Just wondering what the correct procedure is for the following situation;

A bunch of dead trees have fallen over from inside a hazard and are now lying partly outside of the hazard (none are rooted to the ground). The ball comes to rest outside of the hazard but underneath the tree/s.

Decision 23-7 indicates the tree is classed as a loose impediment but due to the size of the tree/s it is impossible to move them.

Is this just a rub of the green situation or is there any relief available?

Just wondering what the correct procedure is for the following situation;

A bunch of dead trees have fallen over from inside a hazard and are now lying partly outside of the hazard (none are rooted to the ground). The ball comes to rest outside of the hazard but underneath the tree/s.

Decision 23-7 indicates the tree is classed as a loose impediment but due to the size of the tree/s it is impossible to move them.

Is this just a rub of the green situation or is there any relief available?

http://www.golflink.com.au/…

D23/7 says the tree is a loose impediment if it’s not still “attached”. If part of it (roots) are still embedded in the ground, it’s not a loose impediment.
In either case, the Committee would be justified in declaring it to be ground under repair. If you’re just playing with your mates and not in a competition, you and your mates are the Committee.

Thanks, but I quite clearly mentioned it was not rooted to the ground.

My question deals with the tree being a loose impediment but too heavy to lift or move.

If the ball is lying under the trees and the trees can’t be moved or broken away, there’s only the options of playing the ball as it lies or declaring it unplayable.

Get Tiger Woods helpers, they managed to move a boulder that was not embedded and classified as a LI.

That’s correct. If the player can get enough people to help him, he’s allowed to do this provided it doesn’t delay play.

GUR as awaiting removal by a greenkeeper?

I find it hard to believe that not even one root was still in the ground, though.

That’s correct. If the player can get enough people to help him, he’s allowed to do this provided it doesn’t delay play.

Hit it where they mow

The issue is, but should it be allowed?

Am I permitted to take a chainsaw to said tree?

I bet the rules/decisions don’t address this but an army of followers assisting is allowed.

That’s correct. If the player can get enough people to help him, he’s allowed to do this provided it doesn’t delay play.

Hit it where they mow

The issue is, but should it be allowed?

Am I permitted to take a chainsaw to said tree?

I bet the rules/decisions don’t address this but an army of followers assisting is allowed.

1. Yes, you can use a chainsaw if you have one handy.
2. An army of followers is allowed and they may help.

(The Decisions above and below are also interesting)

Thanks RulesDoc and others – that answers my question.

Just to complete the Woods’ story. He didn’t delay play because he was having to wait for the group ahead.

Thanks Rules Doc I will remember to pack a chainsaw just in case.

Best I not pack my whipper snipper because I fear I would not be removing loose impediments with that.

As for the army of followers, don’t play golf like Tiger so I guess I will have to take an unplayable.

Now that is neatly the point I wished to arrive at, fair rules are equitable for all, just because somebody has an entourage should not allow them to gain advantage over another.

Once again the rules are stupid.

just because somebody has an entourage should not allow them to gain advantage over another.

Once again the rules are stupid.

Play it as it lies, get on with it, its not life or death, its just a game!

How do you legislate to cover that?

Is it unfair for a frail, ederly lady to ask someone to move a large fallen branch out of the way?

But of course, fairness and equity are not the same thing.

Thanks Rules Doc I will remember to pack a chainsaw just in case.

Best I not pack my whipper snipper because I fear I would not be removing loose impediments with that.

As for the army of followers, don’t play golf like Tiger so I guess I will have to take an unplayable.

Now that is neatly the point I wished to arrive at, fair rules are equitable for all, just because somebody has an entourage should not allow them to gain advantage over another.

Once again the rules are stupid.

Play it as it lies, get on with it, its not life or death, its just a game!

Sorry, just trying to be helpful.

AAA

Equity is the set of legal principles that supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly. ie fairness

RulesDoc

Thanks, no need to be sorry.

Equity in golf relates only to points not covered by the rules.
In that similar situations should be treated in a similar way.

Fairness is subjective and is not considered by the rules.

Equity in golf relates only to points not covered by the rules.
In that similar situations should be treated in a similar way.

Fairness is subjective and is not considered by the rules.

What other rules are we not playing by?

Similar/same situation – My ball next to a boulder and Tiger Woods ball next to same boulder would not be treated in a similar way. He will play it as it lies, I will incur a penalty as an unplayable lie.

Equity in golf relates only to points not covered by the rules.
In that similar situations should be treated in a similar way.

Fairness is subjective and is not considered by the rules.

What other rules are we not playing by?

Similar/same situation – My ball next to a boulder and Tiger Woods ball next to same boulder would not be treated in a similar way. He will play it as it lies, I will incur a penalty as an unplayable lie.

Play it as it lies, get on with it, its not life or death, its just a game!

Get your friends to help you move the boulder. :)

Sadly the group of 2/3 friends I play with would not be strong enough.

The absurdity is plain to see, all should get free relief from the LI, that is equity and fairness.

Wonder if these trees had fallen due to a recent storm. Had a situation a couple of years ago at a neighboring club …big open event…major storm during the night blew a number of trees over. A quick decision, local rule….”All fallen trees treat as GUR”...problem solved quickly.

1. In acknowledgement of the Tiger Woods fiasco, it was reported in a reputable golf magazine by a reputable writer that; ’The USGA has already said it will revisit the matter with its friends in the R&A. There is a good chance the decision (hastily promulgated to justify Wood’s action – which was legal, but hardly ethical) will be altered. That’s healthy.’

The date of that article was May 1999! We’re still waiting.

2. If the Definition of ‘Loose Impediment’ were to be changed to the following, the issue would disappear:

A ‘Loose impediment’ is a natural object able to be lifted without undue delay to play by the player with the assistance of no more than one other person, including:

• stones, leaves, twigs, branches and the like,
• dung, and
• worms, insects and the like, and the casts and heaps made by them,

provided they are not:

• fixed or growing,
• solidly embedded, or
• adhering to the ball.

Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.

Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either casual water or loose impediments, at the option of the player. Dew and frost are not loose impediments.

3. The essence of the concept of equity is that neither should equal people be treated unequally, nor unequal people equally.

1. In acknowledgement of the Tiger Woods fiasco, it was reported in a reputable golf magazine by a reputable writer that; ’The USGA has already said it will revisit the matter with its friends in the R&A. There is a good chance the decision (hastily promulgated to justify Wood’s action – which was legal, but hardly ethical) will be altered. That’s healthy.’

1. The Tiger incident happened in 1999
3. I made a link to 3 Decisions under 23-1 on large loose impediments, help and removal.
4. These Decisions can be found in Decisions on the Rules of Golf from 1989, Decision 23-1/2 and 23-1/3 has the exact same wording as in the current version.

The date of that article was May 1999! We’re still waiting.

which was legal, but hardly ethical)

What is ethical is a very personal interpretation. In golf, my view is that ethical behaviour is following the Rules.

But how would your revision help a physically weak player with a disabled marker?

AAA

What is ethical is a very personal interpretation. In golf, my view is that ethical behaviour is following the Rules.

Agreed, it is personal but golf is usually played in groups of four or less and I do not see enlisting the help of 15 strangers (non-participants) to move a boulder as within the spirit if the game. And I do not think we should be citing Wood’s ethics as any sort of benchmark.

But how would your revision help a physically weak player with a disabled marker?

AAA, I am sure that you are smart enough to answer your own question.

We can agree that in golf (as in life) things will never be completely ‘fair and equitable’. That is, to use the jargon, there is never likely to be a ‘completely level playing field’.

The point of the revised definition is to more closely reflect what, I am sure, would be our joint conception of what a ‘loose impediment’ looks like and to adjust the balance so that the playing field is a bit more level.

In respect to your example (which we know is not likely to be the typical case), I imagine that even at your club (wherever that is) there is likely to be at least one able-bodied person in a playing group. If not, Rule 35 applies. The ‘assistant’ does not have to be the marker.

RulesDoc

1. Yes, the Woods incident was in January 1999 (I believe) and the article appeared in May 1999 – is this just information for the uninitiated or is there a point which I have missed?

2. Yes, I am well aware of these decisions and am happy to stand corrected on the timing. These decisions do, however, refer to ‘the size of a watermelon.’ It was the sheer magnitude of the obstacle removed by Woods, and the methodology, which caused the universal furore. I stand by the point that the USGA (reportedly) felt that this was contrary to the spirit of the game (and the Decisions extant) and indicated they would do something about it.

They haven’t!