Cart Path = Immovable Obstruction

[Kilroy]

Just one more thing to get wrong. :blush

[BC MIST]

Waitaminnit. That's not what the rule says. At least it depends on how you read this sentence.
It is not unreasonable to make a stroke at a ball when it is in casual water or in ground under repair if you are standing on a cart path. The cart path is not interfering with your ability to make a stroke at a ball in GUR or casual water.
However, if there is a tree, which is not in the abnormal ground condition, interfering with your ability to make a stroke at a ball which is in an abnormal ground condition, then you do not get relief. Either I'm reading your sentence incorrectly, or it is worded incorrectly.

Going back to my original post on the subject, the ball is against a tree or in between the roots at the bottom, but clearly in a position where a reasonable shot anywhere is virtually impossible.

Now, add to that the stance being on a cart path, GUR or casual water, or the ball lying in CW or GUR, then it seems that the exception would apply because it is clearly unreasonable for the golfer to make a stroke because of where he put the ball and not the 3 possible conditions.

[Big_duck]

Going back to my original post on the subject, the ball is against a tree or in between the roots at the bottom, but clearly in a position where a reasonable shot anywhere is virtually impossible.

Now, add to that the stance being on a cart path, GUR or casual water, or the ball lying in CW or GUR, then it seems that the exception would apply because it is clearly unreasonable for the golfer to make a stroke because of where he put the ball and not the 3 possible conditions.

OK, the ball is unplayable. Under Penalty of one stroke, I drop the ball within two club lengths, no nearer to the hole on the cartpath am I entitled to free relief from the cart path?

[Gary Hill]

OK, the ball is unplayable. Under Penalty of one stroke, I drop the ball within two club lengths, no nearer to the hole on the cartpath am I entitled to free relief from the cart path?

Yes.

[Gary Hill]

Going back to my original post on the subject, the ball is against a tree or in between the roots at the bottom, but clearly in a position where a reasonable shot anywhere is virtually impossible.

Now, add to that the stance being on a cart path, GUR or casual water, or the ball lying in CW or GUR, then it seems that the exception would apply because it is clearly unreasonable for the golfer to make a stroke because of where he put the ball and not the 3 possible conditions.

Your original post stated "if my ball comes to rest on the tee side at the base of a huge tree."

Now you are saying "in between the roots at the bottom, but clearly in a position where a reasonable shot anywhere is virtually impossible."

These are two completely different scenarios.

In the first case, a sideways stroke is reasonable. A player whose sideways stance is interferred with by any of the conditions mentioned gets free relief under the applicable Rule.

In the second scenario, no shot is reasonable. Therefore, no free relief can be taken under Rule 24-2b or Rule 25-1 because of the exceptions to each of the Rules.

[BC MIST]

Your original post stated "if my ball comes to rest on the tee side at the base of a huge tree."

Now you are saying "in between the roots at the bottom, but clearly in a position where a reasonable shot anywhere is virtually impossible."

These are two completely different scenarios.

In the first case, a sideways stroke is reasonable. A player whose sideways stance is interferred with by any of the conditions mentioned gets free relief under the applicable Rule.

In the second scenario, no shot is reasonable. Therefore, no free relief can be taken under Rule 24-2b or Rule 25-1 because of the exceptions to each of the Rules.

I stand corrected.

[BC MIST]

OK, the ball is unplayable. Under Penalty of one stroke, I drop the ball within two club lengths, no nearer to the hole on the cartpath am I entitled to free relief from the cart path?

In the 2003 City & District Championhip my FC's ball came to rest on an area marked GUR. His NPofR was on an adjacent cart path. His NPofR was on another area of GUR, unconnected to the first section of GUR. His NPofR from the second GUR was on a closely mown area.

Another FC, watching this scenario take place from near the putting, berated me for allowing the above to take place as the final place of rest for the ball was several feet from the original lie. Later, the rules official for the tournament confirmed that what had transpired was the correct procedure.

I am still looking for the FC that was by the green, in order to fill him in.

[spidey]

Now, add to that the stance being on a cart path, GUR or casual water, or the ball lying in CW or GUR, then it seems that the exception would apply because it is clearly unreasonable for the golfer to make a stroke because of where he put the ball and not the 3 possible conditions.

Ground Under Repair
“Ground under repair’’ is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative. It includes material piled for removal and a hole made by a greenkeeper, even if not so marked.

All ground and any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing within the ground under repair is part of the ground under repair. The margin of ground under repair extends vertically downward, but not upward. Stakes and lines defining ground under repair are in such ground. Such stakes are obstructions. A ball is in ground under repair when it lies in or any part of it touches the ground under repair.

Bolding is mine. According to the definition, if the tree is in ground under repair, then the tree is ground under repair. It cannot be a separate interference from which relief is not available. I don't see how free relief is not available if the ball is within GUR and the tree interfering with the swing is within the same GUR.

[Gary Hill]

Spidey -

Sorry, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

[spidey]

Must be I'm trying too hard.

My understanding is that BC MIST is saying that if you are in GUR or CW, and you do not have an unrestricted swing at your ball, then you don't get relief from the GUR or CW. Perhaps I am just reading too much into it.

I'm pretty sure that any tree, bush, grass, sod, stump, stone, branch or any loose impediment which is in CW or GUR is itself part of the CW or GUR. No?

[Gary Hill]

I'm pretty sure that any tree, bush, grass, sod, stump, stone, branch or any loose impediment which is in CW or GUR is itself part of the CW or GUR.

True.

All ground and any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing within the ground under repair is part of the ground under repair.

We have to be very clear about what we are talking about.

BC MIST has gotten himself into trouble by lumping too many things together, just as you have done by lumping sod, stones, branches, and loose impediments into GUR.

I believe your point is:
If you cannot make a stroke at the ball because of a tree and that tree is within the margin of ground under repair, you DO get relief under Rule 25-1.

You are correct. Your ball lies in ground under repair and you get relief.

The tree is part of the abnormal ground condition.

Therefore, it cannot also be "anything other than an abnormal ground condition".

[BC MIST]

BC MIST has gotten himself into trouble by lumping too many things together, just as you have done by lumping sod, stones, branches, and loose impediments into GUR.

Jeepers, I start a thread form which many people learned something about a particular rule, and I have gotten myself into trouble for doing it.

I guess from now on I will just shutup and do what I am told.

[nice_lag]

Jeepers, I start a thread form which many people learned something about a particular rule, and I have gotten myself into trouble for doing it.

I guess from now on I will just shutup and do what I am told.

This is a wonderful thread. I've learnt a lot from it. As Gary often points out, take the rules step by step and things shall fall into place.

[Kilroy]

Jeepers, I start a thread form which many people learned something about a particular rule, and I have gotten myself into trouble for doing it.

I guess from now on I will just shutup and do what I am told.

I think he was speaking about having "trouble" interpreting the rule.

[LobWedge]

Rule #1 - Don't hit it there.
Rule #2 - If you do hit it there, chainsaw.

[BC MIST]

Rule #1 - Don't hit it there.
Rule #2 - If you do hit it there, chainsaw.

Rule # 3 - Foot wedge it out when you think your fellow competitors are not looking.

[spidey]

Rule # 3 - Foot wedge it out when you think your fellow competitors are not looking.

This is so depressing. Classically, the FC doesn't realize that he/she has been seen, and now it is the responsibility of another FC to make a claim. Even the ones that aren't seen generally display very telltale bodylanguage signs.... like looking around furtively while their hands or feet are obviously doing something clandestine.

[spidey]

just as you have done by lumping sod, stones, branches, and loose impediments into GUR.

I stand corrected. I guess I considered these things part of the "ground" in the ground under repair, but loose impediments are excluded in the definition of GUR, as are obstructions.

[spidey]

Jeepers, I start a thread form which many people learned something about a particular rule, and I have gotten myself into trouble for doing it.

Don't let that deter you. Happens all the time when you run up against a guy who has an encyclopedic knowledge of something. Pat yourself on the back for having the 'nads to forge ahead. There are plenty of guys that aren't asking questions for fear of embarrassment or ridicule. Somebody's gotta do it.

Luckily for us, you play plenty of competitive rounds and have a chance to see conditions and combinations of rules that most of us don't. We get the benefit of your experience. Unluckily for you it usually involves a penalty or making a claim.

[mpare]

This has been a great thread. I'm happy you posted it, BC Mist. The exchanges that ensued certainly assisted me in having a better understanding of the various applications of these rules. Now if only Tom Watson would publish an updated version of his Illustrated Rules of Golf. The pictures are so much more fun than trying to wade through the arcane language of the Decisions on the Rules of Golf. The only way to get through that is with a very full bodied wine.

[LobWedge]

There's a link on the USGA site to Rules Animations with voice-overs by Roger Twibell. They're pretty cool, and the list keeps on growing.

[gbower]

Here is that website

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/animations/index.asp

They've been gradually adding some new ones to it.