Perhaps the ‘something’ was to consider it (together with the R&A) and ultimately that consideration determined they could’t justify a change or they couldn’t agree a precise satisfactory form of words.

Perhaps the ‘something’ was to consider it (together with the R&A) and ultimately that consideration determined they could’t justify a change or they couldn’t agree a precise satisfactory form of words.

What other rules are we not playing by?

Yes, always possible.

It is also possible that it just went into the ‘too-hard basket’.

Whatever the reason, it is simply a disgrace that something has not been done by those with the responsibility to protect the integrity of the game, to overcome this obvious anomaly.

Given the outrage that the Woods incident caused amongst golfers concerned that the game had been brought into considerable disrepute, I view this lack of action as bordering on negligence.

At the risk of extending the discussion…

I am fairly certain that most of us view a ‘loose impediment’ as a small object which is on the course because it has been knocked or fallen from a tree, has been deposited by a duck, might be a small stone dislodged from a path, a snake has died, and the like.

I would be fairly certain that a course architect would not place a 10 tonne ‘loose impediment’ in a strategic position on the course.

As the term is only used in golf, I believe a loose impediment is as defined.

But how often does it happen to be worth the fuss?

OK, that’s a reasonable position.

If you would like to look at Rog’s Blog: LI & MO Definitions there is an image (which I spectacularly failed in loading to this site) of a situation which arose at my club after a windy night.

These circumstances set the bar clearly in favour of four burly blokes who can move the impediment.

Your blog says

A. If a stone is partially embedded and may be picked up with ease, it is a loose impediment. When there is doubt as to whether a stone is solidly embedded or not, it should not be removed.

This Decision implies quite clearly that an object, not solidly embedded, which can only be (re)moved by rolling it is not, by Definition, a ‘loose impediment’.

It does not.
Picking up is not rolling.
If it is not embedded at all, your comment above does not apply anyway.

Stones of any size (not solidly embedded) are loose impediments and may be removed, provided removal does not unduly delay play.
There was no doubt in the official’s view that the stone was not embedded, even partially.

That’s how it is.

As far as I recall the origin for the Decisions on large loose impediments were made after a tournament in the sixties, where a female pro hit her ball to a spot behind a large unattached tree trunk. She was in no way able to move it, but as it was loose, she was allowed to get the assistence from spectators and the Decision was made after that.
Furthermore, a player was allowed to break pieces off a large loose impediment, maybe as a gesture to players without an army of willing hands.

As long as an natural object is not attached and not embedded, the player may move it, may get help or may break it into pieces.
This has been allowed for nearly 60 years, a long time before Tigers ball came to rest behind the rock.

The fact that somting is heavy does not under the Rules of Golf make it embedded. A large rock lying on a tarmac road is loose impediments even if the only option to move it by rolling it!

AAA

Then why does Decisions 23/2 not state: ‘… may be picked up or rolled away with ease …’.

And why do you not see relevance of the qualification that an obstruction is a movable obstruction only if it can be moved ‘without unreasonable effort’?

These questions are rhetorical.

I read nothing which does not indicate to me that the conception of a loose impediment is an object which can be picked up and moved by the player without unreasonable effort.

I do take some comfort from the fact that golfers ‘everywhere’ viewed what Woods was permitted to do as outrageous; I guess we will just have to disagree about a 10 tonne rock being a loose impediment, and move on.

RulesDoc

That’s how it is.

Yes, of course it is, and I do not see anyone disputing the fact.

If a loose impediment is ‘not easily removed’ and ‘without undue delay’, then either there should be no relief (moving the LI with assistance) or the player should be afforded a free drop. That would be equitable.

AAA

Then why does Decisions 23/2 not state: ‘… may be picked up or rolled away with ease …’.

Embedded indicates a degree of ‘buriedness’. Woods’ boulder was sitting on the surface. 23/2 is not relevant to a non-embedded LI.

And why do you not see relevance of the qualification that an obstruction is a movable obstruction only if it can be moved ‘without unreasonable effort’?

Apples and oranges. It is permitted to break a LI but not an IO.

I read nothing which does not indicate to me that the conception of a loose impediment is an object which can be picked up and moved by the player without unreasonable effort.

The rule only specifies ‘removal’. Picked up, rolled, pushed, pulled will all do.

Reasonable effort is not mentioned in the rule nor in the definition. An embedded acorn can be removed without unreasonable effort but that is not permitted. The only constraint is time.