Immovable Obstruction Ruling

[BC MIST]

The following situation is TRUE, however, I hope that it is acceptable to put it in the Hypothetical Rulings folder.

Local Rule in place - mark, lift, clean and place on cut portion of your own fairway.

Par 3, 18th hole - A player pulls his tee shot on to a cart path left of a pond, where the pond is between the green and the player's ball. The player picks up the ball and places it in the rough between the cart path and the pond and plays the ball into the water hazard.

He then places a ball close to where he played the previous stroke from, plays the ball on to the green and two putts.

What are the penalties?
What would his score be for the hole?

[Kilroy]

When offering a scenario for discussion, this is the forum.

When asking for help with a ruling, the Ruling Wanted forum is the proper place.

[Kiwi battler]

tee shot
illegal drop
played from wrong place *2
relief from pond
illegal drop "in correct place this time"?
shot to green
putts *2

doesnt sound like a serious breach , tho maybe close , so no DQ , score for hole stands
9 ouch

The local rule is poorly written IMO , but has no bearing on this case , unless it can be interpreted as meaning lift clean and place thru the green

[Kilroy]

The local rule is poorly written IMO , but has no bearing on this case , unless it can be interpreted as meaning lift clean and place thru the green

In which case, his first drop was still wrong wasn't it?

[Kiwi battler]

running late for work , but yes , both drops taken were wrong , would have had to had dropped before lift clean and place

could argue the 2nd illegal drop was in wrong place too , in relation to where he played the ball into the pond , which needs further debate hence the "?"

[Kilroy]

My point was that lift clean and place does not allow relief from the cart path closer to the hole.

[BC MIST]

The local rule is poorly written IMO , but has no bearing on this case , unless it can be interpreted as meaning lift clean and place thru the green

Local Rule in place - mark, lift, clean and place on cut portion of the fairway of the hole you are playing. The LR was verbally given on the first tee and there was no doubt as to what it meant. Through the green was NOT included in the LR.

[1dash1]

BC Mist:

In order for the Committee to "tidy-up" the loose ends when making the ruling, the player's intent needs to be known.

The end result will probably be the same regardless of whether the player was proceeding under the Local Rule, under Rule 24-2, or simply didn't know what rule he was proceeding under. In each case, the player scored a "9" on the hole. I'll elaborate on it, if you wish, but it basically follows what Kiwi battler has already outlined. But you never know what the player is up to, unless you ask him.


How could interrogating the player change the outcome? An example would be the player who says he took an unplayable. (Player didn't know he was entitled to free relief.)

[Kiwi battler]

was the cart path closely mown ?

[BC MIST]

BC Mist:

In order for the Committee to "tidy-up" the loose ends when making the ruling, the player's intent needs to be known.

The end result will probably be the same regardless of whether the player was proceeding under the Local Rule, under Rule 24-2, or simply didn't know what rule he was proceeding under. In each case, the player scored a "9" on the hole. I'll elaborate on it, if you wish, but it basically follows what Kiwi battler has already outlined. But you never know what the player is up to, unless you ask him.


How could interrogating the player change the outcome? An example would be the player who says he took an unplayable. (Player didn't know he was entitled to free relief.)

In this scenario I don't understand why "intent" is of significance. The player obviously did not know the rules and simply proceeded following the rules that he normally plays, even though they were all incorrect. There was no "fairway" within 30 yards of where his ball lay and so being able to prefer his lie was not an option.

I would like to know what criteria was used for the two of you to get "9." for his score. His struck the ball 5 times, and incurred penalties that totaled 5 strokes.
1. wrong method of dropping - 1 stroke
2. wrong place - 2 strokes
3. relief from hazard - 1 stroke
4. wrong method of dropping - 1 stroke.
Which of these penalties would not be applied to his score? Presumably it's the second "illegal" drop?

Lastly, the question of "serious breach" comes to mind. Would you consider his dropping closer to the hole to be significantly advantageous to the player, rather than possibly dropping on the opposite side of the cart path, where his NPR would have been?

[Kiwi battler]

Good spotting , forgot to count the actual stroke itself when he incurred the 2 penalties for playing from the wrong place
Upon relection , I think he may been required to redrop after placing the ball from the hazard ...so has played from a wrong place again ...2 more shots

Serious Breach has been mentioned , the guy just took a 12 ?.....lets not be too mean

[BC MIST]

Good spotting , forgot to count the actual stroke itself when he incurred the 2 penalties for playing from the wrong place
Upon relection , I think he may been required to redrop after placing the ball from the hazard ...so has played from a wrong place again ...2 more shots

Serious Breach has been mentioned , the guy just took a 12 ?.....lets not be too mean

There are occasions where if the player breaks the same rule twice, he is only penalized for one infraction. This is why I am wondering if the two improper drops and the two shots from the same wrong place, may only be counted as one infraction each.

[Kiwi battler]

My bad once again , I shall retype the entire hole

tee shot
breach of 24-2 2 shots
hits ball into hazard
relief from hazard + breach of 26-1 2 shots
chips to green
putt
putt

9 ..... does this sound better ?

[BC MIST]

My bad once again , I shall retype the entire hole

tee shot
breach of 24-2 2 shots
hits ball into hazard
relief from hazard + breach of 26-1 2 shots
chips to green
putt
putt

9 ..... does this sound better ?

9 is your final answer.

Mine is:
5 strokes
5 penalty strokes
10

I included:
2 for the improper drops
2 wrong place
1 water hazard

[1dash1]

Par 3, 18th hole - A player pulls his tee shot on to a cart path left of a pond, where the pond is between the green and the player's ball. The player picks up the ball and places it in the rough between the cart path and the pond and plays the ball into the water hazard.

He then places a ball close to where he played the previous stroke from, plays the ball on to the green and two putts.

BC Mist:

1 stroke _ Tee shot
2 P.S. _ General breach of Rule 18-2, Rule 24-2, or Local Rule (take your pick).
1 stroke _ Ball played into the water hazard.
1 P.S. _ Pulling the ball out of the water hazard (relief under Rule 26-1).
2 P.S. _ General breach of Rule 26-1.
1 stroke _ Ball played to the green.
2 strokes _ Two putts.
====
10 stroke count

You're right. 10 it is.

[Kiwi battler]

Lets double check a few issues


A ball played from a wrong place - count the stroke + add 2 penalties ??

The ball played into the hazard was from the wrong place , it also breached rule 24-2
So we can add that stroke + the tee shot and 2 penalty shots ??

He is sitting in the hazard for 4

Assuming relief from the hazard as in the first wrong drop , wasnt a serious breach , he has breached 26-1 2 penalties + relief from the hazard 1 shot

makes 7 shots , chip to green + 2 putts makes 10


Are we correct ? did we get there correctly ? or , and this is where I'm a tad confused as rule 26 is my weakness

In taking incorrect relief from the hazard , is it 1 to get out + 2 for placing ?

If not , then its more favourable for the player to be pinged for 26-1 than 20-7 + relief

Are we still at 10 ? or did someone fluke the answer at 9 ?

[1dash1]

Lets double check a few issues

The ball played into the hazard was from the wrong place , it also breached rule 24-2
So we can add that stroke + the tee shot and 2 penalty shots ??

He is sitting in the hazard for 4

Check!

The two penalty strokes are for the general breach (i.e., the player generally mucked up) of whatever relief rule he was trying to proceed under. It might have been relief from the cart path. It might have been relief under the lift-clean-place local rule. It might have been that he was simply trying to avoid scratching his golf club and had no intent to proceed under any relief rule (in which case the Committee would assign one). We don't know and we ought to check to confirm our conjecture. And while we're at it, we should check for the Serious Breach. However, it is most likely just a 2 stroke penalty.

* * * * *

Assuming relief from the hazard as in the first wrong drop , wasnt a serious breach , he has breached 26-1 2 penalties + relief from the hazard 1 shot

makes 7 shots ...

Check!

The player spends a penalty stroke to pull the ball out of the water hazard. He then incurs two more penalty strokes for again mucking up the relief, this time it is a general breach of Rule 26-1.

* * * * *

... chip to green + 2 putts makes 10

Check.

We are in agreement.

[Kiwi battler]

Yes , he does cop the extra 2 penalties ....3 shots to get out of the hazard ouch