1. Dumpster Relief?

Foremost is thrilled to be able to feature a dumpster scene in a high-brow  Rules review! (Carefully note the large dumpster in the shade to the right of the roll-aways).

The Setting 

From the 9th hole of the lovely PCC, in four-ball matchplay competition, Reader MM reports that he hit his drive left …”way left”. He found it on the ground amidst the branches of a low-hanging tree, with no possibility of a shot due to swing restrictions.

MM’s partner surveyed the situation and advised MM not to worry as a fenced-in dumpster was situated ahead of the tree, perhaps 10 yards away, in his direct line of play. His partner advised further that, as he would be entitled to free relief from the dumpster under the Local Rule, he would be able to drop into a relief area from a point of nearest complete relief.

MM reports that he took a drop in the rough and blasted a spectacular fairway wood from the rough to the edge of the green where he two-putted for a par. As a longtime Reader of these pages, however, he said figured he had done something wrong, so he penalized himself a stroke (reporting a 5) which halved the hole.

He asks if a penalty was, indeed, warranted in this situation, as the application of the penalty stroke ended up costing him $2.00 on the day, which he fully intended to collect in the event of a favorable ruling from Foremost.

Ruling

A “waste container” falls under the definition of an “Obstruction” (See, Def) and may either be a Movable Obstruction (MO) or an Immovable Obstruction (IMO). A MO, such as a dumpster, may be classified by the Committee as an IMO, which would make sense if the obstruction cannot be moved with “reasonable effort”.

While the line of trash containers in the picture might be MOs, it seems clear in this case that the dumpster itself would be an IMO by any standards. IMOs now fall within the definition of an Abnormal Course Condition “ACC” (See Def.). Ordinarily, a player is entitled to free relief from an ACC only when he encounters stance or swing interference. (R16.1a).

Local Rules may, however, be adopted by the Committee to deal with certain situations. It is recommended that the Local Rules be clear and specific in defining the obstruction and the relief. MM reports  that he confirmed with the Committee that he was “entitled to relief”,  but he never pursued the extent of the relief with the Committee, nor was he willing or able to procure the actual text of the Local Rule.  F can only speculate then,  that the relief offered in this situation was consistent with Model Local Rule 8F-23 which deals with TIOs, which allows a Committee to designate whether an obstruction is a MO or an IMO.

This Model Local Rule, also, permits the Committee to allow line-of-sight relief (a straight line to the hole), which sometimes includes a one-club viewing corridor around the IMO. Again, F doesn’t have the actual text of the PCC LR, but he will assume it offered this line-of-sight relief.

Even so, F finds that MM would not be entitled to relief in this situation since it was “clearly unreasonable” to play the shot even in the absence of the IMO, as he stated that his ball was tangled underneath the limbs of a tree, leaving him no shot. R16.1a (3).

Furthermore, nearest complete relief, had it been allowed, would have been measured from the IMO, and not from the adjacent trees, requiring a reference point and one- club relief area either in the trees (based on the picture) or obstructed by the trees as to an unimpeded swing. There is no way MM could have taken relief as required be the Rules, leaving himself an unobstructed shot into the green with a fairway wood.

Therefore, although F appreciates that MM was indeed noble in assessing himself a one-stroke Penalty,  he played from the Wrong Place under R14.7a, thus disqualifying himself for the hole. Knowing MM as he does, F is confident he will promptly track down his opponents of that day and adjust any settlements as necessary.

A Brief Commentary

Local Rules are often harder to find than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why?

2. A Competition Ruling

Reader JH,  a frequent tournament rules official, reports a Ruling in which he participated at a recent Furman Invitational. A contestant reported that on the previous hole she had stepped on her ball.

What was the Ruling?

The Committee first had to sort out the facts. First, they determined that the incident occurred during her search for her ball, thus the act of stepping on the ball was not a penalty in and of itself. R7.4.

The second deliberation by the Committee concerned her admission that she had not replaced the ball after stepping on it as required by the rule. The Committee suggested that there had to be at least some vertical movement in the position of the ball.

The contestant pleaded her case, however, arguing that the ground was rock hard due to the lack of rainfall, thus there was no movement of the ball at all when it was stepped upon. Ultimately, the Committee accepted her argument and decided not to impose any penalty for breach of R7.4, which would have been the General Penalty, or disqualification in stroke play.

A happy ending at Furman! But even this Committee couldn’t have saved MM!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Time now to close the lid.

Respectfully submitted,
F