Relief near drainage grate.

[david.c.w]

This actually happened several years ago to my opponent in a member/guest round.  I believe I made the right call but want to confirm and ask about a few nuances.  Unfortunately I do not have a picture

 

Ball is pushed right off the tee and comes to rest just to the right of a fairly significant drainage grate, about 4' x 4'.  The players stance is a few inches from the grate but not on the grate.  The last few inches of grass severely slope toward the grate so very difficult to take a real stance as the heels are 3 " below the toes.  He wanted relief from the overall situation, and I did not give it to him, knowing that you get relief from the grate, but not the slope leading to the grate.  Keep in mind his heel is 2" from the grate so we are very close.  He was unhappy but did not take relief.  I am 99.99% sure this is correct and I am confident I am correct.

 

However....

 

He was the brother of a friend of mine and I think we were both out of it so I almost said, "Dude, just take a normal looking stance with your heel on the grate and you get relief".  Between the slope under the feet and the fact that the ball was a foot above level, you could have taken almost any stance and it could have been reasonable. 

 

Is there anything to stop him from adjusting his stance slightly to get relief?  If he had said he was going to punch out toward the green he could have put the ball back in his stance and had a heel on the grate.   I know that the stance vs obstruction has to be reasonable (ex: if there is a tree in front of you blocking your shot, you cant say you are going to play backwards and then stand on a grate and get relief from the grate and drop somewhere where the tree is not in your way (right?))

 

 

[davep043]

24 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

Between the slope under the feet and the fact that the ball was a foot above level, you could have taken almost any stance and it could have been reasonable. 

From Interpretation 16.1a(3)/2:

"A player may not use a clearly unreasonable stroke to get relief from an abnormal course condition."

 

From 16.1a(3)/1:

"In some situations a player may have to adopt an abnormal swing, stance or direction of play in playing his or her ball to accommodate a given situation. If the abnormal stroke is not clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, the player is permitted to take free relief under Rule 16.1."

 

Based on your description, altering his stance based on the terrain is reasonable, and would put his heels on the grate.  I'd say he deserved relief.

[david.c.w]

17 minutes ago, davep043 said:

 

Based on your description, altering his stance based on the terrain is reasonable, and would put his heels on the grate.  I'd say he deserved relief.

 

I agree he deserved relief, IF tried to take a different stance, but he kept his original stance not touching the grate.  I think this is one of those situations where he could have used the rules to his advantage and adopted an "abnormal swing or stance" and gotten a drop with a more favorable stance.

[Halebopp]

You are correct, the terrain around the Immovable Obstruction isn't a part of the obstruction.

 

As for the second part, yes such situations can provide the player an opportunity to cheat. If the stance, stroke and direction of play the player would take if the grate wasn't there isn't interfered by the grate, there's no free relief. But weird lies could help slight adjustments go unquestioned by other players and rules officials. Only the player would know the truth.

[david.c.w]

@Halebopp Would you call a stance adjustment cheating?  Or playing within the rules?  If he had adjusted his stance i would have 100% given relief without thinking about it.  I would not have called it cheating.

 

[Halebopp]

2 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

@Halebopp Would you call a stance adjustment cheating?  Or playing within the rules?  If he had adjusted his stance i would have 100% given relief without thinking about it.  I would not have called it cheating.

 

 

Yes, there is a stroke the player would make if the obstruction wasn't there. Any adjustment to that to create interference and to gain free relief from the obstruction would be cheating. But the rule only disallows relief when the shot selection is clearly unreasonable leaving players with the possibility of dishonestly saying they'd play a shot off the back foot or aim in a different direction because of the lie, wind conditions and whatnot without a worry about getting caught as long as it's reasonable.

[Mr. Bean]

Impossible to know the correct ruling without being there but the basis of the rulings given by Dave and Halebopp are correct.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, david.c.w said:

Is there anything to stop him from adjusting his stance slightly to get relief?  If he had said he was going to punch out toward the green he could have put the ball back in his stance and had a heel on the grate.   I know that the stance vs obstruction has to be reasonable (ex: if there is a tree in front of you blocking your shot, you cant say you are going to play backwards and then stand on a grate and get relief from the grate and drop somewhere where the tree is not in your way (right?))

 

 

 

Asking a lot of different things sometimes gets lost in a long paragraph.

 

I believe that is incorrect, and I'm sure there are plenty around here to correct me if I'm wrong (again ) but I believe, IF the player is attempting a reasonable shot and his stance is interfered with by the grate, he can take relief.

 

AFTER he takes relief he can choose to play a different shot.

 

So IF there was a tree blocking him (say, towards the green) and he determines his best play is sideways or even backwards onto the fairway for this next shot, AND he's then standing on the grate to play that shot, he can take relief from the grate.

 

And then he can decide that tree is no longer in the way and play directly to the green, avoiding that same tree.

[2bGood]

Good chance he could have gotten relief based on what you described. He would have just needed to decide that he preferred to alter his stance and have one foot 2" further back given the slope of the hill. But you would have to be there to make the call. 

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, david.c.w said:

This actually happened several years ago to my opponent in a member/guest round.  I believe I made the right call but want to confirm and ask about a few nuances.  Unfortunately I do not have a picture

 

Ball is pushed right off the tee and comes to rest just to the right of a fairly significant drainage grate, about 4' x 4'.  The players stance is a few inches from the grate but not on the grate.  The last few inches of grass severely slope toward the grate so very difficult to take a real stance as the heels are 3 " below the toes.  He wanted relief from the overall situation, and I did not give it to him, knowing that you get relief from the grate, but not the slope leading to the grate.  Keep in mind his heel is 2" from the grate so we are very close.  He was unhappy but did not take relief.  I am 99.99% sure this is correct and I am confident I am correct.

 

However....

 

He was the brother of a friend of mine and I think we were both out of it so I almost said, "Dude, just take a normal looking stance with your heel on the grate and you get relief".  Between the slope under the feet and the fact that the ball was a foot above level, you could have taken almost any stance and it could have been reasonable. 

 

Is there anything to stop him from adjusting his stance slightly to get relief?  If he had said he was going to punch out toward the green he could have put the ball back in his stance and had a heel on the grate.   I know that the stance vs obstruction has to be reasonable (ex: if there is a tree in front of you blocking your shot, you cant say you are going to play backwards and then stand on a grate and get relief from the grate and drop somewhere where the tree is not in your way (right?))

 

 

A couple things of interest here - you said that he was your opponent, which would mean match play?  Also you said that "I did not give it to him" meaning that didn't give him relief?  Were you a referee here?  In match play, a player has a right to do what he considers correct. If the opponent (you in this case) disagrees, the opponent (you) can make a request for a ruling (must notify the player and make request in time - usually before anyone plays from the next tee, or if on the final hole, before the match result is final), but cannot dictate what the player does or does not do.  The request for a ruling would be reported to the committee and the committee would make the decision.

[antip]

5 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

Yes, there is a stroke the player would make if the obstruction wasn't there. Any adjustment to that to create interference and to gain free relief from the obstruction would be cheating. But the rule only disallows relief when the shot selection is clearly unreasonable leaving players with the possibility of dishonestly saying they'd play a shot off the back foot or aim in a different direction because of the lie, wind conditions and whatnot without a worry about getting caught as long as it's reasonable.

According to the published rule (16.1a), this would in no way be dishonesty or cheating. There is nothing in the printed rule and definitions that states relief is limited to interference with the specific stroke the player would play in the absence of the abnormal course condition (such as an immovable obstruction). Indeed, the printed rule explicitly states something starkly different - the criteria for denying relief is that the proposed stroke (that would entitle the player to relief) is "clearly unreasonable", a very different test than "the stroke that would be made in the absence of the condition". So, IMO, there is no way a referee can deny relief if the player indicates ANY stroke that does not breach the "clearly unreasonable" test.

 

Yet buried away under an interpretation headed: Nearest Point of Complete Relief/3 – Whether Player Has Taken Relief Incorrectly If Condition Still Interferes for Stroke with Club Not Used to Determine Nearest Point of Complete Relief we find the following words: When a player is taking relief from an abnormal course condition, he or she is taking relief only for interference that he or she had with the club, stance, swing and line of play that would have been used to play the ball from that spot.

 

I really can't see how a referee is empowered to tell a player "no relief" if ANY stroke that is not unreasonable would produce relief even if it is not the stroke the player would make in the absence of the condition. Do any of us that referee really want to have this conversation: player "please show me the rule", referee "well it is not actually in any rule...", player "please show me the definition", referee "well it is not actually in a definition". Player "well where is this information you are telling me denies relief?", referee "it is in an unrelated Interpretation". 

 

Does anyone think RBs actually intended relief to be denied?

[Sawgrass]

10 minutes ago, antip said:

 

Does anyone think RBs actually intended relief to be denied?

I’ve explicitly asked the USGA, and they have told me they do wish to deny such distorted relief.  The honest player shouldn’t take it, the dishonest can easily get away with it. 

[antip]

1 hour ago, Sawgrass said:

I’ve explicitly asked the USGA, and they have told me they do wish to deny such distorted relief.  The honest player shouldn’t take it, the dishonest can easily get away with it. 

Good to know, thanks. Shame they didn't get words in the rules that support that.

[david.c.w]

13 hours ago, rogolf said:

A couple things of interest here - you said that he was your opponent, which would mean match play?  Also you said that "I did not give it to him" meaning that didn't give him relief?  Were you a referee here?  In match play, a player has a right to do what he considers correct. If the opponent (you in this case) disagrees, the opponent (you) can make a request for a ruling (must notify the player and make request in time - usually before anyone plays from the next tee, or if on the final hole, before the match result is final), but cannot dictate what the player does or does not do.  The request for a ruling would be reported to the committee and the committee would make the decision.

 

I was not aware of this.  Very informative.

 

Some points of clarification:

• It was a fourball match
• I was not a referee
• He asked if he could get relief based on a "normal" stance.  My reply was "I don't believe so."
• He never tried a different stance to get relief
• Had he tried a different stance, the swing would NOT have been abnormal, unusual, unreasonable, wrong direction, etc.

From what I have deduced from the comments above, here is what I will do if I am ever in the same situation:

• Take a stance for a standard shot
• Realize my footing is very uncomfortable so I would like to try a different shot so I don't fall over
• Take a stance as if I would like to play a low punch shot
• Realize my heel is now on the grate
• Take relief from the grate
• Take a stance and execute a standard shot
• Make birdie to win the hole to come in 4th in our flight but make some money on side bets

Thanks all for the comments. 

[Mr. Bean]

10 hours ago, antip said:

According to the published rule (16.1a), this would in no way be dishonesty or cheating. There is nothing in the printed rule and definitions that states relief is limited to interference with the specific stroke the player would play in the absence of the abnormal course condition (such as an immovable obstruction). Indeed, the printed rule explicitly states something starkly different - the criteria for denying relief is that the proposed stroke (that would entitle the player to relief) is "clearly unreasonable", a very different test than "the stroke that would be made in the absence of the condition". So, IMO, there is no way a referee can deny relief if the player indicates ANY stroke that does not breach the "clearly unreasonable" test.

 

Yet buried away under an interpretation headed: Nearest Point of Complete Relief/3 – Whether Player Has Taken Relief Incorrectly If Condition Still Interferes for Stroke with Club Not Used to Determine Nearest Point of Complete Relief we find the following words: When a player is taking relief from an abnormal course condition, he or she is taking relief only for interference that he or she had with the club, stance, swing and line of play that would have been used to play the ball from that spot.

 

I really can't see how a referee is empowered to tell a player "no relief" if ANY stroke that is not unreasonable would produce relief even if it is not the stroke the player would make in the absence of the condition. Do any of us that referee really want to have this conversation: player "please show me the rule", referee "well it is not actually in any rule...", player "please show me the definition", referee "well it is not actually in a definition". Player "well where is this information you are telling me denies relief?", referee "it is in an unrelated Interpretation". 

 

Does anyone think RBs actually intended relief to be denied?

 

I sure have severe difficulties understanding what you are trying to say here but IMO Halebopp did not say anything about denying relief if there is a way the player may take a stance etc. not doing that in clearly unreasonable way. At least that is how I understood his post.

 

What I and all my fellow referees AFAIK have been trained to ask is the very question 'what kind of stroke would a player wish to make if the condition was not there'. That is then up to the player to decide BUT up to the referee to decide whether that choice of stroke would be acceptable taking all the possible aspects into consideration, such as unreasonable stance, direction of swing, etc.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[antip]

If anyone disagrees with this statement "if the stroke the player plans to make is not unreasonable, and that stroke involves interference with the grate, then the player can take relief", please say so.

[Halebopp]

34 minutes ago, antip said:

If anyone disagrees with this statement "if the stroke the player plans to make is not unreasonable, and that stroke involves interference with the grate, then the player can take relief", please say so.

 

I doubt anyone disagrees with that and, like Bean already commented, I wasn't saying I wouldn't grant relief if everything about the stroke seemed reasonable. 

 

Think about it this way. You have a certain stance, swing, club and direction of play you'd prefer for each and every stroke that you believe will produce the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Why would those parameters of the stroke suddenly change if we introduced a grate a couple of inches away from the heel of your back foot? You are changing your shot selection to a worse one only to get your foot onto the grate in order to get a drop away from the original lie into a more favourable position.

 

As a rules official it can very easily be impossible to say the new stroke isn't reasonable and therefore the player is granted relief. But the player knows he/she wouldn't have claimed to make that stroke had the grate not been there. And that qualifies as cheating.

[antip]

11 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

I doubt anyone disagrees with that and, like Bean already commented, I wasn't saying I wouldn't grant relief if everything about the stroke seemed reasonable. 

 

Think about it this way. You have a certain stance, swing, club and direction of play you'd prefer for each and every stroke that you believe will produce the best possible outcome given the circumstances. Why would those parameters of the stroke suddenly change if we introduced a grate a couple of inches away from the heel of your back foot? You are changing your shot selection to a worse one only to get your foot onto the grate in order to get a drop away from the original lie into a more favourable position.

 

As a rules official it can very easily be impossible to say the new stroke isn't reasonable and therefore the player is granted relief. But the player knows he/she wouldn't have claimed to make that stroke had the grate not been there. And that qualifies as cheating.

So it seems we are agreeing on what the referee can and can't do in applying the rules. 

 

But is it rules-legal "cheating" to take relief? I can think of examples where I believe the answer would be yes and others where I would think otherwise. The "otherwise" cases in my mind are examples of poor course marking (or maintenance) where the ground/turf around a drainage grate slopes quite steeply down to preclude anything remotely like a normal stance (despite being on fairway) without interference with the grate itself. In such cases, I think it fair and equitable for the player to exercise the choice permitted by the rule although the first best approach would be to GUR the depression, affirming it is all relief area - not just the obstruction component. I suspect the cases I have in mind were not the original build but areas that have seen subsidence that should be physically addressed - but appropriate course marking can also avoid the rules complication.

[rogolf]

appropriate course marking can also avoid the rules complication.

One of the major objectives of course markings is to make it easy for the players to play within the Rules.

Unfortunately, the majority of courses are not marked well except when there are significant competitions (internal or external) being held.  When a significant external organization (say provincial or national) mark our course for their event, I remind our grounds staff that they are doing us a favour by identifying areas that need attention/correction.  That usually falls on deaf ears and the same areas get marked next time!

I definitely agree that proper course marking is very important for proper and easy application of the Rules by the players.

[denkea]

21 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I sure have severe difficulties understanding what you are trying to say here but IMO Halebopp did not say anything about denying relief if there is a way the player may take a stance etc. not doing that in clearly unreasonable way. At least that is how I understood his post.

 

What I and all my fellow referees AFAIK have been trained to ask is the very question 'what kind of stroke would a player wish to make if the condition was not there'. That is then up to the player to decide BUT up to the referee to decide whether that choice of stroke would be acceptable taking all the possible aspects into consideration, such as unreasonable stance, direction of swing, etc.

So if I take may stance with a short iron and my feet are just a couple inches from the grate no relief.  But then I take my 3 wood and my feet touch do I get relief then?

[antip]

1 hour ago, denkea said:

So if I take may stance with a short iron and my feet are just a couple inches from the grate no relief.  But then I take my 3 wood and my feet touch do I get relief then?

Yes, if a stroke with the 3 wood is not unreasonable.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, denkea said:

So if I take may stance with a short iron and my feet are just a couple inches from the grate no relief.  But then I take my 3 wood and my feet touch do I get relief then?

Not from me ....... if your ball is lying 50 yards from the green.  🙂