Immovable obstruction relief

[Colin L]

It may be of interest to show you an approved local rule providing line of play relief from a protective fence:

 

Protective Fence at the 4th tee                               

If the fence intervenes on your line of play, you may drop a ball in the nearest Dropping Zone without penalty unless

• the original ball is further from the hole than the higher Dropping Zone;
• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;
• it would not be possible to reach the fence with the shot; or
• anything else makes a stroke impossible.

Rule 14.7a

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

54 minutes ago, szaino said:

 

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.  

 

That hypothetical (taking the tree out) was meant to better understand @Mr. Bean's questions.

 

I.e. if the fence wasn't there and the tree weren't there, the automatic answer would be to go for the green. If the fence wasn't there and the tree was there, the tree may interfere with backswing but it would still potentially be possible and potentially be the most advantageous play to go for the green. Because playing towards the green wasn't clearly unreasonable with the tree there, I removed it from the situation as an irrelevant factor. 

 

The implication would be that if the fence weren't there, then playing on the line of play towards the green would also not cause interference with the stance or swing. Playing towards the green, the fence is not an immovable obstruction which would allow relief. But with the fence there, playing on the line of play towards the green is frankly unreasonable. The only reasonable line of play is away from the fence back to the fairway. On *that* line of play, the fence *does* interfere with the stance or swing, and my understanding is that it would be an immovable obstruction allowing free relief on that line of play. 

 

Hence my confusion on what you're supposed to do if "assume the fence isn't there" gives you a different line of play than the fence existing. If you *must* assume that your line of play is at the green in the absence of the fence (which is not interfering with stance or swing on that line of play and thus is an obstacle, not meeting the definition of immovable obstruction at this time) is the only line of play which would allow free relief, then you don't get relief. If you take into account the existence of the fence as an obstacle, which changes your line of play away from the fence, and *then* it meets the definition of an immovable obstruction interfering with your stance or swing on your new line of play, then you should get relief. 

 

So here's how I understand it...

 

1. The fence is an obstacle to a customary line of play towards the green, but is by definition not an immovable obstruction on that line of play. So you assume it is there when planning your shot. 
2. Because of existence of the fence, your line of play is away from the fence. You take your setup and note that the fence now interferes with your line of play. It has now *become* an immovable obstruction. 
3. You now ask yourself, "if this immovable obstruction wasn't interfering with my stance or swing, would I still be playing out to the fairway on this line"? It's not assuming the "fence" doesn't exist, it's assuming that the "immovable obstruction" did not interfere. I.e. if the fence were two feet farther back from you on that line and not interfering, would you still be playing to the fairway instead of the green? The answer is yes. 
4. Therefore, you are entitled to free relief. 

 

Correct?

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

It may be of interest to show you an approved local rule providing line of play relief from a protective fence:

 

Protective Fence at the 4th tee                               

If the fence intervenes on your line of play, you may drop a ball in the nearest Dropping Zone without penalty unless

• the original ball is further from the hole than the higher Dropping Zone;
• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;
• it would not be possible to reach the fence with the shot; or
• anything else makes a stroke impossible.

Rule 14.7a

 

And another

 

DROPPING ZONES

Hole 1

During play of this hole, if either of the fences protecting the Ebor Way or the Halfway House is on a player's line of play:

•             The player may take free relief by dropping a ball in and playing it from the relevant designated dropping zone.

•             But this relief is allowed only if the ball is in play nearer the hole than where the dropping zone is located.

[tatertot]

Does this line mean "no free drop" ... or did I misread something?

 

• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;

[Newby]

This is now posted on one of the fences. 

The green is in the far distance to the RHS of the picture

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

Does this line mean "no free drop" ... or did I misread something?

 

 

• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;

 

Yes, it does.

[antip]

11 hours ago, Colin L said:

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

We would need more info than just protecting a tee, issues of proximity to and which part of the hole in play are all part of it. Of course, you understand all this, I just didn't want any reader think there was a simple means of avoiding to the issue via MLR.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

11 minutes ago, antip said:

We would need more info than just protecting a tee, issues of proximity to and which part of the hole in play are all part of it. Of course, you understand all this, I just didn't want any reader think there was a simple means of avoiding to the issue via MLR.

 

 

Either way, I see nothing on the scorecard nor on the course web site that suggests there is an MLR granting free relief from line of play interference due to this fence/net. So although that *could* be an option for some courses, there is no evidence it's available for my course. 

 

4 hours ago, tatertot said:

Does this line mean "no free drop" ... or did I misread something?

 

 

• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;

 

To expand upon Mr Bean, if there are extenuating circumstances that make playing over the fence towards the hole (for that course/situation, not for mine) unreasonable, then there is no relief. 

 

I.e. let's say your ball is in the middle of a giant bush, and you can't put a club on it. You don't get free line of play relief because there's no way that you could play the ball anyway. 

[Fwitz11]

It seems like intent here is one of the issues. But so far as I know, intent is not a factor in determining the free relief to an obstruction and it’s results.

[wadesworld]

On 8/2/2022 at 10:27 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

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. 

 

Not having local rules on the scorecard is common.  Some courses have them posted on a bulletin board in the clubhouse.  Many you just have to ask. During tournaments they should either have them posted or hand out conditions of competition sheets with them listed.

[antip]

On 8/3/2022 at 4:00 AM, tatertot said:

Does this line mean "no free drop" ... or did I misread something?

 

 

• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;

These bolded words do not necessarily prevent free relief. If it is a reasonable stroke to play in another direction because the line to the hole is blocked by a fence, and that reasonable stroke has lie, stance or swing interference with the fence, then free relief is available. See Rule 16.1a(3). 

 

 

[antip]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:28 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

That hypothetical (taking the tree out) was meant to better understand @Mr. Bean's questions.

 

I.e. if the fence wasn't there and the tree weren't there, the automatic answer would be to go for the green. If the fence wasn't there and the tree was there, the tree may interfere with backswing but it would still potentially be possible and potentially be the most advantageous play to go for the green. Because playing towards the green wasn't clearly unreasonable with the tree there, I removed it from the situation as an irrelevant factor. 

 

The implication would be that if the fence weren't there, then playing on the line of play towards the green would also not cause interference with the stance or swing. Playing towards the green, the fence is not an immovable obstruction which would allow relief. But with the fence there, playing on the line of play towards the green is frankly unreasonable. The only reasonable line of play is away from the fence back to the fairway. On *that* line of play, the fence *does* interfere with the stance or swing, and my understanding is that it would be an immovable obstruction allowing free relief on that line of play. 

 

Hence my confusion on what you're supposed to do if "assume the fence isn't there" gives you a different line of play than the fence existing. If you *must* assume that your line of play is at the green in the absence of the fence (which is not interfering with stance or swing on that line of play and thus is an obstacle, not meeting the definition of immovable obstruction at this time) is the only line of play which would allow free relief, then you don't get relief. If you take into account the existence of the fence as an obstacle, which changes your line of play away from the fence, and *then* it meets the definition of an immovable obstruction interfering with your stance or swing on your new line of play, then you should get relief. 

 

So here's how I understand it...

 

1. The fence is an obstacle to a customary line of play towards the green, but is by definition not an immovable obstruction on that line of play. So you assume it is there when planning your shot. 
2. Because of existence of the fence, your line of play is away from the fence. You take your setup and note that the fence now interferes with your line of play. It has now *become* an immovable obstruction. 
3. You now ask yourself, "if this immovable obstruction wasn't interfering with my stance or swing, would I still be playing out to the fairway on this line"? It's not assuming the "fence" doesn't exist, it's assuming that the "immovable obstruction" did not interfere. I.e. if the fence were two feet farther back from you on that line and not interfering, would you still be playing to the fairway instead of the green? The answer is yes. 
4. Therefore, you are entitled to free relief. 

 

Correct?

3 and 4 are correct. The language of 1 and 2 mistakenly suggests the definition of an immovable obstruction depends on how it relates to your shot. That is incorrect. An immovable fence is an immovable obstruction, period. At issue is not whether it is an immovable obstruction, it is whether you are entitled to any relief.

[tatertot]

8 hours ago, antip said:

These bolded words do not necessarily prevent free relief. If it is a reasonable stroke to play in another direction because the line to the hole is blocked by a fence, and that reasonable stroke has lie, stance or swing interference with the fence, then free relief is available. See Rule 16.1a(3). 

 

 

But in the case of this thread ... which we have been discussing ... the OP clearly said he could not play towards the hole.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, tatertot said:

But in the case of this thread ... which we have been discussing ... the OP clearly said he could not play towards the hole.

Was that because the line of play or line of sight was blocked or because his stroke or stance was affected?

[Colin L]

• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;

To be clear, this is one of the conditions in our local rule that precludes relief from line of play intervention by the protective fence as provided by the local rule.  It has nothing to do with relief from interference to stance or area of intended swing by the fence as an immovable obstruction which is covered by Rule 16.

 

The reason for the exclusion is a tree.  This clause prevents a player who finds the tree directly between his ball and the hole from getting out of that by getting relief from intervention by the fence to a shot he couldn't make.  

[antip]

9 hours ago, tatertot said:

But in the case of this thread ... which we have been discussing ... the OP clearly said he could not play towards the hole.

Whether you can play towards the hole is not the issue in resolving whether there is relief from an immovable obstruction. It is all about whether a reasonable stroke from the position of the ball has interference with the obstruction. What precludes relief is if something other than the obstruction prevents a stroke - so it is clearly unreasonable to play the ball because of something other than the obstruction - or any interference occurs only because the player is choosing a club, stance, swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable. 

[tatertot]

1 hour ago, antip said:

Whether you can play towards the hole is not the issue in resolving whether there is relief from an immovable obstruction. It is all about whether a reasonable stroke from the position of the ball has interference with the obstruction. What precludes relief is if something other than the obstruction prevents a stroke - so it is clearly unreasonable to play the ball because of something other than the obstruction - or any interference occurs only because the player is choosing a club, stance, swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable. 

This is not that hard to understand ... read the local rule below which is what we are talking about:

Protective Fence at the 4th tee                               

If the fence intervenes on your line of play, you may drop a ball in the nearest Dropping Zone without penalty unless

• the original ball is further from the hole than the higher Dropping Zone;
• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;
• it would not be possible to reach the fence with the shot; or
• anything else makes a stroke impossible.

 

 

 

 

[tatertot]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

Was that because the line of play or line of sight was blocked or because his stroke or stance was affected?

This was part of the OP ...

 

 To aim at the green, his swing would be impeded by a small tree. Obviously no relief there.

[antip]

23 minutes ago, tatertot said:

This is not that hard to understand ... read the local rule below which is what we are talking about:

Protective Fence at the 4th tee                               

If the fence intervenes on your line of play, you may drop a ball in the nearest Dropping Zone without penalty unless

• the original ball is further from the hole than the higher Dropping Zone;
• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;
• it would not be possible to reach the fence with the shot; or
• anything else makes a stroke impossible.

 

 

 

 

And this is not that hard to understand ... not everyone is reading a specific post that has only one key line and associate that line with something that was posted earlier that was not referenced in the post. These things bounce all over the place and then get readers get the wrong idea about the rules. I did not want anyone to misunderstand the way the key rule being discussed in this thread actually works.

That local rule only works in the context of the incredibly specific physical features of the 4th hole at whatever course it is. It makes no sense anywhere else and can be utterly misleading if anyone thinks it has broader currency.

[antip]

30 minutes ago, tatertot said:

This was part of the OP ...

 

 To aim at the green, his swing would be impeded by a small tree. Obviously no relief there.

I agree it was very clear, there was no relief for a stroke direct to the green. Tree is not a free relief. But when the fence means the stroke to the green is not a sensible stroke in that situation that is all irrelevant. If the reasonable stroke is sideways and the sideways stroke has interference with the fence (for swing or stance) then the player gets relief for that sideways stroke. 

[denkea]

10 hours ago, antip said:

I agree it was very clear, there was no relief for a stroke direct to the green. Tree is not a free relief. But when the fence means the stroke to the green is not a sensible stroke in that situation that is all irrelevant. If the reasonable stroke is sideways and the sideways stroke has interference with the fence (for swing or stance) then the player gets relief for that sideways stroke. 

Antip.  Saw this on youtube the other day.  Do you consider this to be a valid option for cart path, ball, swing and tree? 

 

 

[david.c.w]

19 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

• it is unreasonable to make a stroke on a direct line to the hole;

To be clear, this is one of the conditions in our local rule that precludes relief from line of play intervention by the protective fence as provided by the local rule.  It has nothing to do with relief from interference to stance or area of intended swing by the fence as an immovable obstruction which is covered by Rule 16.

 

The reason for the exclusion is a tree.  This clause prevents a player who finds the tree directly between his ball and the hole from getting out of that by getting relief from intervention by the fence to a shot he couldn't make.  

 

If the tree in OP's scenario was directly between the ball and hole, but if he aimed a little right and could still get on the green, but the fence is now in play, is there relief available?  Imagine he is just 100 yards away, but the pin is tucked way left over some water.  Regardless of the tree the correct play would be to the center or right of the green.  There is for sure a possibility that the tree would not interfere with this stroke, but now a TIO is interfering with that shot.

[Imp]

23 minutes ago, denkea said:

Antip.  Saw this on youtube the other day.  Do you consider this to be a valid option for cart path, ball, swing and tree? 

 

 

At 0:19 he says "I can still advance this ball no problem". Well, wouldn't that deny their relief options?

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 hours ago, tatertot said:

This was part of the OP ...

 

 To aim at the green, his swing would be impeded by a small tree. Obviously no relief there.

 

I did clarify later that the tree doesn't prevent a stroke at the green, only makes it more difficult. 

 

My buddy couldn't play towards the hole due the fence being in the way, not due to the tree interfering. 

 

I think there is also some confusion in that someone else posited a course which allows line of play relief from a fence--that is not the case at my course, so any of the conditions stated regarding line of play relief (i.e. it being unreasonable to take a stroke toward the green therefore preventing line of play relief) is moot because no line of play relief is offered at my course. 

 

[antip]

47 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

 

If the tree in OP's scenario was directly between the ball and hole, but if he aimed a little right and could still get on the green, but the fence is now in play, is there relief available?  Imagine he is just 100 yards away, but the pin is tucked way left over some water.  Regardless of the tree the correct play would be to the center or right of the green.  There is for sure a possibility that the tree would not interfere with this stroke, but now a TIO is interfering with that shot.

TIOs are basically used only on the tours and are not relevant to this thread.

[antip]

1 hour ago, denkea said:

Antip.  Saw this on youtube the other day.  Do you consider this to be a valid option for cart path, ball, swing and tree? 

 

 

This is all good from my perspective. This guy is knowledgeable.

[david.c.w]

1 minute ago, antip said:

TIOs are basically used only on the tours and are not relevant to this thread.

 

Sorry, consider the same question with OP's fence.  

[antip]

36 minutes ago, Imp said:

At 0:19 he says "I can still advance this ball no problem". Well, wouldn't that deny their relief options?

The test is whether the proposed stroke is reasonable, not whether it is the only alternative. I, too, would be playing a stroke there left handed, even if no cart path. And that is a useful guidance tool - what would you do in the absence of the cart path, ACC etc.

[antip]

1 minute ago, david.c.w said:

 

Sorry, consider the same question with OP's fence.  

There's no relief for line of play interference only.

[david.c.w]

29 minutes ago, antip said:

There's no relief for line of play interference only.

 

So the definition is line to the hole, not line to the green?  Or line of reasonable, intended play? 

Edited August 5, 2022 by david.c.w