[Dave_Miller]

The joke of the situation with Els is that the material had been removed and was set in the wood (15-20 yards) out of sight and likely out of mind. In my mind the materials in questions had been "removed." Does anyone in his right mind believe they would have further removed the materials and sent them to South Carolina?  

Matt:
You can continue to disagree all you want.  Your opinion doesn't count and theirs' does .
Regardless of where it is piled it could be 50 or 100 yards into the woods.  It is the intention and if it was piled for removal he gets relief. No matter what any of us think we cannot know what the ANGC had truly decided to do with those branches.  
Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

DaveS:

Regarding that post of yours above there's sort of an old saying or maybe more like a rule of thumb amongst really good rules people (like a Joe Dey or PJ Boatwright) and also with the USGA Rules Committee (obviously the R&A rules committee too).

That saying or rule of thumb basically goes;

"Stay away from the hypotheticals and just deal with the facts of actual situations!"  

And if any of them do ever talk about hypotheticals they never do it around smart word-mincing lawyers from Chicago!

It's just not worth it! Did you know, by the way, that virtually every decision in the book emanates from an actual situation that happened somewhere (and these days almost always in the jurisdiction of the regulatory body--ie USGA in its purview and the R&A in its purview.

If you look carefully through the decisions book occasionally you come across a situation cited where the answer to the question (most all decisions are questions and answers) which basically says "this situation is not contemplated".

So I'm afraid I have to tell you that the answer to your hypothecial situation in that post above is;

"This situations is not contemplated within the Rules of Golf".

If ever some golfer is creative or crazy enough to try what you cited in a serious tournament, then perhaps at that point the rules of golf and those people responsible for them will contemplate it and have something to say about it!

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Shivas -

I can't find it in the rules, but I think that ground under repair is just that, and that the course does not need golfers doing the repairs!  I can just see it now . . .

Shivas - "Well, now that I've taken my drop, I'm just going to mosey on back the offending pile of shit which has been piled for removal and move it around to my liking."

Rules official - "Hey, while you're at it can you take the whole thing down to the chipper behind the maintenance shed and grind it up? Thanks, bud."

[John_Cullum]

Shivas,
I understand your situation better now. At first it looks logical, but keep in mind you are taking relief from an abnormal GROUND condition, or GROUND under repair. This area has definite margins as defined in the rules.
You are not getting relief from a pile of loose impediments. You are getting relief from an AREA.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas
Well now you have changed the facts. you can drop at the nearest point of relief. Right on top of it. The rules never said you couldn't.
But I read you want to drop basically where your ball was. That would be back in the defined area of GUR.

[TEPaul]

Dave;

I really hate to get into this hypothetical of yours because you might try to take the discussion into pages and parge but it's just not possible to do what you're attempting to do with the way the rules work regardless of what you think the wording of that rule or other rules might mean.

This is why rules officials stick precisely to the applicable or controlling rule and it's precise wording only in various situations and don't start lapsing into all the theoretical possiblities that some golfers might think they see in other rules that are not immediately applicable simply because it's not specifically mentioned in them that the golfer CAN'T do somelthing.

In the situation you cited hypothetically just stick to the wording of the relief procedure of rule 25. It does say you must "avoid interference by the condition" to effectively take relief under rule 25.

That does not mean or imply by the application of some other rule that you can get part of the way through taking rule 25 relief and then just wipe away that condition from which you're taking relief from in the first place. That's why it says you must "avoid interference by the condition"----period, end of story. In these cases that logically means the outside edge of this conditon to establish the NPR.

In a way you're hypothetical probably isn't that much different than the reasons for the "exceptions" to some of these relief rules. Essentially they prevent using these relief rules if another condition exists which would make a stance, swing or stroke unreasonable if that condition from which you're taking relief DID NOT exist.

What you seem to be trying to do is prove somehow that you can get part way through relief and then use the wording in some other rule that doesn't specifically apply to wipe away that condition you're taking relief from altogether.

Again, the wording in Rule 25 "avoid interference by the condition" means exactly what it says, and no less than that!

[John_Cullum]

Shivas
keep in mind that Ground under repair has a specified margin defined in the rules. The margin is determined at the time you qualify for the relief, not when you take the drop. This margin doesn't change because you removed loose impediments from within the margin.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave

Sarge, no, I'm saying that if X is where the condition was and Y is where the NPR is and Z is one clublength, as shown below:
X------Y-------Z
Typically, you drop between Y and Z, right?

You must drop between Y and Z, you cannot drop between X and Y. It's what Sarge and Tom and John have been saying to you.

[TEPaul]

DaveS:

I had a long thread I think that resolved your hypothetical. I just lost my whole post though. Maybe I'll redo it tomorrow.

Basically, I cited a hypothetical of what I think you're referring to which showed how in certain circumstance Els would be using a partial relief procedure to basically avoid any danger of being penalized under Rule 18-2a by using Rule 25 and that just won't fly under the rules, in my opinion.

That's why I think Rule 25 means exactly what it seems to say that the player (must) "Avoid intereference by the CONDITION". This wording just doesn't allow him to wipe away the "conditon" (loose impediments) with the ball in his hand having half used Rule 25.

As to the logic of why this probably isn't and couldn't be allowed just check out Dec 23-1/7 and 23-1/8. You'll see the logic as to why in there, I think, particularly the answer to Dec 23-1/8 when it says; "It would circumvent this Rule (18-2a) if, before a ball is replaced (same thing as dropped under Rule 20), it was permissible to remove loose impediments which affected the player's lie before the ball was lifted. In equity (Rule 1-4), the player should be penalized one stroke (Rule 23, (particularly in 23-1 when it refers to 18-2a) and 18-2a).

Then read the following paragraph in that answer in Dec. 23-1/8 which explains what he should do if in the context of your hypothetical.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas
Why does my post #40 not satisfy you? If it is only because of the rules use of the word "condition", then I'll concede that the rules sometimes should be worded better. I submit the word "condition" is shorthand for an "abnormal ground condition".

Now in your X___Y___Z schematic, a drop between X___Y would put your stance back in the condition (assuming you are right handed) unless you are going to turn around or otherwise change your direction of play, which is OK.

[JohnV]

Dave,

One point to note, Y must be at least as far from the hole as X (Def of NPR).  You can't drop the ball closer to the hole than Y (Rule 25-2b(ii) (and it can't come to rest closer than that point either. (Rule 20-2c(vii)(b))  So, the only time you could drop between X and Y under your scenario is if they were EXACTLY the same distance from the hole.

Even if you can cook up a scenario where that occurs (or there is some other piece of the GUR that isn't closer) the area covered by the branches is "GROUND under repair", not just the branches.  Therefore, if you remove branches and drop there you have not taken complete relief.

Also, if you ask me for a ruling about material such as this, I'm going to tell you where to drop and put a white line around the area so others get the same relief.  I'll tell you where I'm putting that line and you can't drop in there.

[A_Clay_Man]

Dave, Any time taken to remove the "pile, nest or condition" would, and should be viewed as an undue delay. Especially after all this time it undoubtedly took to figure-out what the hell the golfer is gonna do. One other semantic: When does a pile, become a loose impediment? Never, otherwise there would be stance and lie improvement issues. Altering the golf course blah blah blah

[JohnV]

The Rules allow players to choose what they want to take relief from when they have two forms of interference (Decision 25-1b/11-5 ball in Casual Water and GUR), but once you've decided to take relief from one of them, you must take complete relief.  Then if you still have interference from the other you can take relief from it.  So, once you've decided to take relief from the GUR, you must take complete relief.  Then, if you have interference from the other (LIs in this case) you can move them.  And yes you can remove LIs from the area in which you are to drop (or around it), but removing them doesn't change the area where you can drop.

[TEPaul]

"TEP, you seem to be hung up on this notion that you can't just stop your Rule 25 relief procedure halfway and do something else."

Dave:

Yes, I do feel that way but of course depending on what else it is the player may be doing. In the case of your hypothetical it would be removing loose impediments that constitute the "condition" that the rule under which relief is being taken says "interference by must be avoided".

That right there in my mind constitutes a situation that Dec. 23-1/6 does not contemplate. I see nothing about dec. 23-1/6 that indicates the loose impediments that that decsion allows to be removed before a drop would be something like GUR (even if they happen to be loose impediments that fall under rule 23).

You say that there doesn't seem to be anything under rule 23 that disallows removal before a drop and that's true. But Rule 23 is not Rule 25 and surely is not completely synonymous to Rule 25 in everything a player can do and is required to do. As I said yesterday, that expert rules man I mentioned says that as much as possible in rules application individual rules being used in various situations can and do stand on their own! What I think you're doing here is trying to find all kinds of reasons why that might not be so.

"But I would submit to you that Decision 23-1/6, which allows the removal of loose impediments after lifting but before dropping contemplates and allows precisely that!  That decision makes it clear that Rule 23 (which allows removal of loose impediments) applies -- and can be invoked -- right in the middle of a drop procedure!  There is no other way to interpret it cuz' that's exactly the question it answers!"

Again, Rule 23 does allow that but I do not believe that Rule 25 does for the reasons given. It's some pretty creative reasoning you just came up with to basically come to the same conclusion as we have on this hypothetical (using things growing and the fact that GUR extends vertically downward to include grass underneath the "material piled for removal") but I'd be willing to bet that rules theorticians probably never even thought that far into the logic of why that material may not be removed in the process of a Rule 25 drop procedure. To them it's probably pretty simple and basic and again all encompassed under the wording in the relief procedure for Rule 25 (GUR) that says "....the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot the avoids interference by the condition...."

And in your last question to JohnV about moving material a few times---no, in my opinion that would not be allowed under the rules and no official would think to allow that.

As I said yesterday, I could be wrong about some of this logic and what can or can't be done under something like this hypothetical situation but I am willing eventually to go to basically the last word on rules and get an opinion on it. At that point if he disagrees with you and you still want to pursue it you'd basically have to appeal the logic to the Joint USGA/R&A Rules Committee that's responsible for considering and reviewing these types of things if it gets that far which the vast majority of the time it never does for obvious reasons.

[JohnV]

Tom, don't get him started again, he gave up already.

[John_Cullum]

Now the interesting variation that Dave did not touch upon is this.
Take relief from the pile. Determine the nearest point that affords relief for stance and lie of ball, but remove some branches that might interfere with the swing you want to use.

?

[TEPaul]

JohnV;

Ok, I won't get him started again. Although I'm a very fair minded man and a rules official who's very interested in rules logic and theory, there's little question in my mind if I had to handle an on course "rules situation" with DaveS as a competitor the chances are about 99% that before I could stop him arguing that he has a better way to interpret and apply the rules of golf I'd have to hit him with a 6-7 slow play penalty!

[John_Cullum]

Shivas:
Once you pick it up you have one less option.

"Sarge, yours can't happen.  If the branches are growing or fixed, you can't break them.  If they're part fo the pile, you haven't taken full relief." Dave S.

If they are loose impediments, and I have otherwise taken relief from the margin of the defined area, why can't I remove some loose impediments from within the area in order to afford me complete relief?

[John_Cullum]

Dave
Yes, say the area is in front of me on my intended line of play. I lift the ball , move the loose impediments and take my drop so my left foot is just outside the margin of the defined GUR area. This allows me a full swing that would be restricted if I had to go further back. After I move some of the limbs and take my drop, I have complete relief, don't I?

As to the dangerous situation you encounter, let's change the facts a bit. You hit a shot right down the middle to position A, and have a perfect lie, but there is a rattlesnake coiled up by your ball. you can't even retrieve it. So you get a substitute ball and go as far away as you feel comfortable. As soon as you drop your ball but before it comes to rest the snake has slithered away.

Rule 13-1 is the cardinal rule in golf, shouldn't you go play your original ball?

I say yes. because your relief was not under rule 25. You took relief under the rule of equity. there is nothing in the rule book about dangerous conditions.

[TEPaul]

DaveS:

Congratulations! It seems you and your sense and inclination has been correct on your hypothetical all along and my sense and inclination on it has not!

Here is the answer from that one I (and most others in the world consider to be, along with John Morrissett, perhaps the best expert in the world on golf rules).

"Tom:
 Decision 23-1/6 is absolute. A player is entitled to remove LI in the area in which he is about to drop a ball in all situations including a Rule 25-1 situation.
 
This derives from Rule 23-1, which is clear in its authority to the player.  Without Rule 23-1, the player would not be allowed to remove loose impediments if this would violate either Rule 1-2 or Rule 13-2.
Lew"

I'm going to have to think a bit about exactly what it is and how it is he refers to Rule 1-2 and 13-2 to get the essence of it. I'm wondering if in his last sentence he meant (as) when he said (if).

This is also something I don't recall ever being specifically discussed in a rules seminar I've been in.

If you'd like, I'll copy into a post the way I asked him this overall question involving your hypothetical.

[John_Cullum]

 "You can't lift under Rule 25, remove the pile, and then drop within the margin of where the pile was because the GUR includes the grass upon which the material piled for removal sits, and you must take full relief fron the GUR -- a legitimate interpretation, IMO." D Schmidt

And the correct one. It does not conflict with Rule 23.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas:
Well it comes as a shock to me as I understand the facts. I don't see any way under the rules to have your stance or lie of ball within the area where the GUR is.

[TEPaul]

DaveS (and Sarge):

I think you're getting close to understanding what the rules guru was referring to in this hypothetical situation. However, I think you've been getting a little too concerned about the relevance of this grass and such under the material piled for removal and that locking the player into not being able to ultimately play his ball from some point within what was GUR before he lifted his ball and removed it.

Look at the hypothetical this way using El's basic situation as an example;

Just say Els's ball was under a single branch that was declared by a rules official to be GUR from which Els could take relief under Rule 25. Before marking his ball the NPR was established for his Rule 25 drop. Relief under rule 25 says;

"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 which avoids interference by the condition...."

With his ball lifted Els then removes that branch considered GUR. At that point it seems the rules expert says he feels Els should use the NPR established before the ball was lifted and when the material piled for removal (GUR) had not been touched. That is the spot on the course Els should drop his ball--the NPR.

But now seeing as Els has removed the GUR and dropped his ball on that reestablished NPR one would logically go to Rule 20-2c to determine if Els's drop was a good one. Under Rule 20-2c we see a number of situations where the drop would not be a good one and a redrop would be necessary.

Presumably if Els's ball struck the part of the course appropriate to the NPR (before the GUR had been touched) and rolled less than two club-lengths from that spot and also fulfills the other requirements under 20-2c, Els's ball would be in play.

And I suppose one could certainly imagine that his ball in play very well could be on that position where the branch (GUR) lay before Els removed it. But of course Els did remove it before he dropped as permited by Rule 23 and Dec. 23-1/6 which the rules expert has said is absolute.

That looks like a fair intertpretation to me of the way the rules expert answered this hypothetical. I felt that the wording in Rule 25-1 prevented this but apparently not. I notice the wording in rule 25-1 did not say the position of the ball in play must avoid interference from GUR only that the SPOT on the course where the ball is to be dropped must avoid interference from GUR. That's clearly not the same thing as where the ball in play ends up!

I also felt that Rule 20-2c(v) suggested that this could not be done. That rule says;

“rolls to and comes to rest in a position where there is interference by the condition from which relief was taken under ……..Rule 25-1.…..”

But now I notice that portion of rule 20-2c says,  “comes to rest in a position where there IS interference by the condition” and not where there WAS interference by the condition as clearly Els has now removed that GUR BEFORE he made his drop. So if the ball struck the proper part of the course under the GUR procedure, rule 20-2c takes over as to whether the ball is in play.

But you can judge this interpretation for yourself from what the rules guru did say about this hypothetical. Here's what he said;

“Tom:
These kinds of situations occur all the time in the Rules of Golf. The reason is that we define some items on the course as members of two different sets that have different properties and that are associated with different Rules. When such a situation arises involving these items, we proceed according to one Rule or the other. At the point of conflict, we just use common sense.
Nowhere in any of the applicable Rules do we find direction on a precedence of one Rule over the other, that is, which Rule and associated procedure must be followed first.
If a player removes all the LI [material piled for removal or GUR] before lifting, then the basis for interference no longer exists and relief under Rule 25-1 is not available.
If the loose impediments are in place when the ball is lifted and they are removed before the ball is dropped [either by the player or by wind or water], it seems to me that the player must proceed under Rule 25-1 based on the originally determined NPR. You won't find this in the Rules or Decisions but it seems to me to be the procedure to follow in equity. Of course, he may replace the ball under Rule 18-2 and incur a penalty of one stroke.
Actually, there is no good reason for the player to remove the loose impediments since the area in which he is required to drop is free of the LI [GUR] by the nature of the determination of the NPR.
Someone else may determine that I am nuts and find another way to do this. However, these are my thoughts at the moment. This is the kind of issue that the Rules of Golf Committee usually decides with a vote of 7 to 5. It doesn't mean that the "5" are wrong, just that they were outvoted.
At the moment, there is no right or wrong answer."

[A_Clay_Man]

Thanx TP, I can envision a scenario where this COULD happen. It would be an exercise in how well a player knows the rules, and his ability to anticipate where his drop might roll or more accurately, where he wants it to roll.. The sad part is that there will still be those who feel the player is somehow going against the spirit of the game, play it as it lies, blah blah blah. Taking advantage of the rules is smart, breaking them is usually the contrary.

[TEPaul]

"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),"

Dave:

That's not so. With the drop the ball must first strike a part of the course within one club-length of the NPR that "avoids interference by the condition". The rules guru says he believes even if the GUR no longer exists that original NPR  should be used. This obviously is before Rule 20-2c is factored in to decide if the drop is a good one and the ball is in play.

Obviously under Rule 20-2c the ball can roll up to 2 clubs lengths from the spot on the course it was dropped and be in play (assuming the drop fulfills the other requirements of Rule 20-2c). And where could that put it? It's certainly conceivable it could put it right in that same area or even in the same spot the ball was when it was under the Branch (GUR).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()