Free relief, or not?

[LobWedge]

A player hits his ball thin out of a greenside bunker, and the ball flies over the back of the green, landing approximately 15 yards beyond the back fringe. The ball ends up 3 feet behind the back right corner of a large slab of concrete that extends vertically out of the turf about 12 inches. It is also resting on a small area (2” x 2”) of exposed rock that is buried in the turf, flush with the level of the ground.

Looking from behind the ball towards the flag, the player sees that the line of sight is unobstructed by the corner of the concrete slab.

The player is faced with the possibility of having to take relief from an unplayable lie (a one stroke penalty), but he also claims that because he also has the option to play the ball as it lies, he is entitled to relief from the immovable obstruction because it interferes with the path of his intended swing. The player’s intent is to play a lofted shot that requires an outside/in swing path where, in his follow through, the clubhead would make contact with the slab. The player’s intended swing path is well within the parameters of any normal “flop shot”.

Is he entitled to free relief from the obstruction, thus getting relief from the condition on which his ball currently lies?

[Kiwi battler]

If the concrete block wasnt there , would it be reasonable to expect the player to play a flop shot off bare rock ?

Thats your answer

A low bump and run off the rock maybe , but with no relief for line of sight/flight

[LobWedge]

If the concrete block wasnt there , would it be reasonable to expect the player to play a flop shot off bare rock ?

Thats your answer

A low bump and run off the rock maybe , but with no relief for line of sight/flight

A high lofted/flop shot would be perfectly reasonable in this situation, it really has nothing to do with the fact that the ball was lying on bare rock.

This exact situation happened this past weekend in a tournament that I was playing in. One of my fellow competitors found himself in this predicament behind the 9th green. The ruling was issued by a Level 4 GAO official.

I'll give you a hint. See Rule 24-2.

[Kiwi battler]

Every situation is different , and can also depend on the ability of the golfer
I see all the time golfers assuming because a rules official has said 1 thing in 1 instance , that thats gospel , and in the rules

Read the exception to 24-2b .....I bet if you somehow managed to move the concrete block , NO WAY would he try that high flop shot .....
I think your friend got lucky , and caught the official in a great mood

[LobWedge]

Every situation is different , and can also depend on the ability of the golfer
I see all the time golfers assuming because a rules official has said 1 thing in 1 instance , that thats gospel , and in the rules

Read the exception to 24-2b .....I bet if you somehow managed to move the concrete block , NO WAY would he try that high flop shot .....
I think your friend got lucky , and caught the official in a great mood

You are correct about every situation being different. That's why the rules are accompanied by a book of decisions. But you're missing the point. In this situation the player was well within the rules to ask for, and receive relief because the immovable obstruction interfered with "the area of his intended swing". It had nothing to do with line of sight, or the fact that the ball was lying on a bare rock surface.

BTW - The exception did not apply here. The concrete pad was part of a storm drain access bunker, 8 feet by 20 feet, and buried at least 7 feet in the ground. It would take a back hoe, jack hammer, and a crane to move it. Definitely immovable under the rules of golf.

[justsomeguy]

I believe the key question is whether or not the intended swing was reasonable under the circumstances. Since the answer in this particular situation is "yes", then he is entitled to relief even if he incidentally gets relief from some other condition.

24-2b/6 Relief from Immovable Obstruction Incidentally Results in Relief from Boundary Fence
Q. A player’s ball is in such a position that a boundary fence and an immovable obstruction near the fence both interfere with the area of the player’s intended swing. It is reasonable for him to play the stroke despite the interference from the boundary fence. If the player takes relief from the obstruction under Rule 24-2b, he will incidentally get relief from the fence. Is the player entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b in such circumstances?
A. Yes.

[LobWedge]

I believe the key question is whether or not the intended swing was reasonable under the circumstances. Since the answer in this particular situation is "yes", then he is entitled to relief even if he incidentally gets relief from some other condition.

24-2b/6 Relief from Immovable Obstruction Incidentally Results in Relief from Boundary Fence
Q. A player’s ball is in such a position that a boundary fence and an immovable obstruction near the fence both interfere with the area of the player’s intended swing. It is reasonable for him to play the stroke despite the interference from the boundary fence. If the player takes relief from the obstruction under Rule 24-2b, he will incidentally get relief from the fence. Is the player entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b in such circumstances?
A. Yes.

Precisely. This is a situation where the rules can work to your advantage.

[Kiwi battler]

Would Phil M flop off a rock ?
He gets his clubs for free , so maybe if he was playing matchplay or possibly stableford

I keep asking myself "how did his ball get on top of the rock?" and just cant accept the flop shot as a reasonable shot choice

Obviously others think otherwise

[LobWedge]

Would Phil M flop off a rock ?
He gets his clubs for free , so maybe if he was playing matchplay or possibly stableford

I keep asking myself "how did his ball get on top of the rock?" and just cant accept the flop shot as a reasonable shot choice

Obviously others think otherwise

Again, you're missing the point here. The rock has nothing to do with it. You are allowed to play the ball as it lies anywhere through the green (except in areas where the rules don't permit). If an immovable obstruction interferes with any part of your swing in the process, the rules allow you to take relief.

BTW - I'm curious as to how you think that an official's "mood" determines the outcome of a ruling.

[justsomeguy]

Would Phil M flop off a rock ?
He gets his clubs for free , so maybe if he was playing matchplay or possibly stableford

I keep asking myself "how did his ball get on top of the rock?" and just cant accept the flop shot as a reasonable shot choice

Obviously others think otherwise

I don't think you realize it, but you've actually contradicted yourself here.

It doesn't really matter what shot you or Phil M actually choose to make. Whether or not you get your clubs for free, or you are playing match play or stableford, is totally irrelevant to the question. All that matters is whether the flop shot itself is a reasonable option. Since you've already stated that maybe Phil M would do it, then you have admitted that it is a reasonable shot option - an option that he is prevented from playing in this case because of interference from an immovable obstruction.

[LobWedge]

It doesn't really matter what shot you or Phil M actually choose to make. Whether or not you get your clubs for free, or you are playing match play or stableford, is totally irrelevant to the question. All that matters is whether the flop shot itself is a reasonable option. Since you've already stated that maybe Phil M would do it, then you have admitted that it is a reasonable shot option - an option that he is prevented from playing in this case because of interference from an immovable obstruction.

Exactly. The rule is designed to protect against interference during the execution of a normal swing path. It's got nothing to do with what type of shot you decide to play.

[Kiwi battler]

So if I claimed I was going to play a flop shot with my back to the hole , swinging in the opposite direction to the hole, having the ball go backwards , but then my stance was on the slab .....youd laugh , but I'd just say "I seen Phil M do it on tv"

If the Golfer in decision 24-2b/17 was a total hacker with no ability at all , he sure wouldnt be able to play the left handed shot very well , therefore it would be an unreasonable shot so free relief denied

On that basis , a golfer who had just thinned a ball across the green from a bunker wanting to flop a ball off a rock is "and this is only my judgement " either on drugs or plain crazy
Unless its matchplay , which may be his only chance , if ever so slim , of saving the hole

If the ball was in a hollow on the rock , the rock would be the exception ....IMO the rock is still the exception in this case , only because of the unreasonable shot he wants relief for
Had he had the slab interferring with stance lie or swing for a putt off the rock , Id give relief

Maybe my interpretation of the rule is wrong , I hope so , be nice to get relief where I'd deny myself normally

[Kiwi battler]

I was always lead to believe the ability of the golfer in question needed to be taken into account when determining wether a shot was reasonable regarding free relief
If a player who hooks every shot claims he wants to play a low punch cut under bushes then have it pro-rise over that hedge , flying 220mtrs to the green . when 99.9999% of golfers would chip sideways back the fairway...but wants free relief because his left foot is in casual water
Id say "you what" ?? and he offers "Tiger did it on the 14th at Augusta" , Id roll my eyes

Then say "sorry"

[LobWedge]

I was always lead to believe the ability of the golfer in question needed to be taken into account when determining wether a shot was reasonable regarding free relief

Absolutely not. The only question is whether or not the obstruction interferes with your normal stance and/or swing. If so, then you are entiled to relief (if you wish, you always have the option to play the ball as it lies).

[Kilroy]

Absolutely not.

Totally agree. The skill of the player has nothing to do with it.

Reasonable for one = reasonable for all.

[Kiwi battler]

Go place a ball on the concrete , 3 feet behind a 1 foot high block

I found it incredibly hard to hit that block on my followthru , the club was laid so flat that the bounce created was lining the middle of the ball with the leading edge
Then I chipped the ball over the block with a 9iron ....
Was it a reasonable shot to flop a wedge off that block , NO

There is no way I'd give free relief

[LobWedge]

There is no way I'd give free relief

Well, then I guess that's where you and a senior Level 4 official disagree.

[dreaded_snowman]

I read this thread through, noting that the main argument was around whether the flop shot was a reasonable shot choice, given that the swing path obstruction hinged on this. Rules aside, I found myself wondering... assuming his relief point wasn't too far off from where the obstruction was... did he end up hitting (or attempting) a high flop shot after his ball was moved, or did he chip it?

[Foddz]

It seems to me Kiwi Battler's argument hinges on how reasonable it is to expect the player to pull off the shot, not how reasonable it is to attempt it in the first place.

Every player deserves equal ability to *attempt* a shot, regardless of the predicted outcome. If they're being denied a 1 in 1 million chance of success because of an obstruction, they still deserve relief. If they don't, where do you draw the line? 1 in 1000? 1 in 50? 1 in 5? Deny everyone relief from an obstruction unless you're 100% sure they could make the shot in question if not for the obstruction being there?

It seems more reasonable for the rules to err in favour of the player's best potential outcome, and not take into account their ability.

[Kiwi battler]

This is the hypothetical thread , and given we werent on site to see the exact lie etc we cannot be certain of anything

Ive seen Level 3 rules officials make errors ....what makes Level 4 any less human?

Did he have the rule correct ? most probably
Did "he" not "R&A or USGA" correctly judge the shot to be reasonable?.....
Go simulate it , if you cant see where Im coming from then there's something wrong

[Skiddlydidly]

I attempt shots that I have no possibility of making all the time.

Sucking at golf is punishment enough in itself.

[BC MIST]

Ive seen Level 3 rules officials make errors ....what makes Level 4 any less human?

Level 3's make mistakes? When? The only time they are wrong is when the golfer does not get the relief he wants, after a bad shot.

Whether the golfer chooses to play higher probability shot with a square stance and club face or a lower probability shot with an open stance and an open face is his choice. If he chooses the latter and the slab interferes with his stance or "the area of his INTENDED swing," then relief should be granted. INTENDED is not synonymous with REASONABLE.

The shot would be unreasonable IF there was a huge tree in his away and then, of course, the exception would apply with no relief granted. The shot does not become unreasonable because of his probability of executing it.

[Kiwi battler]

I dont believe there is a wedge on the market that would be capable of flopping a ball off a rock with the swingplane nessessary for the clubhead to hit the slab on the followthru
Therefore the intended swing was not reasonable and free relief denied

But as I said , we were not there so can only go on the facts

[sillywilly]

I'm a bit confused. I read in another thread that you don't get relief from something if it gives you relief from something else in the process. What am imissing?

[Skiddlydidly]

I'm a bit confused. I read in another thread that you don't get relief from something if it gives you relief from something else in the process. What am imissing?

The assertion that no relief is needed from the rock on which the ball is lying. The player could go ahead and try to hit a flop shot off of it, but the immovable obstruction interferes with his swing.

[BC MIST]

I dont believe there is a wedge on the market that would be capable of flopping a ball off a rock with the swingplane nessessary for the clubhead to hit the slab on the followthru
Therefore the intended swing was not reasonable and free relief denied

So if my ball lands on a paved road, hard packed stone dust cart path, clay, or a flat concrete slab, you are saying that the Rules suggest that it is not reasonable for me to try to play a lofted shot. This is interesting as I have played such a shot, with success and I am no pro. Admittedly, I have missed several too, however, no-one, the Rule book or a rules official, has the right to tell me whether it is reasonable or not to employ a particular technique.

As a practice technique I have hit shots from a 2 X 4, just in case I encounter a similar lie on the course. It's tough but it can be done.

[Kiwi battler]

I've done the same , but what I contend is a flop off the tight is NOT possible with the swingplane imployed to gain free relief from the slab

Again I say , go place a ball on the tight a yard behind a 1foot high object
Can you swing the club to hit the block ? would you describe the swing as unessessarily abnormal for a flop off the tight ? ..

[Sakuraba]

I am a rules noob, but I'm getting from this discussion that if my ball is withing a driver swing (or maybe even an extended long putter swing) of any immovable obstruction I can get relief?

[AAA]

No. It has to be your intended swing. ie using the club and stroke you would have used (ie intended to use) if the obstruction was not there.
So if you were 150 yards off the green it is extremely unlikely that you would have used a long putter.
However, if you can legitimately get relief and have determined your nearest point of relief using the same club, then you can use any club in your bag to measure the additional 1 clublength.

[justsomeguy]

I am a rules noob, but I'm getting from this discussion that if my ball is withing a driver swing (or maybe even an extended long putter swing) of any immovable obstruction I can get relief?

No.

You must use the club you intend to play the shot with to determine whether or not you are entitled to relief. Of course only you know what your intentions are - but it must be a shot that is "reasonable" under the circumstances. I doubt that using a driver or long putter out of the deep rough would be considered "reasonable".

Once it is determined that you are entitled to relief, then you can use ANY club to measure the club-length. That's where you pull the driver out of the bag!