Rules question

Oilbeefhooked!

Just wondering if someone can give me an answer to the following -
Pulled my 2nd on a par 5 left into a clump
Of small trees.
The trees were quite small but no longer staked.
My problem is however the old stakes had been cut off , with about 2 inches sticking up from the ground.and yes my ball had come to rest hard up against this stake stump.(virtually unplayable.)
So question is as this was not something that was growing could I have been allowed a free drop or not??
Due to uncertainty I knocked it sideways/backwards about A foot with toe of putter and went on to bogey the hole .
Can't find anything definitive in rules so would be grateful on anyone's opinion,thanks.

nanook

Could you remove the stake and get a better shot ?

Oilbeefhooked!

nanook wrote: »

Could you remove the stake and get a better shot ?

No, it was a proper heavy round post well hammered in wouldn't have been able to budge it, also as ball was at rest against it-
Ball would have moved had I attempted anything along those lines!!
Would love to know if I was entitled to relief , as I cut my handicap by 0.9 anyway and may have been better hadi taken a free drop??!!

irishtoffee

Oilbeefhooked! wrote: »

nanook wrote: »

Could you remove the stake and get a better shot ?

No, it was a proper heavy round post well hammered in wouldn't have been able to budge it, also as ball was at rest against it-
Ball would have moved had I attempted anything along those lines!!
Would love to know if I was entitled to relief , as I cut my handicap by 0.9 anyway and may have been better hadi taken a free drop??!!

I would say you were entitled to a free drop as the tree was still staked.

fullstop

irishtoffee wrote: »

I would say you were entitled to a free drop as the tree was still staked.

I disagree. The stake was cut for a reason - to make the trees 'in play'

irishtoffee

fullstop wrote: »

irishtoffee wrote: »

I would say you were entitled to a free drop as the tree was still staked.

I disagree. The stake was cut for a reason - to make the trees 'in play'

All the stake must be taken away.

fullstop

irishtoffee wrote: »

All the stake must be taken away.

Under what rule?

Nemesis

http://golfrules.freeforums.org/ball-against-ex-staked-tree-t1480.html


Have a read of the above.

Oilbeefhooked!

Nemesis wrote: »

http://golfrules.freeforums.org/ball-against-ex-staked-tree-t1480.html


Have a read of the above.

Thanks for the input guys.

Still nothin conclusive to my mind.

Think I'll have to put this one to the pro next time I'm out.

My own thoughts are that as it was a stake, but was not connect , by band etc to tree
Then it def was not a staked tree scenario.

And was by no ways a removable obstruction without a pick and shovel.
This was not an option either .

However but for this sawn off lump of post
In contact with my ball in direct line to the green , there was nothing else hampering me having a full wedge swing and probably putt for birdie.

For this reason I think I may have been entitled to relief for an immovable obstruction.

However still not 100% so glad I never took any chances and proceeded without relief :0/

charlieIRL

tough one to call.
I use the "if in doubt just hit it out" rule when I'm not sure!

mike12

Hi,
So if i understand this correctly.
First of all if a stake is not attached to a tree it is not a staked tree i think everyone agrees on that, but if the stake is not attached but impedes my swing i can get a drop from the stake but not from the tree?
Mike

GreeBo

You only get drops from staked trees to protect the tree, its not to give you relief. Once a tree is mature enough to withstand you hitting it they remove the stake and then you are on your own.
I would say its tough, the stake is part of the course, I'm sure others would say that unless its mentioned on the card then its not an integral part of the course and would take relief...

BigChap1759

Think this is just a tough break if nothing mentioned on the scorecard

ernieprice

If in doubt play it as it lies, Nothing worse than to be disqualified for returning a wrong score. You also have the option of playing a second ball taking relief and then getting a ruling from the committee when round is complete.

paulos53

GreeBo wrote: »

You only get drops from staked trees to protect the tree, its not to give you relief. Once a tree is mature enough to withstand you hitting it they remove the stake and then you are on your own.
I would say its tough, the stake is part of the course, I'm sure others would say that unless its mentioned on the card then its not an integral part of the course and would take relief...

I am one of those others

If it is not declared by the committee to be an integral part of the course then I see no other option but to declare it an immovable obstruction. This would entitle the OP to a free drop within 1 club length of the nearest point of relief

ShriekingSheet

Yeah, it's the same as in the other thread. A post/stake hammered into the ground is artificial.

Note though, that all of this ruling is nothing to do with the tree, only the stake. So you can only drop at the nearest point the stake is out of your way. If that nearest point means the tree is in your swing more, or less than than it was, that's just the way it is.

There's only one nearest point of relief - you don't get a choice, and you only get relief from the obstruction (not a tree or hedge).

For those that remember the Poulter/Garcia match, this was the case, where Poulter got a line-of-sight relief from a TV tower (not really relevent to amateur golf), his "relief" was to drop in a bush. The tower was no longer in his line of sight, the fact that the nearest point with a clear line of sight was in a bush was just tough.

In summary, you did have relief, but be wary that relief doesn't mean a full clear swing from the tree, just the stake.

GreeBo

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

There's only one nearest point of relief - you don't get a choice, and you only get relief from the obstruction (not a tree or hedge).

Note however, that once you have identified the nearest point of relief, the drop can be made within 1 clublength in any direction (still no nearer the hole)


If its a staked tree you get relief from the tree and the stake, its just in this case that the tree is irrelevant (just making this obvious incase anyone gets confused!)

Daithio12

Lads I'm pretty sure this is covered by local rules (i.e it's not a "rule of golf"), so if it's not stated on the card or the notice board of the club in question then no free relief can or should be taken.
In the OPs scenario I would say no relief can be taken even if it was allowed under local rules, as it seems to be a case of bad luck in that the greenkeeper did a half arsed job in removing the stake.

Paulusmaximus

Would the old stake not be classed as an immovable obstruction. It is artificial (been put there rather than growing) and that relief can be taken under rule 24-2.

GreeBo

33-8/16 Local Rule Deeming All Stakes on Course to Be Immovable Obstructions

This is an interesting decision on the rule of golf. It seems to imply that unless its listed as an immovable obstruction then it isnt, rather than the "unless its listed as an integral part of the course it is" viewpoint.

ShriekingSheet

Paulusmaximus wrote: »

Would the old stake not be classed as an immovable obstruction. It is artificial (been put there rather than growing) and that relief can be taken under rule 24-2.

Yes.

Mr. Larson

Slightly off course with this question:

If you are entitled to relief from, let's say, an animal scraping, under a local rule or whatever, and 1 club-length from your nearest point of relief takes you from under a tree in bare ground out to the semi away from the tree - is that just good fortune? I've seen someone take a free drop from an animal hole in a spinney and manage to drop out of the bare ground. Struck me as being either very fortunate or not-legit but I wasn't sure on the ruling.

Can anyone clarify?

Mr. Larson

Jabberwocky wrote: »

Slightly off course with this question:

If you are entitled to relief from, let's say, an animal scraping, under a local rule or whatever, and 1 club-length from your nearest point of relief takes you from under a tree in bare ground out to the semi away from the tree - is that just good fortune? I've seen someone take a free drop from an animal hole in a spinney and manage to drop out of the bare ground. Struck me as being either very fortunate or not-legit but I wasn't sure on the ruling.

Can anyone clarify?

25-1 - Abnormal Ground Conditions:

"Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play."

So it seems that if (s)he can make a stroke at the ball they are entitled to relief?

GreeBo

Jabberwocky wrote: »

25-1 - Abnormal Ground Conditions:

"Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play."

So it seems that if (s)he can make a stroke at the ball they are entitled to relief?

Yeah, basically you cant make a crazy swing and invent interference, likewise, you cant be in a tree and then claim that the rabbit burrow at your feet is the problem.

Mr. Larson

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah, basically you cant make a crazy swing and invent interference, likewise, you cant be in a tree and then claim that the rabbit burrow at your feet is the problem.

Thanks - so if the ball is sitting in the scraping and you are in a position to poke the ball sideways, then you can claim relief from the scraping and depending on the circumstance, you could potentially find yourself in a position where you can now make a decent swing at the ball as opposed to a sideways poke? And you could also potentially find yourself on grass after the relief?

PhilipMarlowe

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Yeah, it's the same as in the other thread. A post/stake hammered into the ground is artificial.

Note though, that all of this ruling is nothing to do with the tree, only the stake. So you can only drop at the nearest point the stake is out of your way. If that nearest point means the tree is in your swing more, or less than than it was, that's just the way it is.

There's only one nearest point of relief - you don't get a choice, and you only get relief from the obstruction (not a tree or hedge).

For those that remember the Poulter/Garcia match, this was the case, where Poulter got a line-of-sight relief from a TV tower (not really relevent to amateur golf), his "relief" was to drop in a bush. The tower was no longer in his line of sight, the fact that the nearest point with a clear line of sight was in a bush was just tough.

In summary, you did have relief, but be wary that relief doesn't mean a full clear swing from the tree, just the stake.

I'm gonna throw in my 2¢.
Assume there is a Local Rule in place protecting young trees (that are staked) - relief MUST be taken (to protect the tree) if the tree interferes with the swing...

Even though there was a cut or broken or un-attached stake that is still a staked tree so relief would have mandatory if the TREE interfered.

From the OP, it seems that the tree wasn't an issue - If the tree hadn't interfered with the swing, then the stake was an immoveable obstruction and you may have had relief from the stake. It may even have transpired that you'd take a free drop from the stake which could possibly then have put you in a position where the (staked) tree was now interfering and then you would have been obliged to take a further drop away from the tree!

Moral of the story?
Tell the ground staff to get the pick and shovels out

Oilbeefhooked!

PhilipMarlowe wrote: »

I'm gonna throw in my 2¢.
Assume there is a Local Rule in place protecting young trees (that are staked) - relief MUST be taken (to protect the tree) if the tree interferes with the swing...

Even though there was a cut or broken or un-attached stake that is still a staked tree so relief would have mandatory if the TREE interfered.

From the OP, it seems that the tree wasn't an issue - If the tree hadn't interfered with the swing, then the stake was an immoveable obstruction and you may have had relief from the stake. It may even have transpired that you'd take a free drop from the stake which could possibly then have put you in a position where the (staked) tree was now interfering and then you would have been obliged to take a further drop away from the tree!

Moral of the story?
Tell the ground staff to get the pick and shovels out

Still seems to be a straight split on if i was entitled to relief or not.
So again glad i never took any.
To Clarify - the 'tree' that had at one time been attached to this stake,
was not an issue here - it affected neither my stance ,swing or line to the green and would not have come into play taking nearest point of relief either.
As 4 inches either side of this stump would have allowed me a clean full wedge to the green.
Nothing mentioned in local rules or on card-the only possibility of relief is
via the 'immovable obstructions rule'.
I agree with yourself and anyone else who thinks relief within 1 clublength
should have been the ruling.
This was not something that was growing or 'surely' could in anyway be descirbed as an integral part of the course, just as previously said someone thought it easier to saw the thing off 2 inches above the ground rather than remove it, there was also another stake stump identical on the oppostite side of the same tree.
Going to bring it up on Friday when im next there, and suggest they should be removed.
Forgot to mention i missed out on second place in the comp on a countback , so if had gotten/taken free relief would have been in the prizes Still better 3rd place than a disqualification for breach of rules!!
Thanks for your input everyone

GreeBo

Jabberwocky wrote: »

Thanks - so if the ball is sitting in the scraping and you are in a position to poke the ball sideways, then you can claim relief from the scraping and depending on the circumstance, you could potentially find yourself in a position where you can now make a decent swing at the ball as opposed to a sideways poke? And you could also potentially find yourself on grass after the relief?

Yep. And if, in taking relief from the scraping you are now impeded by say a staked tree, then you take another drop from that. and so on and so on until you are no longer being interfered with (lol).

I had a case once where I took 3 in a row and it changed my shot from a PW hack out to a nice 7 iron onto the green.

Oilbeefhooked!

GreeBo wrote: »

Yep. And if, in taking relief from the scraping you are now impeded by say a staked tree, then you take another drop from that. and so on and so on until you are no longer being interfered with (lol).

I had a case once where I took 3 in a row and it changed my shot from a PW hack out to a nice 7 iron onto the green.

Nice! Got to take advantage of the rules when we can , most of the time
they are not in your favour.
Just wish they could be a bit more black and white sometimes, this thread is a perfect example of how many people have different interpretations of certain scenarios.
Therefore many would have taken free relief and said no more about it,
whereas many would be giving it a whack off the stakestump and putting it down to bad luck,meaning not a level playing field, but hey thats Golf !!
Will let yous all know the clubs interpretation 'STAKESTUMPGATE' once i
get a ruling.

Imhof Tank

PhilipMarlowe wrote: »

Even though there was a cut or broken or un-attached stake that is still a staked tree so relief would have mandatory if the TREE interfered.

Dont agree with that. Are you basing your view on a rule of golf?

To me its simple OP. The stake is artificial, therefore its an immovable obstruction if its interfering, therefore take relief from the obstruction only.

No need to even consider the possibility of an unattached stake being declared an integral part of the course. What proper committee would ever do that?

Imhof Tank

Oilbeefhooked! wrote: »

many would be giving it a whack off the stakestump and putting it down to bad luck,meaning not a level playing field, but hey thats Golf !!
.

Ignorance of the correct proceedure is not really "one of those things" though is it in that surely the player's responsibility is to know the rules?

(not having a go at you by the way)

Daithio12

Oilbeefhooked! wrote: »

Nice! Got to take advantage of the rules when we can , most of the time
they are not in your favour.
Just wish they could be a bit more black and white sometimes, this thread is a perfect example of how many people have different interpretations of certain scenarios.
Therefore many would have taken free relief and said no more about it,
whereas many would be giving it a whack off the stakestump and putting it down to bad luck,meaning not a level playing field, but hey thats Golf !!
Will let yous all know the clubs interpretation 'STAKESTUMPGATE' once i
get a ruling.

I'd say the clubs interpretation won't be too different to what you got here i.e. it's an unusual situation and you'll get differing opinions, best to fire off an email to the RANDA and get a definitive answer from the governing body.
Also you make it sound like the rules are a bad thing and are only there to punish you, in my opinion and experience, knowing the rules is mostly beneficial, e.g yesterday I played with two guys I hadn't played with before and a discussion arose regarding "nearest point of relief", both players did not realise that once you determined your "nearest point of relief" that you can take a club length from there, both were adamant that you could not take an extra club length. Both players were off 11 and 7 and have been playing for golf for a long time, which I found very strange that they could be playing for such along time and not know the correct procedure for such a common situation and while they weren't breaking any rules they were definitely not getting the full benefit of the rule.

PhilipMarlowe

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Dont agree with that. Are you basing your view on a rule of golf?

Staked trees aren't covered under general rules of golf but a local rule can be in place to offer them (trees) protection.
The trees that a committee wants to protect need to be identified under such a local rule - not necessarily with a stake but that's the usual practice. I doubt you'll see a local rule that mentions only those trees that are currently attached with a tree-tie to a stake Actually, a brand new course could have a local rule that all trees are considered "staked trees", regardless of the presence of stakes (in an attempt to offer protection to new plantings).

The presence of a stake identifies that tree as a staked tree and if the course has a local rule stating that staked trees interfering with stance or swing must result in free relief then away ya go.

Oilbeefhooked!

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Dont agree with that. Are you basing your view on a rule of golf?

To me its simple OP. The stake is artificial, therefore its an immovable obstruction if its interfering, therefore take relief from the obstruction only.

No need to even consider the possibility of an unattached stake being declared an integral part of the course. What proper committee would ever do that?

Agree with you 100%, that would be my interpretation also, but as so many posters see it a no relief scenario ,its obviously not that simple!!??

PhilipMarlowe

Daithio12 wrote: »

...both players did not realise that once you determined your "nearest point of relief" that you can take a club length from there, both were adamant that you could not take an extra club length. Both players were off 11 and 7 and have been playing for golf for a long time, which I found very strange that they could be playing for such along time and not know the correct procedure for such a common situation and while they weren't breaking any rules they were definitely not getting the full benefit of the rule.

And to add further to this - nearest point of relief is determined using the club you would be using in the situation so for example, wanting to hit an 8 iron but a staked tree interferes with stance - then you determine the nearest point of relief using your 8 iron and can then use your driver to mark the further club-length for the drop.

Oilbeefhooked!

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Ignorance of the correct proceedure is not really "one of those things" though is it in that surely the player's responsibility is to know the rules?

(not having a go at you by the way)

But posters on this thread seems to be at loggerheads as to what is - 'the correct proceedure' .thats my point !?

Imhof Tank

Oilbeefhooked! wrote: »

But posters on this thread seems to be at loggerheads as to what is - 'the correct proceedure' .thats my point !?

Well, one camp clearly havent a clue with the greatest of respect to them.

You've asked your own committee for a ruling - be sure to come back and update us on that.

I heard of a case recently where a bunch of ladies in a well known club (my mother being one of them) got so completely confused about the application of a particular rule which had a bearing on one of their majors that they have more or less decided from now on never to accept a penalty and just "appeal" every grey area case after the event; and if they are vindicated fine, if not thats fine too. They have in effect decided that as a group they are too dim to understand the rules of golf and are happy to leave it to the committee to adjudicate their disputes. That is not right imo - players have to make an effort to know the rules.

Oilbeefhooked!

Hi Guys, just to put this thread to bed.
I spoke to pro today re. Stakestumpgate, and the ruling is
i was/am entitled to relief from the stake stump but not the tree.
(nearest point of relief and then 1 clublength)(immovable obstruction)
Wish i had taken it now , would have won second place
Thanks for the lively debate though, good to get to the bottom of these things.