[Dave_Miller]

 
I think this all boils down to the fact that material piled for removal is just different than other GUR, and the general proposition that the rules treat stuff that you can remove differently than stuff that you can't -- and it's really that simple, even if the USGA never specifically drafted the rules to contemplate this scenario!

One of the things we keep seeming to overlook in all this that GUR or not the branches piled or lying there are still loose impediments.  Even if the ruling was not GUR he could still remove the branches.  But the ball cannot move as Ernie will tell you.
Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

"Then JohnV alluded to the definition of GUR, and the stuff about "vertically downward" and the grass and other stuff "within" the GUR, and I flip-flopped and jumped to the hasty conclusion that the grass beneath material piled for removal is part of the GUR.

DaveS:

The grass underneath the GUR (the "condition" of the material piled for removal) is part of the GUR and extends vertically downward but not upward. This interepetation is ONLY for the purposes of establishing the area of relief from where GUR IS apparently (according to the rules guru)!

But if the GUR is no longer there after the player goes to drop his ball since he's removed it as he's allowed to do under Rule 23 BEFORE he drops it obviously there is no longer any relevence to the GUR area for the ball to be in play other than the NPR and Rule 20-2c.

Again, you're getting too caught up on this grass under the GUR thing for the purposes of the drop and ultimately the ball being in play. That grass is only for determining the relief part of Rule 25 to establish the NPR.

[TEPaul]

Dave:

That's about all there is on this hypothetical, in my opinion.

But when you said this above;

"Thus, once the pile is removed under Rule 23, it would be permissible to drop where the pile was (assuming it's w/in 1 club of the NPR)"

When I mention "drop" I mean that part of the course which the ball first strikes when the player releases it at arm's length. I don't know whether there's a distinction here with what you said but it sounds like it. It sounds like you think the ball can strike the course first at a spot inside where the GUR was before the player removed it if that spot is within one-club length of the NPR. I don't think so. I think the rules expert is saying the ball MUST strike a part of the course within one club-length OUTSIDE the GUR. That's what consitutes the NPR of avoiding interference by the condition BEFORE it was removed. If the ball first hit the ground within one club length of the NPR INSIDE that area it would not be a legitimate drop.

[TEPaul]

"One of the things we keep seeming to overlook in all this that GUR or not the branches piled or lying there are still loose impediments.  Even if the ruling was not GUR he could still remove the branches.  But the ball cannot move as Ernie will tell you."

DaveM:

I don't think we're overlooking that at all and certainly not since the rules expert said that in these relief situations involving LIs Rule 23 is absolute. But obviously we can see that Ernie Els either forgot that or didn't realize it or clearly he wouldn't have been fooling with that branch BEFORE he got into calling three different rules officials to consider deeming that branch GUR!  

[TEPaul]

Dave:

You think what the rules expert said sounds like "goofey talk"?? How about what you just said there in that last post?!!   I have no real idea what you're trying to say or mince there.

Just look at it this way if you didn't realize this. Often, in rules applications various situations as they apply to various rules are considered separate situations unto themselves with a beginning point and ending point within an ultimate resolution. These guys apply them that way and don't jumble all possible rules as they might affect the ultimate outcome together. You saw what he said there about "items" and "properties" of various situations--that's probably what he's talking about here of using the original GUR boundaries to establish the NPR and then using that reference point for the drop even if the GUR is not longer there. Do you notice how he mentions both "equity"  and commonsense when these items and properties show no precedence about what should come first?

This probably isn't all that different from a situation where you have a drop away from an immovable obstruction and that lands you with a proper drop in casual water. You do the one first and then the second separately and second, you don't just jumble them together, although in some circumstances you actually can if it's obvious and makes commonsense.

But if I'm reading correctly what he's saying about this hypothetical of yours the spot you think you can drop is not the correct one. You have to use the reference point of the NPR just as it existed before the GUR was removed. The reason, again, he uses, is equity. And he's the guy who writes a lot of these rules so if you don't agree with him the only thing to do is to write the Joint USGA/R&A Rules Committee and appeal it to them---but I don't think that'll work well as he's one of the guys who'll review your appeal. And if he's the one who instructs you to do it this way on the course you better do it his way, not your way unless you like penalties.

What he said makes perfect sense to me although at first I wouldn't have expected Rule 25 to be so controlled in this situation by Rule 23, but I can see now why it is---and matter of fact vice versa---how the Rule 25 GUR reference point controls even when the GUR has been removed.

[John_Cullum]

I'm going to disagree with the Guru, for this reason:

" Let's say the player lifts, determines NPR, removes the pile, then drops w/in 1 clublength of NPR and it rolls into where the pile was (and within 2 clublengths of the spot where it first hit the course).  And the lie SUCKS! I can TOTALLY envision a guy like Els now trying to have it both ways and claiming that the drop was no good because it rolled into an area where he hasn't taken full relief, and wanting another one."
D. Schmidt

It always helps me to consider extreme results when analyzing these sorts of things. I'll bet the Guru didn't think about that, and if he had he might go with the other 5. the most failsafe way to get this player moving along is to treat the gras, soil dead bugs, and every thing else as part of the GUR and take COMPLETE RELIEF. I think this horse is now sufficiently beaten.

[TEPaul]

Sarge:

What is that last post all about? Where did DaveS say that about Els coming up with the fact his lie sucked and wanting to do something else? And why would you say, in that case this should be interpreted such and such?

He can't do that--not unless he WANTs to get penalized. You had some very knowledgeable rules officials right there who just aren't going to let him do that and if he tried anyway in contravention of what they're telling him to do--BOOM--he's going to get penalized for not doing what he's been told to do.

I'm not sure what's going on here---whether this discussion is just speculating about what the correct ruling and procedure may be (that's what I thought this discussion was and should be) or if some on this thread actually are assuming that their opinion is the way it's going to be done on course no matter what the rules officials and particularly the guys who interpret and write the rules have to say about it. This rules expert is one of the guys who both interprets and writes the Rules of Golf. He's part of the Joint USGA/R&A Rules of Golf Committee that does that.

Some may not agree with what he appears to have said here but he is one of those that is the last word on these kinds of situations and how they're interpreted and applied. The only way he's going to be wrong about the way this will be is if he didn't understand the question in the first place which of course is possible and that's why those guys don't really like dealing in rules questions that are hypotheticals.

[John_Cullum]

TPaul

Dave's post #71 is my source. I cut and pasted it.

I don't understand alot of your last post, but you may want to consider that the guru said this was a very close call, and the committee would vote 7-5 one way or the other.

Like he says, there is no right or wrong here.

Tom, you are very much a mystery to me.

[TEPaul]

"I don't understand alot of your last post, but you may want to consider that the guru said this was a very close call, and the committee would vote 7-5 one way or the other.

Like he says, there is no right or wrong here.

Tom, you are very much a mystery to me."

Sarge:

I missed that remark by DaveS in post #71. But if that's the way he thinks it works out there he's not very familiar with the way rules officials, particularly good ones that work tournaments with professionals, certainly like the Masters, work!

I don't know why I'm such a mystery to you. I'm just trying to explain the way the Rules of Golf and tournament officiating really works and that remark by the rules guru is really enlightening and the absolute truth.

That's the way the Rules of Golf work both on-course and the way they come to be interpreted in the Joint Rules of golf Committee of the USGA/R&A. Those rules interpreters and writers never try to define every single possibility under the sun (they even have a well known saying for trying to do that very thing--and the futility of it!). They purposely don't do that in the written rules just so they can interpret on course.

Everyone should read Tuft's "Principles Behind the Rules of Golf". He say that specifically in that little book which is the USGA's backup logic bible. If it were otherwise he said the rules and the decisions would fill a library after a while.

DaveS said not long ago he can't understand why rules logic needs to be a part of golf rules officiating. I can't imagine why he says such a thing. Maybe he thinks the Rules of Golf should be more like civil or criminal law with all their statutes and so forth which he might think are so precisely written by lawyers.

But then what do we all need judges for if all that is so clear to all of us?  Rules officials are to GAME of golf what judges are to the laws of our lands.

[A_Clay_Man]

Dave, It's getting a bit confusing, but to clarify:

In the hypothetical, If Will N. had been carry white spray paint, and circled the area, the hypothetical would be moot, correct?

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt said;

"I can TOTALLY envision a guy like Els now trying to have it both ways and claiming that the drop was no good because it rolled into an area where he hasn't taken full relief, and wanting another one."

DaveS:

What's the problem here? Is this about taking the correct drop using the proper procedure under Rule 25 and 20 or is this about 'a guy like Els'? Els isn't getting anything both ways--he and the rules official are simply going to look to see if his drop is a good one under Rule 2--2c(v). Whether Els likes the drop or thinks it sucks has nothing to do with it---the drop is either a good one under rule 20 and if not he must redrop under Rule 20-6.

Sarge said;

"It always helps me to consider extreme results when analyzing these sorts of things. I'll bet the Guru didn't think about that, and if he had he might go with the other 5. the most failsafe way to get this player moving along is to treat the gras, soil dead bugs, and every thing else as part of the GUR and take COMPLETE RELIEF."

Sarge:

Why would you say you bet the rules guru didn't think of that? Do you suppose he doesn't completely understand how rules 20, 23 and 25 work under various relief situations?

[ForkaB]

Dave

Give up the ghost.  As max Behr once said when asked if anybody othe than himself was capable of commenting on GCA:

"Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is to but to do and play it as it lie."

Max was always fond of the subjunctive.......

[TEPaul]

DaveS:

It looks to me like you pretty much laid out the procedure the rules guru appears to have stated as what he feels is the proper one. I'm not that clear what it is you don't understand about it.

1. GUR interference is established (Rule 25).
2. GUR NPR relief is established before removal of any LIs (GUR) (Rule 25)
3. Rule 23 allows removal of all or part of the GUR LIs before drop.
4. All or part of LIs (GUR) are removed (Rule 23)
5. Pre-GUR removal drop spot and zone used (Rule 25)
6. Rule 20-2c is lift and drop procedure used as it must be in all lift and drop or place situations.
7. If drop complies with Pre-GUR removal drop spot (Rule 25) and entire drop procedure under 20-2c is good, ball is in play. If not redrop under Rule 20-6 is necessary.

[TEPaul]

"...and a dropped ball's position in the area of where the debris was (A) does not avoid interference by the condition (Rule 25)"

Dave:

It DOES avoid interference by the condition because the condition (or the part of it where the dropped ball conforms to Rule 20-2c dropping procedure) no longer exists! The player has removed it after lifting his ball and before dropping it.

"but (B) is not a position where there is interference by the condition (Rule 20)."

Yes, see above!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()