Post-storm debris and relief

[ChipNRun]

Twice in recent years I was playing the morning after a wind storm. I encountered storm damage on course which interfered with play. What is the ruling in these cases?

 

1. A tree adjacent to the tee box had a large limb partially split off. It was hanging down into the middle of the tee box area. It was an informal round, so my partner and I just went back one tee box to tee blocks that were not obstructed. What would the ruling be in a tournament? (Long term remedy would for the greens crew to saw off the broken limb).

 

2. I hit a shot off an elevated tee that goes over the hill, trending toward the left rough. I cross the rise, and find that a major tree has been blown down in the rough. Of course, it is in line with where my tee shot was tracking. I look under the tree and see two golf balls, neither of which are reachable. And of course, the balls are too far away to tell their brand/identifier marks. What would be the remedy? 

[Halebopp]

1. In a big event the tree limb would be sawed off and in a smaller event with no resources to do so before the first player would tee off, the tees would be moved to an area not interfered by the limb.

 

2. Lost ball. The area should be marked as Ground Under Repair if there's no possibility to remove the tree in a timely manner. In that case if you had knowledge or virtual certainty your ball was under the tree, you'd get free relief from it but as it seems like you didn't have either, it wouldn't have helped you. Could your ball have been lost anywhere else?

[jimbo123]

1) 

Seems like 8.1b(8) would allow you to break off the branch:

 

b. Actions That Are Allowed

(8) In the teeing area:

Move, bend or break any growing or attached natural object (see Rule 6.2b(3)),

 

However I'm not sure, because 6.2b(3) is more restrictive:

Move, bend or break grass, weeds and other natural objects that are attached or growing in the ground in the teeing area,

 

On my reading, if you are in the tee box and break off a branch from an adjacent overhanging tree, you are taking an action explicitly allowed by 8.1 but explicitly not allowed by 6.2 (the tree is not attached or growing in the ground in the teeing area).  Curious how the experts reconcile these.  

[jimbo123]

Actually an interpretation answers it - breaking the branch is not allowed.  Seems this could be clearer if the wording of 8.1 matched the wording of 6.2?

 

8.1b/5 – Improving Conditions in Teeing Area Is Limited to Ground

Rule 8.1b(8) allows a player to take actions to improve conditions affecting the stroke in the teeing area. This limited exception to Rule 8.1a is intended to allow a player to only alter physical conditions on the surface of the ground inside the teeing area itself (including removing any natural objects that are growing from there) whether the ball is teed or played from the ground.

This exception does not allow a player to improve conditions affecting the stroke for his or her tee shot by taking actions outside the teeing area, such as breaking tree branches located either outside the teeing area or when they are rooted outside the teeing area but are hanging over the teeing area and may interfere with the area of intended swing.

[Sawgrass]

As to the tree in the fairway, it’s also possible (desirable IMO) for a committee to declare it a Temporary Immovable Obstruction, thereby providing line of play relief. 

[antip]

The answers so far talk about what should happen, rather than tell you how the rules treat the situation you faced.

1. If that branch is still attached to the tree, there is no relief from the branch, and the rules do not permit you to play from outside the designated area. You played from outside the Teeing Area, that gets you a 2 stroke penalty and if you don't correct before hitting off the next tee, you are DQ'd.

2. Again, if that tree is still attached to the ground, there is no relief, and if you can't find/identify your ball, the rules only allow for stroke and distance penalty.

Of course, such rules-based answers are ludicrously unfair/inappropriate in your situation and this highlights that players are dependent on the Committee doing their job - marking the course appropriately before players are let loose on the course.

The rules also allow you to play two balls and get guidance later from the Committee. Eg, in 2, you could play a ball assuming the tree down is GUR (free relief in relief area based on estimated point of entry if you have knowledge or virtual certainty ball is lost in the tree) and another under S&D, then must report to the Committee later and get their guidance on the counting ball. Sensible Committees would permit that free relief ball to count. The tee situation is a little trickier. If possible to get a ball and swing in from even a small part of the correct area, I would be doing that but still getting on the phone to the Pro Shop/Committee/Greens staff to say there is a problem, would you like me to move the tee markers to the nearest playable location?

Edited May 22, 2021 by antip
minor edit

[jimbo123]

Is taking an unplayable an option?  Rule 19 seems to allow it anywhere except penalty areas.  But then it goes on to describe the procedure for it in specific areas, not including the teeing area.  

[sui generis]

5 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

As to the tree in the fairway, it’s also possible (desirable IMO) for a committee to declare it a Temporary Immovable Obstruction, thereby providing line of play relief. 

 

An interesting idea. Can you prove it? 🙂

[Sawgrass]

26 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

An interesting idea. Can you prove it? 🙂

I seem to recall a pre-2019 Decision which described this as an option, though I don’t have access to my book right now. 
 

But irrespective of the oddity of calling a tree any type of obstruction, the committee can do anything it chooses, right?

[sui generis]

9 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

But irrespective of the oddity of calling a tree any type of obstruction, the committee can do anything it chooses, right?

 

Yes, we can. 😉

[antip]

4 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

I seem to recall a pre-2019 Decision which described this as an option, though I don’t have access to my book right now. 
 

But irrespective of the oddity of calling a tree any type of obstruction, the committee can do anything it chooses, right?

Good remembering for an old, er mature, er experienced ruley.

 

The old one was:

25/9.5
Tree Falls onto Fairway During Stipulated Round
Q. A large tree falls onto a fairway during a stipulated round and cannot
readily be removed. What should the Committee do?
A. The most appropriate course of action will depend on the circumstances
in each case. The Committee has the following options:
(1) require play to continue, providing no additional relief from the fallen
tree;
(2) suspend play and have the tree removed;
(3) declare the tree and the area covered by the tree to be ground
under repair (Rule 25-1) and may, as an additional option, establish a
dropping zone; or
(4) in equity (Rule 1-4), adopt the relief procedures under the Local Rule
for Temporary Obstructions

 

The mapping summary says it hasn't changed and refers to 6B(1) in Cttee Procedures. However, that Cttee Procedures reference does not repeat the reference to Temporary Obstructions and my working understanding is that nothing previously labelled as 'equity' rulings necessarily apply from 2019. In short, IMO, a Committee is probably not currently empowered by RBs to use that approach.  Issues like this are very frequent in using the mapping summary document - the 'has it changed' column deals only with the big ticket issues in the old decision, not to all of the parts.

IMO, the best way for the Cttee to deal with the tree is as GUR, plus a DZ if appropriate.

[Mr. Bean]

13 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

Actually an interpretation answers it - breaking the branch is not allowed.  Seems this could be clearer if the wording of 8.1 matched the wording of 6.2?

 

 

IMO the wordings match perfectly.

 

The Definition of a Teeing Area does not say it continues upwards so the Teeing Area is just the ground. Thus if something is 'in the Teeing Area' then it is touching the ground and if it is growing in the Teeing Area then it is growing within the edges of the TA. In the OP the tree was growing outside the Teeing Area so both Rules 8.1 and 6.2 apply.

[jimbo123]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

IMO the wordings match perfectly.

 

The Definition of a Teeing Area does not say it continues upwards so the Teeing Area is just the ground. Thus if something is 'in the Teeing Area' then it is touching the ground and if it is growing in the Teeing Area then it is growing within the edges of the TA. In the OP the tree was growing outside the Teeing Area so both Rules 8.1 and 6.2 apply.

 

While I agree that the teeing area is defined as two dimensional, that's a problematic way to treat the words.  For instance, another part of 8.1 allows you to: "In the teeing area...Place a tee on the ground".  This phrasing makes no sense if you treat the Teeing Area definition as strictly as you are suggesting.  So I think that at least in this context, "In the teeing area" must mean something like, "In or on the teeing area".  

 

Given that, I think 8.1 in isolation is very hard to interpret.  As a non-expert golfer doing what these threads constantly suggest (reading the rules!) I could easily read 8.1 and think I was allowed to break off an overhanging branch.  Of course, it's hard to write rules perfectly unambiguously, but in this case there is better wording elsewhere in the rules (6.2); why not just use it?  

 

 

[jimbo123]

I also think that the most natural reading of 8.1 would allow you to break off any branches, not just ones that are vertically above the teeing area.  8.1 simply talks about growing or attached objects, it says nothing about where they are growing or attached.  "In the teeing area" refers to the place where the player is allowed to take the action.  (Unlike 6.2, which uses the words "In the teeing area" twice; once to refer to where the player is acting, and then again to where the object is growing or attached).    I accept that some other interpretation of 8.1 is correct (even if it's not the most natural one to me), it just doesn't seem like it needs to be so potentially misleading.  

[Newby]

2 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

 

I could easily read 8.1 and think I was allowed to break off an overhanging branch.  

 

 

8.1a. Actions That Are Not Allowed

Except in the limited ways allowed in Rules 8.1b, c and d, a player must not take any of these actions if they improve the conditions affecting the stroke:

(1) Move, bend or break any:

• Growing or attached natural object,

 

There is no reference to the 'teeing area' until the cross reference to 6.2b(3) in 8.1b(8).

 

So reading naturally says - you can't, until you come to a later clause which says you may.

Very straightforward IMO

[jimbo123]

6 hours ago, Newby said:

8.1a. Actions That Are Not Allowed

Except in the limited ways allowed in Rules 8.1b, c and d, a player must not take any of these actions if they improve the conditions affecting the stroke:

(1) Move, bend or break any:

• Growing or attached natural object,

 

There is no reference to the 'teeing area' until the cross reference to 6.2b(3) in 8.1b(8).

 

So reading naturally says - you can't, until you come to a later clause which says you may.

Very straightforward IMO

Maybe I don’t understand how cross references are meant to work. 
 

Is 8.1b(8) meant to be a rule in its own right (with a cross reference to a separate, related rule)?  Or is it purely a pointer to the other rule? 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

37 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Maybe I don’t understand how cross references are meant to work. 
 

Is 8.1b(8) meant to be a rule in its own right (with a cross reference to a separate, related rule)?  Or is it purely a pointer to the other rule? 
 

 

There are some general Rules in the RoG and then more specific ones. In the 2019 renewal a lot of text was removed and replaced by references, just as in this case. R8.1b(8) is a Rule as itself but it directs the reader to another Rule with more specific information related with that particular area of the course.

 

I can tell you that it takes a while (...) to learn the logic of the Rules and how they are weaved together.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[jimbo123]

Thanks.  Then I disagree with Newby that there is no reference to the Teeing Area before the cross reference.  8.1b(8) is itself a rule about, and explicitly referring to, the Teeing Area.  Ie 8.1a, 8.1b and 6.2 are all separate relevant rules here.  

 

"In the teeing area, you can break attached objects" is not the same as "In the teeing area, you can break attached objects in the teeing area".    8.1b(8) says the first thing, 6.2b(3) says the latter.  It's not academic.  If I was the OP, standing in the teeing area, looking up the rulebook, I would get to 8.1a, then 8.1b, think "aha! I've found the exception that is clearly here to address my situation, I can break this branch", and keep playing.  

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Thanks.  Then I disagree with Newby that there is no reference to the Teeing Area before the cross reference.  8.1b(8) is itself a rule about, and explicitly referring to, the Teeing Area.  Ie 8.1a, 8.1b and 6.2 are all separate relevant rules here.  

 

"In the teeing area, you can break attached objects" is not the same as "In the teeing area, you can break attached objects in the teeing area".    8.1b(8) says the first thing, 6.2b(3) says the latter.  It's not academic.  If I was the OP, standing in the teeing area, looking up the rulebook, I would get to 8.1a, then 8.1b, think "aha! I've found the exception that is clearly here to address my situation, I can break this branch", and keep playing.  

 

Be careful...

[jimbo123]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Be careful...

I don’t know what that means in this context, but good advice in general, so…thanks? 

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

I don’t know what that means in this context, but good advice in general, so…thanks? 

 

Look at the bolded text...

[jimbo123]

Nice argument from authority, particularly when I’m not even claiming anything about the correctness of a rule, just that it could be trivially made clearer (by using the same words in both places) 

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Nice argument from authority, particularly when I’m not even claiming anything about the correctness of a rule, just that it could be trivially made clearer (by using the same words in both places) 

 

As I tried to explain, the amount of text has been reduced because there was simply too much overlapping things written in the earlier version.

[jimbo123]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

As I tried to explain, the amount of text has been reduced because there was simply too much overlapping things written in the earlier version.

Then simply have a pointer to the other rule, rather than two rules addressing the same situation with different words?  This would reduce the amount of text even more, and make mistakes harder.