Immovable obstruction relief

[betarhoalphadelta]

Ok, one came up in my round yesterday. 10th hole (short par 4) puts the 11th tee in jeopardy if you miss right, so there is a large fence/net protecting the tee. There are couple of small trees along the outside of the net (10th hole area) for decoration. 

 

My buddy hit his drive and it went up almost in contact with the net. To aim at the green, his swing would be impeded by a small tree. Obviously no relief there. But due to the net obstructing the line to the green, the only acceptable play was to punch it back to the fairway. He said that's what he planned to do. From that angle, his swing was impeded by the vertical metal support pole of the net. Free relief, right? 

 

Taking relief allowed him to move his ball far enough away from the net that it no longer obstructed his line to the green, so he could play directly at the green. I told him that was free relief because his intent with the original lie was to punch to the fairway and he was getting relief from the immovable obstruction, and it was just a really lucky outcome of the rules for him. 

 

Correct? 

[nsxguy]

26 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Ok, one came up in my round yesterday. 10th hole (short par 4) puts the 11th tee in jeopardy if you miss right, so there is a large fence/net protecting the tee. There are couple of small trees along the outside of the net (10th hole area) for decoration. 

 

My buddy hit his drive and it went up almost in contact with the net. To aim at the green, his swing would be impeded by a small tree. Obviously no relief there. But due to the net obstructing the line to the green, the only acceptable play was to punch it back to the fairway. He said that's what he planned to do. From that angle, his swing was impeded by the vertical metal support pole of the net. Free relief, right? 

 

Taking relief allowed him to move his ball far enough away from the net that it no longer obstructed his line to the green, so he could play directly at the green. I told him that was free relief because his intent with the original lie was to punch to the fairway and he was getting relief from the immovable obstruction, and it was just a really lucky outcome of the rules for him. 

 

Correct? 

 

I believe it depends on the status of the fence.

 

Hard to imagine a protective fence being an integral object but,,,,

 

No free relief from an integral object but yes, free relief from an immovable obstruction.

 

So yes, given the description, I believe relief would be permitted.  👍

[Mr. Bean]

Whenever trying to figure out whether a free relief from an Immovable Obstruction is allowed one needs to establish the stroke one would make if that IO was not there. One of the best guidelines there is.

[Augster]

It was all done correctly unless the fence was integral, or defined OB. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I wouldn't call it integral. It's a net fence for safety purposes, not an deliberate design feature to build the aesthetic of the course. 

 

It's not ancient stone walls on St Andrews lol 😉

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Whenever trying to figure out whether a free relief from an Immovable Obstruction is allowed one needs to establish the stroke one would make if that IO was not there. One of the best guidelines there is.

 

I'll admit this confuses me... 

 

If the fence wasn't there at all, I'm not sure if he would have tried to punch the ball forward and advance it despite the interference of the tree, or if he would have punched out to the fairway. However, with the fence there, the only possible play was back to the fairway. In that case the fence is an obstacle from which he gets no relief if the intent is to go for the green, but the fence only becomes an immovable obstruction from which he gets relief if the intent is to punch out to the fairway taking the fence out of play. 

 

I would argue that it doesn't become an immovable obstruction UNTIL he decides to punch out around it, and then once it's an immovable obstruction due to that intent, he gets relief. 

 

Would that be accurate? I know that this gets into gray areas because you have to assume a golfer is honest about their intended stroke. 

[Newby]

7 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I'll admit this confuses me... 

 

If the fence wasn't there at all, I'm not sure if he would have tried to punch the ball forward and advance it despite the interference of the tree, or if he would have punched out to the fairway. However, with the fence there, the only possible play was back to the fairway. In that case the fence is an obstacle from which he gets no relief if the intent is to go for the green, but the fence only becomes an immovable obstruction from which he gets relief if the intent is to punch out to the fairway taking the fence out of play. 

 

I would argue that it doesn't become an immovable obstruction UNTIL he decides to punch out around it, and then once it's an immovable obstruction due to that intent, he gets relief. 

 

Would that be accurate? I know that this gets into gray areas because you have to assume a golfer is honest about their intended stroke. 

Are either of the below appropriate?

 

• When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as when a player is standing in temporary water or on an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush), or 

• When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

[Mr. Bean]

9 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I wouldn't call it integral. It's a net fence for safety purposes, not an deliberate design feature to build the aesthetic of the course. 

 

It's not ancient stone walls on St Andrews lol 😉

 

 

I'll admit this confuses me... 

 

If the fence wasn't there at all, I'm not sure if he would have tried to punch the ball forward and advance it despite the interference of the tree, or if he would have punched out to the fairway. However, with the fence there, the only possible play was back to the fairway. In that case the fence is an obstacle from which he gets no relief if the intent is to go for the green, but the fence only becomes an immovable obstruction from which he gets relief if the intent is to punch out to the fairway taking the fence out of play. 

 

I would argue that it doesn't become an immovable obstruction UNTIL he decides to punch out around it, and then once it's an immovable obstruction due to that intent, he gets relief. 

 

Would that be accurate? I know that this gets into gray areas because you have to assume a golfer is honest about their intended stroke. 

 

What I tried to say is that the player must omit the obstruction (= IO) from his mind and think what would be his stroke if it was not there. Meaning any tree, rock or any natural thing or integral object would be the only things to guide his choice. And THEN if the IO interferes with his stroke he will be granted relief.

[Newby]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What I tried to say is that the player must omit the obstruction (= IO) from his mind and think what would be his stroke if it was not there. Meaning any tree, rock or any natural thing or integral object would be the only things to guide his choice. And THEN if the IO interferes with his stroke he will be granted relief.

I see what you mean but given the wording of my second bullet shouldn't the thought be think "is it reasonable in the circumstances to play in such a direction (eg sideways because I am in very long grass)? " 

[Augster]

11 minutes ago, Newby said:

I see what you mean but given the wording of my second bullet shouldn't the thought be think "is it reasonable in the circumstances to play in such a direction (eg sideways because I am in very long grass)? " 

Right. The key is “reasonable”. 
 

The way I read the OP, if the fence wasn’t there, the player would have taken a straight shot to the green and the fence wouldn’t interfere with his swing or stance. 
 

But the fence is there. If he swings straight to the green, the fence still

doesn’t interfere with the player’s swing or stance, but the ball is going to hit the fence. It’s not a smart play. 
 

So the player needs to, reasonably, change his direction of play to avoid the fence. That change of direction brought interference by the fence. Since it was reasonable to play that direction, free relief for the player. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 minute ago, Newby said:

Are either of the below appropriate?

 

• When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as when a player is standing in temporary water or on an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush), or 

• When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

 

No. The ball was playable as it lies.

 

• Playing directly at the green would be difficult to make a good stroke due to the small tree, but not unreasonable. Playing in a different direction (as necessitated due to the fence) was an easily playable shot if not for the fence being an immovable obstruction. It was in light rough with some clearance around it, not deep in a bush or anything like that. 
• His intent to punch out to the fairway was not an unreasonable stroke or direction if he needed to play out around the fence (as he did), nor stance nor club suggestion, etc. 

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What I tried to say is that the player must omit the obstruction (= IO) from his mind and think what would be his stroke if it was not there. Meaning any tree, rock or any natural thing or integral object would be the only things to guide his choice. And THEN if the IO interferes with his stroke he will be granted relief.

 

Still confused. So let me see if I can rephrase.

 

1. Take the small tree out of the equation. We're going to assume he has a lie and stance and swing path that would allow him to go directly at the green absent the existence of the fence. 
2. If the fence did not exist, he would naturally choose to advance the ball towards the green. He has enough clearance swinging that direction that the fence does not impede his stance or swing.
3. Since he would go towards the green absent the fence, turning towards the fairway because of the fence does not grant him relief if the fence now interferes.

Is that accurate? 

 

[Newby]

48 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

Still confused. So let me see if I can rephrase.

 

1. Take the small tree out of the equation. We're going to assume he has a lie and stance and swing path that would allow him to go directly at the green absent the existence of the fence. 
2. If the fence did not exist, he would naturally choose to advance the ball towards the green. He has enough clearance swinging that direction that the fence does not impede his stance or swing.
3. Since he would go towards the green absent the fence, turning towards the fairway because of the fence does not grant him relief if the fence now interferes.

Is that accurate? 

 

You said initially that his "intent with the original lie was to punch to the fairway "

If the fence was not there, could he have got anywhere near the green? What was the probability? Was his lie such that playing towards the fairway was not an unreasonable stroke to make given that it might have had a more favourable outcome for his next shot to the green.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Newby

[david.c.w]

I thought the original issue was that there was a tree in the way, so the reasonable play was sideways, causing the interference.  However later in the discussion it seems the fence is also in the path between the ball and the green.  Shouldn't this by default provide relief?

 

 

 

 

[Newby]

5 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But due to the net obstructing the line to the green, the only acceptable play was to punch it back to the fairway. He said that's what he planned to do. From that angle, his swing was impeded by the vertical metal support pole of the net. Free relief, right? 

 

Taking relief allowed him to move his ball far enough away from the net that it no longer obstructed his line to the green, so he could play directly at the green. I told him that was free relief because his intent with the original lie was to punch to the fairway and he was getting relief from the immovable obstruction, and it was just a really lucky outcome of the rules for him. 

 

Correct? 

Just reread the words in bold. I'm a bit confused.

Does the fence only obstruct this line of play or does it interfere with his stroke when aiming for the green?

[betarhoalphadelta]

Sorry if I was unclear. Sometimes it is difficult to get things across in writing.

 

• Along the line from the ball to the green, the fence is in the way. The tree was be behind the ball along that line but close enough to the ball such that it impeded his ability to make a normal backswing. The tree was NOT in between the ball and the green. The fence obstructs his line. The tree interferes with his backswing / follow through. 
• Without the fence in the way, the question of whether the ball could be advanced towards the green is unclear, but I believe it would be reasonable. The lie of the ball was fine, but the tree behind the ball impacting the backswing would make it difficult to really get a club on the ball nicely. However he was only maybe 40 yards from the green, so it's possible that punching it forward toward the green might be a more statistically advantageous play than punching it back into the fairway and still being 40 yards from the green. Either way, I wouldn't say that advancing the ball toward the green was a de facto unreasonable play. Even if it only went 25 yards, it may still be his best option.

[betarhoalphadelta]

[betarhoalphadelta]

Sorry the pic is rotated, but this is what it looks like. Note that the ball is the dot slightly off the fence. The dots along the fenceline are the support poles. 

 

The ball rests close to the fence, and because of the design of the fence, you can't go directly from the location of the ball to the green. As you can see, there is a small tree just "behind" the ball, through the line drawn from the flag. That tree could cause issues advancing the ball by interfering with backswing and follow through. But it's possible that absent the fence, it could be advanced, that being the most reasonable or highest odds scoring play. The tree being a natural object, of course, no relief is warranted. 

 

There is another small tree at the corner of the fence that means that you can't play the ball parallel to the fence--the only way to safety is actually slightly backwards. This means that when he rotated his stance to play back to the fairway, the pole supporting the fence was now directly in his backswing. Hence it's an immovable obstruction which would [ordinarily] allow free relief. 

 

The question is whether it's right that he obtained free relief?

 

[nsxguy]

47 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Sorry the pic is rotated, but this is what it looks like. Note that the ball is the dot slightly off the fence. The dots along the fenceline are the support poles. 

 

The ball rests close to the fence, and because of the design of the fence, you can't go directly from the location of the ball to the green. As you can see, there is a small tree just "behind" the ball, through the line drawn from the flag. That tree could cause issues advancing the ball by interfering with backswing and follow through. But it's possible that absent the fence, it could be advanced, that being the most reasonable or highest odds scoring play. The tree being a natural object, of course, no relief is warranted. 

 

There is another small tree at the corner of the fence that means that you can't play the ball parallel to the fence--the only way to safety is actually slightly backwards. This means that when he rotated his stance to play back to the fairway, the pole supporting the fence was now directly in his backswing. Hence it's an immovable obstruction which would [ordinarily] allow free relief. 

 

The question is whether it's right that he obtained free relief?

 

 

OK, let me see if I've got this right. Though I must confess I've seen better drawings. 🙃

 

Not being able to play toward the green is irrelevant. As far as I can tell neither tree is relevant.

 

The shot slightly backwards to the fairway, IMO, IS reasonable. And THIS is the key.

 

So if the fence impedes the player's stance or swing for that particular shot, he gets relief. Full stop.

 

Once he takes relief, he is then allowed to change his mind and take a different route/shot.

 

I think I've got that right.

 

 

[antip]

I suggest the discussion is complicating this issue more than need be. This is about whether 16.1a(3) prevents relief in this situation. And the criteria is whether something other than the IO prevents a reasonable stroke. And that is not the case here. The IO itself is preventing a reasonable stroke in the circumstances - a stroke punched sideways towards the fairway. So relief is fine, and the fact that such relief fortuitously takes the IO out of the way of a direct stroke to the green is not relevant.

Edited August 1, 2022 by antip
typo

[betarhoalphadelta]

Thanks guys. I believe @Mr. Bean is in Europe and was the only one that I believe looked at this and had statements that made me think this relief wasn't warranted. So when he wakes up perhaps he can clarify if he still thinks there are problems. 

 

[Colin L]

The entire situation would be avoided if MLR 8E-6 which allows line of play relief from a protective fence were adopted.

[nsxguy]

58 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Thanks guys. I believe @Mr. Bean is in Europe and was the only one that I believe looked at this and had statements that made me think this relief wasn't warranted. So when he wakes up perhaps he can clarify if he still thinks there are problems. 

 

 

For future reference Mr Bean is in Finland and is up all night.

 

And antip is "down under".

 

Truly a world-wide forum.

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Thanks guys. I believe @Mr. Bean is in Europe and was the only one that I believe looked at this and had statements that made me think this relief wasn't warranted. So when he wakes up perhaps he can clarify if he still thinks there are problems. 

 

 

I did not take a stand whether relief is warranted, I was only trying to give you guidance how to solve the puzzle.

 

Btw, to keep things more simple and to get the answer quicker, next time draw the picture first 😎

[antip]

7 hours ago, Colin L said:

The entire situation would be avoided if MLR 8E-6 which allows line of play relief from a protective fence were adopted.

True, but I think that MLR is intended for selective use. 

 

[Newby]

33 minutes ago, antip said:

True, but I think that MLR is intended for selective use. 

 

Assuming the fence is to protect players on the 11th tee (see diagram), I would say the MLR would be fully justified.

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, antip said:

True, but I think that MLR is intended for selective use. 

 

Indeed so, but the OP was talking about a large fence protecting the 11th tee.  

[Imp]

It would come down to what the club calls the fence. MOST (but not all) call them (old terminology) artificial obstructions and you can move the ball away from them. Example from a local course... (which has drop areas for them)

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Imp

[Colin L]

51 minutes ago, Imp said:

It would come down to what the club calls the fence. MOST (but not all) call them (old terminology) artificial obstructions and you can move the ball away from them. Example from a local course... (which has drop areas for them)

 

 

 

Hmmm.  Given the other  "local rules" on this card, I wouldn't infer the legitimacy  of the one about the fence on the 7th.  😲 😃  It bears scant resemblance to the MLR. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I did not take a stand whether relief is warranted, I was only trying to give you guidance how to solve the puzzle.

 

Btw, to keep things more simple and to get the answer quicker, next time draw the picture first 😎

 

Thanks! Probably should have done that!

 

-----------

 

BTW I happened to have a printed scorecard in my pushcart, and there are no local rules printed. Also none on the course's web site. So I'll assume that there is no automatic "line of play" relief granted. 

[Imp]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Hmmm.  Given the other  "local rules" on this card, I wouldn't infer the legitimacy  of the one about the fence on the 7th.  😲 😃  It bears scant resemblance to the MLR. 

Yes, it's an old card, hinted by "old terminology", point being "what does the card say" Only one I could find quickly online that I know has fences near tee boxes to use as an 'example'.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Imp

[szaino]

19 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

1. Take the small tree out of the equation. We're going to assume he has a lie and stance and swing path that would allow him to go directly at the green absent the existence of the fence. 
2. If the fence did not exist, he would naturally choose to advance the ball towards the green. He has enough clearance swinging that direction that the fence does not impede his stance or swing.
3. Since he would go towards the green absent the fence, turning towards the fairway because of the fence does not grant him relief if the fence now interferes.

Is that accurate? 

 

 

You need to initially look at this differently- instead of taking the tree out of the equation, you need to take the fence out of the equation. In other words what would the player do if the fence wasn't there. This becomes  "...your area of intended stance or area of intended swing..." Based upon what you said and your drawing, the player may possibly have a shot towards or left or right of the green depending upon how the swing is effected by the tree behind the ball ( which is just part of the course). 

 

It is from this situation that you decide what a reasonable shot would be and whether you get free relief from the fence.