Question - March 1

[Fourputt]

Maybe this one will inspire some discussion....

Bob and Joe are playing a friendly stroke play game. Both hit their tee shots on the 3rd hole. Bob's ball hooks and appears very close to the boundary fence, so he plays a provisional ball. Joe's ball drifts a little right, toward a couple of small trees.

When Bob gets to his ball, he finds that it is almost touching a part of the fence that is bowed inside the boundary line, and is easily movable. He pushes the bowed part of the fence back on the line and plays his shot , then picks up the provisional ball.

Joe finds his ball has come to rest near a stake that is holding a guy wire to support the young tree. Taking a test stance, he finds that the stake interferes with his backswing. Knowing that the stake is an obstruction, he attempts to pull the stake out of the ground and accidentally breaks it. But as this accomplishes his goal of eliminating the interference, he plays his shot, intending to tell a staff member about the broken stake later.

Both players discuss their good fortune with the shots just played as they walk to their balls. Joe has found the greenside bunker, while Bob's ball is lying on a sprinkler head on the fringe.

Joe's ball lies just in front of a small pebble in the bunker. Knowing that it's dangerous to hit the rock, he removes it, being careful not to move his ball or to touch any other part of the bunker. He plays a fine shot to just 4 feet from the hole.

Meanwhile, Bob has determined the nearest point of relief from the sprinkler head, and places a tee in the ground to mark that spot on the fringe, which is only an inch from the edge of the rough. He lifts his ball, then drops it from shoulder height. The ball hits the edge of the rough and bounces forward just 1" in front of the tee, but still farther from the hole than it was on the sprinkler. He praises his luck and chips the ball to 12" from the hole. Both players hole out with their next stroke, and congratulate each other on their solid knowledge of the rules and for making two tough pars.

What did each player really score for the hole?

[andycap]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Maybe this one will inspire some discussion....

Bob and Joe are playing a friendly stroke play game. Both hit their tee shots on the 3rd hole. Bob's ball hooks and appears very close to the boundary fence, so he plays a provisional ball. Joe's ball drifts a little right, toward a couple of small trees.

When Bob gets to his ball, he finds that it is almost touching a part of the fence that is bowed inside the boundary line, and is easily movable. He pushes the bowed part of the fence back on the line and plays his shot , then picks up the provisional ball.

Joe finds his ball has come to rest near a stake that is holding a guy wire to support the young tree. Taking a test stance, he finds that the stake interferes with his backswing. Knowing that the stake is an obstruction, he attempts to pull the stake out of the ground and accidentally breaks it. But as this accomplishes his goal of eliminating the interference, he plays his shot, intending to tell a staff member about the broken stake later.

Both players discuss their good fortune with the shots just played as they walk to their balls. Joe has found the greenside bunker, while Bob's ball is lying on a sprinkler head on the fringe.

Joe's ball lies just in front of a small pebble in the bunker. Knowing that it's dangerous to hit the rock, he removes it, being careful not to move his ball or to touch any other part of the bunker. He plays a fine shot to just 4 feet from the hole.

Meanwhile, Bob has determined the nearest point of relief from the sprinkler head, and places a tee in the ground to mark that spot on the fringe, which is only an inch from the edge of the rough. He lifts his ball, then drops it from shoulder height. The ball hits the edge of the rough and bounces forward just 1" in front of the tee, but still farther from the hole than it was on the sprinkler. He praises his luck and chips the ball to 12" from the hole. Both players hole out with their next stroke, and congratulate each other on their solid knowledge of the rules and for making two tough pars.

What did each player really score for the hole?

Both disqulified..... you cant move a boundry fence its integral to the course. the staked tree is gur and must be dropped. the stone in the bunker can not be moved (some local rules do allow this though) and the ball was incorrectly marked.?

[Fourputt]

The assumption at the moment is that they haven't turned in a card with an incorrect hole score, so they aren't yet subject to disqualification.

I will say that each of them has made at least one mistake.

The question is still "What did each player score on the hole in question?" And maybe give a brief explanation of the violation(s).

[Ty_Webb]

Bob - Two shot (?) penalty for moving the out of bounds marker - things marking out of bounds cannot be moved, even if they are movable. Then, I think he should have redropped the ball when taking relief from the sprinkler head since the ball went forwards of his nearest point of relief. I would guess that's a further one shot penalty, so I'm going with 7.

Joe - Should probably have taken relief from the stake (I think this should be a local rule) rather than removing the stake. The Committee have to declare a movable obstruction to be an immovable one or he's entitled to move it. Likewise the stone in the bunker. He can't in general unless there's a local rule allowing it - which over here in the UK is quite a common local rule. Since you said that they each did something wrong, I'll assume there are no such local rules, so it's two shots for moving the stone in the bunker and he made 6.

[JungleJ]

I reckon Bob scores 8, two shot penalty for moving boundary fence (Rule 13-2), 2 shots for the incorrect drop (Rule 20-2).

I think Joe is allowed to move the stake, although as Ty saiys normally there would be a local rule requiring him to take free relief from the stake and the tree. Assuming he is not playing at my local club he is not allowed to remove the stone, so that's 2 shots and he scores 6.

[Wazmankg]

I think the stake may be moved, the fence cannot be altered, nor the stone in the bunker touched and a free drop is allowed from the sprinkler head. What all of that adds up to I have no idea.

[Fourputt]

Ok... I have to post the answer, since I'm leaving the country for a week starting tomorrow.

Bob's play:

1 stroke from the tee - Ball is next to bowed boundary fence.

24/4 Part of Boundary Fence Within Boundary Line


Q. Part of a boundary fence is bowed towards the course so that it is inside the boundary line formed by the fence posts. A player’s ball comes to rest against this part of the fence. Is the player entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b?

A. No. A fence defining out of bounds is not an obstruction even if part of it is inside the boundary line formed by the fence posts — see Definitions of “Obstructions” and “Out of Bounds.”

13-2/18 Improving Position of Ball by Bending Boundary Fence


Q. Part of a boundary fence is bowed towards the course so that it is inside the out of bounds line formed by the fence posts. A player’s ball comes to rest against this part of the fence. Decision 24/4 states that the player is not entitled to drop the ball away from the fence under Rule 24-2b. May the player push back the bowed section of the fence to obtain a measure of relief?

A. No. Such action would be a breach of Rule 13-2, which prohibits improving the position or lie of his ball or the area of his intended stance or swing by moving or bending anything fixed (including objects defining out of bounds).

Essentially Bob had to play the ball as it lay, or declare it unplayable and follow that procedure. He is in breach of Rule 13-2... 2 stroke penalty. With the stroke taken to hit the ball, he is now lying 4 on the sprinkler head.

In making his drop from the sprinkler he made an incorrect drop when the ball bounced forward of his nearest point of relief (Rule 20-2), then he played from a wrong place, incurring an addistional 2 stroke penalty (Rule 20-7). He now lies 7. He holes out with his next stroke for an 8.


Joe's play:

Joe plays his first stroke from the tee and his ball lies next to a staked tree. The stakes and guy wires are immovable obstructions. He is in violation of Rule 13-2 by improving the area of his intended swing (decision 13-2/16). He could have take relief under Rule 24-2b with no penalty, but he didn't know the rules. 2 stroke penalty for breach of Rule 13-2. He now lies 4 in the bunker.

Moving a loose impediment in a bunker without a local rule allowing it.... 2 stroke penalty for breach of Rule 23-1. Joe plays from the bunker and lies 7. He holes out for an 8.

Both players scored 8 on the hole. It pays to be familiar with the rules, even if you choose not to be a student of them.

Had both players returned their cards in a competition, both would be disqualified for returning a card with an incorrect hole score.

[jwaldrop]

Thanks for the brain exerciser. That was fun!

[JungleJ]

Thanks. Another question though - why is the stake an immovable obstruction? If it could be removed easily it would be movable? Decision 13-2/16 refers a stake that was broken when attempt was made to remove it. Obviously if you break it while moving it it is not easily moved.

What qualifies as readily moved is pretty much open to interpretation... didn't Tiger get a ruling that he could have a boulder removed when it required several people to move it?

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

Thanks. Another question though - why is the stake an immovable obstruction? If it could be removed easily it would be movable? Decision 13-2/16 refers a stake that was broken when attempt was made to remove it. Obviously if you break it while moving it it is not easily moved.

What qualifies as readily moved is pretty much open to interpretation... didn't Tiger get a ruling that he could have a boulder removed when it required several people to move it?

I think that was a "loose" impediment rather than a movable obstruction.

I agree with you on the rest of your comments though. I thought the committee had to declare something immovable, otherwise it's movable.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

Thanks. Another question though - why is the stake an immovable obstruction? If it could be removed easily it would be movable? Decision 13-2/16 refers a stake that was broken when attempt was made to remove it. Obviously if you break it while moving it it is not easily moved.

What qualifies as readily moved is pretty much open to interpretation... didn't Tiger get a ruling that he could have a boulder removed when it required several people to move it?

In some cases (as in this one) you have to use good judgement. A stake that is hammered into the ground for the purpose of holding up a tree is not designed to be pulled out... that would defeat the purpose of putting it there in the first place. In my experience, such an obstruction is always considered "immovable". A stake that is designed to be removable is usually recognizable as such. (as a hazard stake with a painted wooden body and a metal peg in the bottom is designed to be removed and replaced if it interferes with one's swing).

[JungleJ]

"Good judgment" would suggest that a boulder that requires several people to move is not a "loose" impediment, but Tiger still got the ruling.

In the case in question, the player didn't use the rules to his advantage, but I bet lots of people would consider the stake movable...

[HackBlack]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

"Good judgment" would suggest that a boulder that requires several people to move is not a "loose" impediment, but Tiger still got the ruling.

In the case in question, the player didn't use the rules to his advantage, but I bet lots of people would consider the stake movable...

USGA rules do not specify how large an object is before it does not become a loose impediment. They only state that you must be able to move the loose impediment without undo delay.

I don't remember how long Tiger took to get the fans to move that rock. But, I bet he exceeded the "normal" time limit to execute his shot. But, you would also have to take into account where the group ahead of him and behind him were during the "Tiger Woods Boulder Removal Project".

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

"Good judgment" would suggest that a boulder that requires several people to move is not a "loose" impediment, but Tiger still got the ruling.

In the case in question, the player didn't use the rules to his advantage, but I bet lots of people would consider the stake movable...

As I said above, you have to consider the PURPOSE for the stake. It doesn't matter that some people won't agree, all that matters is that it is intended NOT to be removed as that defeats its function.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

As I said above, you have to consider the PURPOSE for the stake. It doesn't matter that some people won't agree, all that matters is that it is intended NOT to be removed as that defeats its function.

If it's attached to a wire supporting a young tree isn't it's function temporary ? It's not intended to be a permanent feature of the course. Once the tree is large & strong enough the stake and wire will be removed, right ?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

If it's attached to a wire supporting a young tree isn't it's function temporary ? It's not intended to be a permanent feature of the course. Once the tree is large & strong enough the stake and wire will be removed, right ?

We're starting to nitpick now, aren't we? While it is there, it is intended to NOT be removed. That's all the player needs to know. He doesn't need to know when the course maintenance department plans to remove it, all he needs to know is that it is an immovable obstruction.

This is the appplicable Decision:

13-2/16 Stake Supporting Tree Broken in Attempt to Remove It


Q. A stake supporting a young tree interferes with a player’s stroke. He tries to remove it, but it cannot readily be removed and it breaks. What is the ruling?

A. The player was in breach of Rule 13-2 for breaking the stake. However, as the stake was not readily removable, it was an immovable obstruction and relief could have been taken, without penalty, under Rule 24-2b.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

We're starting to nitpick now, aren't we? While it is there, it is intended to NOT be removed. That's all the player needs to know. He doesn't need to know when the course maintenance department plans to remove it, all he needs to know is that it is an immovable obstruction.

This is the appplicable Decision:

13-2/16 Stake Supporting Tree Broken in Attempt to Remove It


Q. A stake supporting a young tree interferes with a player’s stroke. He tries to remove it, but it cannot readily be removed and it breaks. What is the ruling?

A. The player was in breach of Rule 13-2 for breaking the stake. However, as the stake was not readily removable, it was an immovable obstruction and relief could have been taken, without penalty, under Rule 24-2b.

Nitpicking is how you learn the rules.


The test for an immovable obstruction is not whether it was intended to be immovable, but whether it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. See definition of obstruction. In otherwords, even if an object is intended to be immovable, it may still be removed if it can be removed without unreasonable effort, undue delay or cause damage.

The committee may declare a movable obstruction to be immovable, which might make sense in the case of a tree stake, but that should be clearly stated in a local rule, not just assumed by players. This would mean it cannot be moved, even if it were otherwise movable according to the rule.

When the facts get tight around a rule, nitpicking is the only way to solve a problem.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

However, as the stake was not readily removable, it was an immovable obstruction

Maybe again nitpicking, but doesn't this imply that it was the fact it was not readily removable that made it immovable? If so, that would imply to me that if it was readily removable, it wouldn't have been an immovable obstruction. Presumably, the only way to know if it's readily removable is to try. If it breaks you get penalised? If it doesn't, away you go?

I know that's what the decision states, but it doesn't seem particularly reasonable or fair. What if it breaks while you're trying to determine if it's removable?

[atticusfinch]

I know that's what the decision states, but it doesn't seem particularly reasonable or fair. What if it breaks while you're trying to determine if it's removable?

You tried too hard.

[JungleJ]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

I know that's what the decision states, but it doesn't seem particularly reasonable or fair. What if it breaks while you're trying to determine if it's removable?

You tried too hard.

I think this is exactly the rub. If he pulls the stake without breaking it (and, if it was me, intending to replace it after a stroke is played), it's movable unless the Committee has declared otherwise.

In the test case as proposed by Fourputt, the player knew the Rules, just not all of them sufficiently - he could have tested carefully and then taken immovable relief when it became apparent it would not come out easily.