yardage markers

[The Shtick]

If my ball is right behind a marker on the course (ie. posts defining yardage) where is my closest relief.... if any.

Note: It does not interfere with my swing but I'm almost certain that I will hit it with my ball. These posts cannot be moved.

[Kilroy]

I think you get "line of sight" relief from an imoveable obstruction. So as close as you can hit your shot without interference.

[Gary Hill]

Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or so close to the obstruction that the obstruction interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing.

No free relief.

[The Shtick]

so if I'm right behind the marker I get NO relief??

My "intended swing" did not interfere with the obstruction... but the obstuction did interfere with my "intended ball flight".......

[Gary Hill]

An obstruction which is 10 feet, 100 feet, 100 yards, or 1000 yards in front of you does not qualify as interfence under the Rules.

If the clubhouse was 100 yards in front of you and on your "intended ball flight line", would you expect to be able to move your ball a couple of fairways over until you did have an un-obstructed "flight line"?

[Colby]

Originally posted by The Shtick
If my ball is right behind a marker on the course (ie. posts defining yardage) where is my closest relief.... if any.

Note: It does not interfere with my swing but I'm almost certain that I will hit it with my ball. These posts cannot be moved.

I don't know...

After a couple of beer, I think almost any yardage post can be moved Wasn't there an iron that used to be called a "digger" hahahahaha :xxrotflma

[Gary Hill]

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise it is an immovable obstruction.

[Curious George]

How do you explain when Tiger was able to get that crowd to move that huge boulder in that one match? That was, by my observation, immovable...until 10 people pitched in.

[Gary Hill]

“Loose impediments’’ are natural objects such as stones, leaves, twigs, branches and the like, dung, worms and insects and casts or heaps made by them, provided they are not fixed or growing, are not solidly embedded and do not adhere to the ball.

An “obstruction’’ is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except:
a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings;
b. Any part of an immovable artificial object which is out of bounds; and
c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course.

[Curious George]

J Furyk was able to move the ball today because a sprinkler head "might" interfere with his club if the head crashed into it during the divot. A lot of "ifs" in the decision.

In the example above, if "The Schtick" holds a longer club to show that the marker would interfere with his swing/follow through, gets a drop, then chooses a different club, can he get away with it?

[Happy Gilmore]

I was going to note the same Furyk scenario as I was curious as to how it was handled.

Originally posted by Curious George
In the example above, if "The Schtick" holds a longer club to show that the marker would interfere with his swing/follow through, gets a drop, then chooses a different club, can he get away with it?

I think that the interference has to be indicated using the club chosen to make the next shot. That would be like having a ball near a cart path realitively close to the putting surface and trying to use a driver when indicating an issue with the players stance and then going to a short wedge to make the next shot.

[Gary Hill]

A player may not obtain relief under the immovable obstruction Rule if interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

If the ball lay 40 yards from the green and there would be interference with the use of only a driver, then no free relief would be given as it would not be reasonable to assume the next shot would be played with a driver.

A player may play any shot with any club selected for play at any time.

[Happy Gilmore]

Originally posted by Gary Hill
If the ball lay 40 yards from the green and there would be interference with the use of only a driver, then no free relief would be given as it would not be reasonable to assume the next shot would be played with a driver.

A player may play any shot with any club selected for play at any time.

I'm sorry if I am a little confused, but if A player may play any shot with any club selected for play at any time, But no free relief would be given as it would not be reasonable to assume the next shot would be played with a driver sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

Am I allowed to play any club in my bag any time, unless it gives me an advantage over the course, i.e.. the above situation?
And what defines "reasonable to assume"? Chipping from the fringe with a driver or fairway wood has become a common practice among PGA players, if one tries this 40 yards from the putting surface is it then an unreasonable club selection and any related relief prohibited at that time?

My original statement said, I think that the interference has to be indicated using the club chosen to make the next shot. Would this not be convered by the statement "it would not be reasonable to assume the next shot would be played with a driver"?

Just trying to understand the nuances of the rules better.

[powerlefty]

I seem to recall in the British Open a couple of years ago (Carnoustie maybe) where Sergio Garcia hit one in the hay. There was a TV tower in the line he claims he intended to play on and he got a free drop to a much better spot and hit a layup shot that would have been impossible from where he originally was. Also in the US Open a few years ago (I think the second one that Els won) where Els hit his tee shot in the rough and then got a free drop because a TV tower was in the line of his next shot. The ironic thing is the TV tower was mobile and an hour or so later trundled off to another location.

If these guys can get drops from such areas in Majors why is a yardage marker (usually right in the centre of the fairway) not a free drop?

[Kilroy]

Those are Temporary immovable obstructions. I recall now that ther is a distinction that gives you line if sight relief. I thought it also aplied to permanent obstrucions

[Gary Hill]

Happy Gilmore -

In order to qualify for relief, there must be interference by the obstruction.

How do we determine whether there is interference?

The ball has to interfere with the player's stance or area of his intended swing AND it is reasonable to assume that he is not prevented from playing the stroke because of interference by anything other than the ostruction AND interference by the obstruction would not occur solely through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

There is a difference between being allowed to play a stroke using a driver and being granted relief solely on the basis of measuring with a driver to prove interference exists.

My original statement said, I think that the interference has to be indicated using the club chosen to make the next shot.

Your statement is partially correct, BUT the chosen club must be a reasonable choice when used for the purpose of determining the existence of interference.

What determines what is reasonable or unecessarily abnormal?

You say to yourself: Would I be using a driver if the obstruction were not here?

However, a Rules official or the Committee may overrule your conscience.

[mr shank]

Originally posted by powerlefty
I seem to recall in the British Open a couple of years ago (Carnoustie maybe) where Sergio Garcia hit one in the hay. There was a TV tower in the line he claims he intended to play on and he got a free drop to a much better spot and hit a layup shot that would have been impossible from where he originally was. Also in the US Open a few years ago (I think the second one that Els won) where Els hit his tee shot in the rough and then got a free drop because a TV tower was in the line of his next shot. The ironic thing is the TV tower was mobile and an hour or so later trundled off to another location.

I saw this as well, and the ruling was wrong. Sergio was claiming he could hit the ball directly through a large bush & the tower was in his line of sight. Problem was, and still is, the rules officials are intimidated by the players & are afraid to tell them "no"
That ruling was pathetic. As far as I'm concerned what Sergio did is the equivalent of cheating.

[Gary Hill]

I agree.

I have seen Tiger intimidate officials on rulings as well.

[jimrobin]

It happened at the 2001 Tour Championship. The scenario occurred on the 1st playoff hole that Mike Weir won with a birdie.

As for calling it cheating I disagree.
Sergio only asked for the ruling, it's the official’s job to make the proper decision. If there was a mistake, (I think we all agree there was) it was the official that made it.

[Gary Hill]

I could be classified as "cheating" if Sergio asked for the drop even though he had absolutely no intent of playing through the bushes.

Only Sergio can say.

[jimrobin]

Gary:
No offence but I think you have to look at the scenario. I know I'm using my memory here but...
It was in a 4-man playoff hole. It was a par 4 and Weir & Toms were in the fairway, Els & Garcia were in the bush. He virtually had to play it through the bush if he wanted to stay in the hole. It was all or nothing (although he probably has less than 0.1% chance of pulling it off). Weir & Toms both had short irons in if I remember correctly.

The relief ruling was " if he was going to hit the ball through the THICK bush, the scoreboard was in the way "line of sight".
I think everyone knew there was no way a ball was going to come through the bush.

Sergio received a relief ruling and hit it to the back of the green and almost made a 40-50 foot putt for bird!!!! Weir made his 10-foot birdie and won.

[em69]

Originally posted by mr shank
As far as I'm concerned what Sergio did is the equivalent of cheating.

As far as I'm concerned, what Tiger did with the boulder was cheating. That boulder was clearly placed there by the course designer...it just didn't roll there on it's own.

If a player wants a moveable obstruction moved, then he should do it on his own. From what I remember, Tiger didn't even help.

[Gary Hill]

You mis-interpreted my post:

The actual circumstances have no bearing.

I was using it to explain the distinction.

If Player X asks for a ruling and get relief: There is no cheating.

If Player X asks for a ruling and does not relief: There is no cheating.

If Player X has NO intention of playing through the bushes and tells the official that he IS going to play through the bushes, then Player X is lying to the official and that is "cheating".

[Gary Hill]

em69 -

If the course designers intention was to have the boulder remain in its position, then it would have been a simple matter for them to "embed" the boulder into the ground (which they chose not to do).

Once a natural object is "embedded" into the ground, it looses its status as a "Loose Impediment".

[jimrobin]

If Player X has NO intention of playing through the bushes and tells the official that he IS going to play through the bushes, then Player X is lying to the official and that is "cheating".

You are right. Only Sergio knows.


The point I'm trying to make is its was a bad call from the Official that granted him relief. It was an impossible shot!! There was no way the shot could of been completed. The bush was brutally thick and the scoreboard was still 150 yards away. Sergio would of been lucky to get the ball through to the other side of the bush, never mind another 150 yards and over the scoreboard. Common sense should of taken over. Correct????

Whether or not he wanted to try it is up to him, but the shot he was declaring was not possible and relief shouldn't of been granted. At least that's what it looked like from a big screen TV.

[jimrobin]

He used the rules to his advantage.
Sometimes they work for you, sometimes against you.
That's why it pays to know them.
I wish I knew them better.


Gary:
After Tiger's incident didn't the USGA change the rule so that now loose impediments can only be moved by the player and his caddy?

[Gary Hill]

No. They did not.

I find it curious that immediately after the incident, they DID change the definition of "Obstructions" to include the phrase:

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise it is an immovable obstruction.

I wonder why they didn't include a similar phrase for "Loose Impediments".

hmmm.... I wonder ...

[jimrobin]

I thought I heard that somewhere. Oh well!

Maybe that's what it was, I heard.
If the player and caddy can't move it by themselves (and need help from the gallery), then it CAN be considered "unreasonable effort".

Yes, very interesting that "Loose Impediments" wasn't included.
Thanks again Gary for clearing things up.

[Happy Gilmore]

Originally posted by Gary Hill
There is a difference between being allowed to play a stroke using a driver and being granted relief solely on the basis of measuring with a driver to prove interference exists.
Your statement is partially correct, BUT the chosen club must be a reasonable choice when used for the purpose of determining the existence of interference.

Thanks Gary,

That is what I was kind of looking for, "the chosen club must be a reasonable choice when used for the purpose of determining the existence of interference."

Now I can more clearly challenge my father the next time he tries this on me.

Thanks again.

[em69]

There is no other sport with so many rules and yet there are still so many questions on how they are applied.