Should free relief have been granted?

[limegreengent]

2 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

 

I don't think 16.1a(3)/3 is applicable in this situation as it's written specifically for Animal Holes as opposed to generally for ACCs.
Even 16.1b/1 starts by saying 16.1a(3) does not apply when a ball enters an ACC and comes to rest under ground.

 

 

 

Halebopp 

I believe that your knowledge is much better than your paragraph quoted above which does not help less knowledgeable readers.

16.1a(3) / 3 applies EQUALLY to immovable obstructions as well as “Accs “ - although the application of this rule / interpretation arises more often with animal holes . ( see last sentence of Interpretation).

And 

16.1a(3)/3 starts by saying —-  “AND rule 16.1a(3) does not apply  “ which does not mean that you do not test the provisions of 16.1(3) - but you see if the provisions apply - I.e does the player have a reasonable lie at the entrance of the condition.

If a stroke is not unreasonable - only then would 16.1a(3)  NOT apply.

 

 

 

 

 

[llewol007]

I say for $5 bucks I would have given the free drop as the pipe is a man made object that you can’t physically move. Just like if it were fenced off and you would not be able to hit through it. 

[nsxguy]

13 minutes ago, llewol007 said:

I say for $5 bucks I would have given the free drop as the pipe is a man made object that you can’t physically move. Just like if it were fenced off and you would not be able to hit through it. 

 

I guess the only question now is, are you talking about the OP ?

 

Or the more recent discussion on the pipe in the PA ?

 

Because I am clearly an obvious rules newbie, in the latest discussion, not really knowing about the pipe being outside of the PA, I'd have taken a PA drop.

[Newby]

16.1a(3)

There is no relief under Rule 16.1:

- When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than  ....... an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of something else (eg a tree).

 

The pipe is an IO

[nsxguy]

8 hours ago, Pastit said:

Don’t you have Google or enjoy Cleudo ?
 

A. N. Other is used as a placeholder name or, less commonly, a pseudonym used by a person wishing to remain anonymous. It is most used in the United Kingdom, often written as AN Other. Occasionally it may be abbreviated to ANO, or—in cases where a female name is expected—rendered as Ann(e) Other

 

MfG. ( used in Deutschland )

 

So when you said "There may be ANO point here which needs raising, if not already done.", ANO meant "another". That would've been my first guess but it's not an abbreviation I am familiar with.

 

I am somewhat familiar with UK terms and word usage.

 

When I google "ANO" google tells me it's Spanish for "year", which I already knew.

 

When I google "A.N. Other" I get a perfume.

 

I played Clue when I was a kid. I don't anymore.

 

Thanks.

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, Pastit said:

Don’t you have Google or enjoy Cleudo ?
 

A. N. Other is used as a placeholder name or, less commonly, a pseudonym used by a person wishing to remain anonymous. It is most used in the United Kingdom, often written as AN Other. Occasionally it may be abbreviated to ANO, or—in cases where a female name is expected—rendered as Ann(e) Other

 

MfG. ( used in Deutschland )

 

So... you have completely misused that abreviation. Well done. No wonder we did not have a clue what you were trying to say.

 

Next time take the time and write entire words, thank you.

[Newby]

10 hours ago, Pastit said:

Don’t you have Google or enjoy Cleudo ?
 

A. N. Other is used as a placeholder name or, less commonly, a pseudonym used by a person wishing to remain anonymous. It is most used in the United Kingdom, often written as AN Other. Occasionally it may be abbreviated to ANO, or—in cases where a female name is expected—rendered as Ann(e) Other

 

MfG. ( used in Deutschland )

I have played Cluedo (Clue in the US) for many years and have never seen ANO used.

But 'ano' does mean 'no' in Czech 😉

Edited December 4, 2022 by Newby

[antip]

9 hours ago, Halebopp said:

Unless I'm mistaken, there's an agreement that the parts of a bridge over open water, like the Swilcan bridge is in the PA and a "land bridge" with a culvert is a part of the General Area. (Unless specifically marked to leave the land bridge in the PA.)

 

I don't think 16.1a(3)/3 is applicable in this situation as it's written specifically for Animal Holes as opposed to generally for ACCs. Even 16.1b/1 starts by saying 16.1a(3) does not apply when a ball enters an ACC and comes to rest under ground.

 

Therefore you'll get free relief for a ball in the culvert, regardless of the conditions near the point of entry to the culvert. Of course, the question is what is a bridge and what is merely land with a culvert running through it. But that question would only affect the Reference Point for the relief from the ACC.

 

That is a complete misread of the opening para of 16.1b/1. And 16.1a(3)/3 applies equally to an animal hole and an IO as affirmed by the end of the Interpretation 

Edited December 4, 2022 by antip
PS, hadn't seen LGG's post when I replied (joys of the little screen) .

[antip]

6 hours ago, Newby said:

16.1a(3)

There is no relief under Rule 16.1:

- When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than  ....... an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of something else (eg a tree).

 

The pipe is an IO

But 16.1a(3) is not assessed on the position of the ball for a ball underground in a pipe.

Edited December 4, 2022 by antip
Clarity

[Colin L]

19 hours ago, antip said:

 

You've both convinced yourselves you have the answers, so I have nothing further to add beyond that you seem comfortable sidelining rule 16.1a(3).

I'm disappointed that you seem to think I have a closed mind and that I am sidelining 16.1a(3) which unarguably has to be considered in any abnormal course condition relief situation.   What I was thinking was that you were referring to 16.1a(3)/3  but I couldn't see it as applicable since it is about  an underground pipe when I had, rightly or wrongly, decided that the whole structure was a single obstruction.  As such the pipe was part of an overground structure and so the ball was lying in the general area but not underground.  That in turn would mean that consideration of 16.1a3 would, I think, apply to the position where the ball lay,  not at the entrance to the pipe.  The Clarification does seem to me to be exclusively about a ball underground but perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

 

 

 

[antip]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

I'm disappointed that you seem to think I have a closed mind and that I am sidelining 16.1a(3) which unarguably has to be considered in any abnormal course condition relief situation.   What I was thinking was that you were referring to 16.1a(3)/3  but I couldn't see it as applicable since it is about  an underground pipe when I had, rightly or wrongly, decided that the whole structure was a single obstruction.  As such the pipe was part of an overground structure and so the ball was lying in the general area but not underground.  That in turn would mean that consideration of 16.1a3 would, I think, apply to the position where the ball lay,  not at the entrance to the pipe.  The Clarification does seem to me to be exclusively about a ball underground but perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

 

 

 

Not accusing you of a closed mind Colin. We are just coming up with a different rules application to this scenario. A pile of 'ground' has separated the penalty area into two discrete separate sections, an artificial cover has been put on top and two pipes go through it below ground. For me, any suggestion those pipes are not below ground makes no sense.

[Colin L]

53 minutes ago, antip said:

Not accusing you of a closed mind Colin. We are just coming up with a different rules application to this scenario. A pile of 'ground' has separated the penalty area into two discrete separate sections, an artificial cover has been put on top and two pipes go through it below ground. For me, any suggestion those pipes are not below ground makes no sense.

 

That's a relief.  We're disagreeing over the structure and whether the ball is underground.  You see "ground" separating the two sections despite the stone walls. I see a whole structure built above ground between the two sections.

 

Just one question.  I can't remember exactly where the ball lay, but say it was within the outer and inner sides of the wall itself.  Does that make any difference to your assessment?

 

All the other  "land bridges" I have seen would be  much easier to deal with  as both sides and the top were covered in real grass.  I've no  difficulty in accepting that as "ground".

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Colin L
Typo

[Newby]

10 hours ago, antip said:

But 16.1a(3) is not assessed on the position of the ball for a ball underground in a pipe.

The rule is not concerned about pipes per se or whether anything is underground or not.

There is interference from an IO - the pipe. There is nothing else causing a stroke to be 'unmakeable'.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:29 AM, Colin L said:

 

 

 

As the rectangular is artificial (not grass) that certainly looks like a one single piece of construction with various elements of which one is the pipe. So it should be dealt with like a one single Immovable Obstruction and the ball is in that IO.

 

IMO Colin made a good ruling.

 

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, Newby said:

The rule is not concerned about pipes per se or whether anything is underground or not

There is interference from an IO - the pipe. There is nothing else causing a stroke to be 'unmakeable'.

 

So, if there was a land bridge and a pipe under that land bridge would you give a free relief for a ball inside that pipe? Wouldn't you think there would be something else than the pipe to make a stroke unreasonable?

[Colin L]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So, if there was a land bridge and a pipe under that land bridge would you give a free relief for a ball inside that pipe? Wouldn't you think there would be something else than the pipe to make a stroke unreasonable?

 

If the "land bridge"  was clearly just ground, then the answer is that it would be depend on whether there was a reasonable stroke available at the position of the  entrance to the pipe were not there in accordance with what is already showing on the R&A website as  Clarification 16.1a(3)/3.   

 

In my case,  the assessment of a reasonable stroke had to be made either  at the entrance to the pipe if it is to be considered underground as Antip has it, or for for  where the ball was lying if it is not underground as I made it to be. ...... I think but with increasing lack of confidence.  Can't complain though: I started the conversation!  

[Mr. Bean]

If a ball enters a french drain is it underground or is it in an Obstruction?

[Colin L]

It's on an obstruction but I don't quite get the connection.

 

Off to our Seniors Xmas Lunch now.  Hope no-one asks about bridges, crossings and penalty areas.  🙂

[antip]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

The rule is not concerned about pipes per se or whether anything is underground or not.

There is interference from an IO - the pipe. There is nothing else causing a stroke to be 'unmakeable'.

I'll repeat myself, yet again. Read the first para in 16.1a(3)/3. This statement applies equally to an IO as it does to an ACC. When a ball is found underground in an IO (here the pipe), 16.1a(3) must be assessed by whether the player does not have an unreasonable stroke at the entrance to the IO. Here, 16.1a(3)'s possible impact is not related to the position of the ball in the IO, but the position of the ball at the entrance. 

Nothing changed here in 2019, this is a continuation of the old 25-1b/25.5.

[antip]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

That's a relief.  We're disagreeing over the structure and whether the ball is underground.  You see "ground" separating the two sections despite the stone walls. I see a whole structure built above ground between the two sections.

 

Just one question.  I can't remember exactly where the ball lay, but say it was within the outer and inner sides of the wall itself.  Does that make any difference to your assessment?

 

All the other  "land bridges" I have seen would be  much easier to deal with  as both sides and the top were covered in real grass.  I've no  difficulty in accepting that as "ground".

 

 

 

 

 

On your "just one question": if a pipe is going through a wall then we are in a world of one form of IO passing through another form of IO. A bit unusual, but does it make any difference? I don't see how it would. 

[Newby]

11 minutes ago, antip said:

I'll repeat myself, yet again. Read the first para in 16.1a(3)/3. This statement applies equally to an IO as it does to an ACC. When a ball is found underground in an IO (here the pipe), 16.1a(3) must be assessed by whether the player does not have an unreasonable stroke at the entrance to the IO. Here, 16.1a(3)'s possible impact is not related to the position of the ball in the IO, but the position of the ball at the entrance. 

Nothing changed here in 2019, this is a continuation of the old 25-1b/25.5.

As this was mentioned earlier I took it as a given. There would still be interference from the pipe at the entrance. The constraint to relief would be the presence of something else.

[antip]

Just now, Newby said:

As this was mentioned earlier I took it as a given. There would still be interference from the pipe at the entrance. The constraint to relief would be the presence of something else.

And the something else is the physical shape of the penalty area if the pipe was not there. Does that shape allow the player to put a reasonable stroke on the ball at the entrance to the pipe if the pipe was not there that would allow the position of the ball to be progressed. If yes, then proceed with free relief (if ball not in PA). If no reasonable stroke, then deny free relief and player will need to take penalty relief. This 16.1a(3) assessment needs to be made and rule accordingly.

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

It's on an obstruction but I don't quite get the connection.

 

 

In my world a french drain is not open but closed. It is a pipe dug into the groung and covered with gravel. Ultimately grass will grow on top of the gravel.

 

So, If a ball enters such a french drain (= it is inside the pipe) is it underground or is it in an Obstruction?

[Mr. Bean]

44 minutes ago, antip said:

On your "just one question": if a pipe is going through a wall then we are in a world of one form of IO passing through another form of IO. A bit unusual, but does it make any difference? I don't see how it would. 

 

I would treat that construction as one construction and thus one single IO. In my eyes it does not matter if there is a steel pipe running through the stones (or concrete) or if there is just a hollow in the construction. A ball would still be in the IO and a free relief would be granted as per R16.1a(1).

 

If all such constructions should be treated as "underground" then R16.1a(3) would come into picture but whether that is the case should be answered by the RBs.

 

What a committee could and maybe should do in cases like in Colin's picture is to declare such constructions as single Obstructions. That would make life much easier for all parties.

[bertsbogeys]

Similar situation happened with Steve Flesch at the PURE Insurance Championship. His tee shot was sitting up on grass, on the top side of a bunker, and happened to be on a sprinkler head. He was given free relief from the sprinkler head only to take his drop and have it land on a drain right next to it. So he took another free relief drop and ended up winning the tournament. I wish I could find the video of it.

[Halebopp]

@limegreengent @antip

 

You are correct, I've misunderstood the rule previously, I've never had to use it on a course nor in any test. While reading this thread and, skimming through the Interpretations yesterday, and most probably using some selective reading, I managed to not notice my own misunderstanding. Thank you for getting me on the right path once again. It'll take a bit of time to reset my brains. 🙂

 

[Colin L]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

In my world a french drain is not open but closed. It is a pipe dug into the groung and covered with gravel. Ultimately grass will grow on top of the gravel.

 

So, If a ball enters such a french drain (= it is inside the pipe) is it underground or is it in an Obstruction?

 

That is indeed what I would recognise as a French drain in my wee part of the world, but the pipe is entirely covered by maybe 30 cms of gravel/aggregate and in any case even  if a ball could reach it, the pipe is continuous.   How could the ball  get into it?    

 

All I've ever seen is a ball ending  up on top of the gravel, a ball that is on an immovable obstruction.  I still don't get the connection.

 

[antip]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I would treat that construction as one construction and thus one single IO. In my eyes it does not matter if there is a steel pipe running through the stones (or concrete) or if there is just a hollow in the construction. A ball would still be in the IO and a free relief would be granted as per R16.1a(1).

 

If all such constructions should be treated as "underground" then R16.1a(3) would come into picture but whether that is the case should be answered by the RBs.

 

What a committee could and maybe should do in cases like in Colin's picture is to declare such constructions as single Obstructions. That would make life much easier for all parties.

I agree a Committee could, but I don't believe should, make all that ground an obstruction. This player, very simply put, failed to meet the challenge of this hole. Distorting what the rules default requires to protect this player from the consequences of their failure makes no sense to me.

But I do believe the interpretations we have discussed here should be expanded to add more light to the application of the rules. And as I noted above, this is a pre-2019 issue. My submissions, though, have not been successful.

[rogolf]

To make it simple, clear and easy for the players, the penalty area should have been marked as continuous on each side, ie, that “construction” should have been part of the penalty area. 

[antip]

4 hours ago, Halebopp said:

@limegreengent @antip

 

You are correct, I've misunderstood the rule previously, I've never had to use it on a course nor in any test. While reading this thread and, skimming through the Interpretations yesterday, and most probably using some selective reading, I managed to not notice my own misunderstanding. Thank you for getting me on the right path once again. It'll take a bit of time to reset my brains. 🙂

 

Can't speak for you, but I find those brain reset challenges seem to get trickier each year.