We have a row of young trees behind one of our greens. They are all staked except one. This tree is identical to the others – stake has obviously been removed and not replaced and now is nowhere to be seen. As a marker, would you agree to relief?

Is there a local rule permitting relief? If so, how is it worded?

“If a staked tree or shrub interferes with a players stance or area of intended swing, the player MUST take relief as provided in Rule 24-2b(i)”

The marker’s opinion is not relevant.

In an important competition, I’d play two balls under 3-3 if a committee member in charge of the competition wasn’t immediately available.

In the typical weekly competition I’d take free relief, confident that the committee would rule in my favour but I wouldn’t be upset if they didn’t.

I know the marker’s opinion is not relevant. In the absence of a committee member to give a ruling, i agree that the “play two balls” option is a good one. However the Committee would still have rule. Is it sufficient for the Committee to say there should have been a stake there and so free relief could be taken? At the time, we took the view no stake, no drop.

It is Sufficient for the committee to rule that way.It is probable that the tree was staked but the stake has been knocked out by a mower or similar. Playing 2 balls is the safest & best option in that type of situation.

I would say no free relief.
The rule on the card is clear in that it states staked tree.

In the interest of young tree preservation the rule should be written better. (e.g 1.staked tree or tree under 2 club lengths or 2. Any tree or bush under two club lengths. Have seen these on a lot of cards to cover stakes that go missing.

2cl height is a poor way of identifying trees needing protection.
There are many trees and bushes under that height well able to stand any rough treatment. Would you say a 5 + year old gorse plantation needs protection?

Anyway, would a player with a long putter get relief when one without would not?

If stakes may disappear, then coloured labels or tape should be applied in addition.

2cl height is a poor way of identifying trees needing protection.
There are many trees and bushes under that height well able to stand any rough treatment. Would you say a 5 + year old gorse plantation needs protection?

Anyway, would a player with a long putter get relief when one without would not?

If stakes may disappear, then coloured labels or tape should be applied in addition.

.

I agree with you about it being a poor method of identifying trees needing protection, but the two clublength scenario you present could be applied to several situations already permitted by the rules.

If a player takes relief from an unplayable lie, two long putter lengths might be enough to give a player total relief from the situation, whereas a player measuring clublengths with their driver might still face some impediments.

In almost every scenario requiring a player using a club to determine a dropping point, a player with a longer club in the bag receives a potential advantage.

I’ve always thought that fixed distances should apply to dropping procedures, but not sure how they could be consistently measured.

This situation is slightly different. In all the other cases relief is being given to the player. In this case the relief (ie protection) is for the innocent tree. Why should the tree be given protection from some players and not others? If it needs protection, it needs protection.

Of course, the rule could say the same as determining nearest point of relief. ie the club that would be used for making the stroke if the obstruction was not there. Then a long putter would be irrelevant.

Using clubs to measure relief distances may not be perfect, but I can think of no more practical way to do it. Nor can I think of a better way, overall, to identify young trees than with stakes/ties…

It’s rub of the green, no relief, but tell the mgmt at the end of the round.

Hit the green next time! Problem solved