably become involved. Specific factors, beyond what we can see from a single photo, might change the judgement.
That factored into my reasoning. I simply don’t see enough room for a player to take a stance between the ball and the tree, so any shot attempted from that side looks to be unreasonable. Add to that, there appear to be a significant number of other options to play the shot. Again, being on site and talking to the player could result in a different conclusion.
“If the clubhead falls off during the backswing, and you complete the swing but miss the ball it does not count as a stroke. If the clubhead falls off during the downswing and you complete the swing but miss the ball, it counts as a stroke.” – USGA decisions 14/2 and 14/3.
This hasn’t changed, but you’re quoting an old Rule. This is now covered in Interpretation 1 for the definition of Stroke.
Lmao
lefty would be begging for relief…
To me, the tree is the obstruction, not the sign so as @davep043 the “reasonable swing” standard applies
If the sign extended beyond the tree and it was in the swing path i would give relief
Wow! So you can’t go through the tree…you have to go out sideways, I would take a club and make sure my follow through could and would clip that sign going laterally at full speed. If that happens, I do believe I would be granted relief under an immovable obstruction since the sign is not natural to the tree. Take the club length and drop and then my shot & club selection could and would change.
I have no idea whether you could demonstrate that to the satisfaction of an experienced rules official. If the stroke is clearly unreasonable, you don’t get relief. From the looks of it, you’d have to attempt an unreasonable shot to hit the sign, but its impossible to tell without being there.
Here’s what I’ll tell you, I was in a tournament earlier in the year. I called the ball on a competitor. His ball was about 8 inches clear of a cart path. He said he was obstructed from the shot he wanted to play. We made the guy play 2 balls. The cart path imo was mental. As it lies he took a 7, with the drop he made 5. Our pro who is a PGA rules official came out and said all u have to show is that I’m gonna try and hook the ball and I will hit the cart path with my follow through I’m like yea with a 4iron…he’s only 60yds out. He says it’s his choice how to play the shot. As it lies. All he has to show is the club will hit the path…ruling was he got the drop and the 5 counted. This is an actual rules official. BTW the guy scored the 5 and won his division by 2 strokes. All a player has to show is the proposed shot he is to play a follow thru will clip the sign and I will make sure to choose a club and a stance and a clear line to show that. I don’t agree, but that would be the ruling. The sign is not natural and would be considered an obstruction. I learned something that day. AND we were given kudos cuz we made him play 2 scenarios
I’ll repeat this, I don’t know, and its impossible to know, without being there. Remember, your proposed shot must be reasonable under the circumstances. Without knowing the terrain, the direction to the hole, any problem areas along the way, we have no idea what shots might reasonably be played. We also have no idea if if there’s a reasonable shot that might be impacted by the sign, and not by the tree.
I’m not being argumentative. What part of I’m going to try and hit a fairly full and hooked 4iron from 60 yards out is sounding reasonable. He said to the pro I’m going to try and hit 50 yards over the green an pitch back. I don’t think that sounds reasonable. The rules official said “to you”. If that’s the play u are trying to do and the path is going to be hit…with the 4 iron from 60 yds. Then the obstruction is in your way. I still don’t think it’s reasonable…but I can play any shot, any way at anytime and if I say I want to blow a ball 100 yards over a green and play it back because I think that’s my best way to make a score, it’s not up to the rules official to tell you that’s unreasonable. Golf is unreasonable…lol
Actually, it IS up to the official to define what is an unreasonable stroke, that’s one of his jobs. If an official can’t deny Rory relief, he can certainly deny relief for any of us mortals.
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
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!
