Rules Question-Is this drop allowed?

[IM_ALL_IN]

We were having this discussion on a non golf message board. Basically the player has driven it left up against the OB fence and is stymied going forward. His only play is backwards, but he will be standing on the path. The question is; can he take relief from that path with the intent on hitting backwards, only to turn around and fire at the flag?

 

The blue ball is the tee shot and orange is what he wants to do with the drop.

 

[BParis]

I don't profess to be a rules expert, for that you need someone like KevCarter to chime in, but here is my interpretation of the ruling as it would apply here...

 

The ball's proximity to the OB fence precludes the player from taking a swing in the direction of the hole or fairway so the only direction he can play is backwards. Therefore, since the cart path is an Immovable Obstruction, the player can invoke Rule 24-2, which allows for a drop without penalty.

 

24-2. Immovable Obstruction

g a. Interference

Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or when the obstruction interferes with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing.

g b. Relief

Except when the ball is in a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, a player may take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction as follows:

(i) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

One could conclude that the player is taking an "abnormal... direction of play" since he is hitting backwards, but this would be a normal direction even if the cart path wasn't there. Therefore, the Exception does not apply and the player can proceed under Rule 24-2.

Once the ball has been appropriately dropped, the player can then proceed to hit any shot he desires, including in the direction of the flag.

[GetinDAhole26]

thats good to know. that situation actually does happen

[jaskanski]

It's an interesting scenario, but I believe the above poster has got the jist of it correct. The player is entitled to relief from both the boundary fence and the cart path.

Ignoring the cart path for a moment though, you may also consider this: Decision 24-2b/17

obstruction interferes with abnormal stroke; abnormal stroke reasonable in circumstances.

 

Q A right handed player is so close to a boundary fence on the left of a hole that the player, in order to play towards the hole, must play left-handed. In playing a left-handed stroke, the player's backswing would be be interferred by an immovable obstruction (a cart path perhaps?). Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?

A The player is entitled to relief since employment of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is necessary in the circumstances - see Exception under rule 24-2b.

The proper procedure is for the player to take relief for a left-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

The player may then use a normal right-handed swing for his/her next stroke. If the obstruction interferes with the swing or stance for the right-handed stroke, the player may then take relief for the right-handed stroke in accordance with rule 24-2b(i).

 

Funny old game. I've actually seen it a couple of times in professional tournaments.

[jaskanski]

Actually out of bounds markers are not obstructions in the Rules (R&A version) and are deemed to be fixed.

 

 

Yes, but in this case it's actually a fence - which would be an obsrtuction. If the fence (or stakes) are small enough or positioned in order to make a stroke, there's nothing to stop the player from standing OOB to play a ball within bounds.

[huy]

Actually out of bounds markers are not obstructions in the Rules (R&A version) and are deemed to be fixed.

 

 

Yes, but in this case it's actually a fence - which would be an obsrtuction. If the fence (or stakes) are small enough or positioned in order to make a stroke, there's nothing to stop the player from standing OOB to play a ball within bounds.

 

A fence would still be fixed and not an obstruction as defined in the rules, therefore no free relief.

 

Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

[jaskanski]

Actually out of bounds markers are not obstructions in the Rules (R&A version) and are deemed to be fixed.

 

 

Yes, but in this case it's actually a fence - which would be an obsrtuction. If the fence (or stakes) are small enough or positioned in order to make a stroke, there's nothing to stop the player from standing OOB to play a ball within bounds.

 

A fence would still be fixed and not an obstruction as defined in the rules, therefore no free relief.

 

Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed. Stakes identifying out of bounds are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.

 

Player can indeed stand OOB and play the in-bounds ball - just can't move the fence, however easy to move it would actually be. Most people assume you can pull the stake (say) out, play and then replace it. Not so.

 

Absolutely correct. And I stand corrected on the definition of boundary fence :hi: Which is probably the reason to play left-handed in the first instance :fool: .

[IM_ALL_IN]

What about this then. Where do we draw the line on what the intention of the player is?

 

Once again here, the player has only one realistic option; playing sideways back into the fairway(tough going through evergreens :lol: ). This time there is a scoreboard near him and all of a sudden he wants to play to his favorite yardage, 150yds in. So he wants line of sight relief from the board with the intention of playing the blue line shot. Once he drops and sees the clean look at the stick though, his intentions quickly change.

 

 

 

[BParis]

See below excerpt from Rule 24-2 Immovable Obstruction...

a. Interference

Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or when the obstruction interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an immovable obstruction on the putting green intervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

Therefore, there is no relief allowed.

[jaskanski]

What about this then. Where do we draw the line on what the intention of the player is?

 

Once again here, the player has only one realistic option; playing sideways back into the fairway(tough going through evergreens :lol: ). This time there is a scoreboard near him and all of a sudden he wants to play to his favorite yardage, 150yds in. So he wants line of sight relief from the board with the intention of playing the blue line shot. Once he drops and sees the clean look at the stick though, his intentions quickly change.

 

 

A bit silly. That first drop is nearer the hole.

[IM_ALL_IN]

See below excerpt from Rule 24-2 Immovable Obstruction...

 

a. Interference

Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or when the obstruction interferes with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing. If the player's ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an immovable obstruction on the putting green intervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

Therefore, there is no relief allowed.

 

Is there relief from a temporary immovable object? Don't the pro's get line of sight relief from the grandstands?

 

 

A bit silly. That first drop is nearer the hole.

 

Yeah, where should the drop be?

[BParis]

The Temporary Immovable Obstruction (TIO) must be on his line of play, defined as a line from the ball to the hole...

 

II. Interference

Interference by a TIO occurs when (a) the ball lies in front of and so close to the TIO that the TIO interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, or (b) the ball lies in, on, under or behind the TIO so that any part of the TIO intervenes directly between the player’s ball and the hole and is on his line of play; interference also exists if the ball lies within one club-length of a spot equidistant from the hole where such intervention would exist.

 

So, by your graphic, the scoreboard does not lie on the line of play between the ball and the hole. Therefore, no relief is allowed.

 

[IM_ALL_IN]

I understand now, thanks.

[SadTrombone]

Yeah, where should the drop be?

IF relief were allowed (and it wouldn't be), he'd have to drop behind the scoreboard, not in front of it.

 

-mini