Rules question

[WMitch6]

Yesterday I hit a ball that came to rest against the trunk of a tree. It looked like I had two options, either an unplayable or try to chip it out backwards. Then my playing partner pointed out that my stance was interfered by the cart path. If I tried to chip it I would have to stand with one foot on the cart path curb. Based on that I took a free drop and managed to hit out into the fairway.

Was that the correct way to score the hole? After the round I started thinking that had the cart path not interfered I probably would have taken an unplayable penalty.

 

[slickpitt]

You massaged the rules to make them work in your favor. That being said, you were perfectly in line with the rules. You see PGA Tour players do it ALL the time. I saw Sabbatini take relief from the middle of some huge bush because he had a grandstand that sort of interfeared with his line to the green.

Sooo...

Reasonable shot option - Chip out backwards from the tree. Reasonable stance from that shot has cart path interfearance, player should be entitled to full relief from said cart path, plus 1 club no closer the hole I beleive.

 

[Fourputt]

As long as the stance and intended stroke were reasonable for the lie, you were entitled to relief from interference from the obstruction. If in taking relief correctly from the obstruction you also gained relief from the tree, then you just got lucky. You are then entitled to change your intended shot since the relief from the obstruction also gave incidental relief from the tree.

 

[mediaguru]

It is all stance and swing. If you take a normal stance and normal swing and they're interfered with by the cart path, you are within the rules.

 

[Bignose]

As long as the stance and intended stroke were reasonable for the lie, you were entitled to relief from interference from the obstruction. If in taking relief correctly from the obstruction you also gained relief from the tree, then you just got lucky. You are then entitled to change your intended shot since the relief from the obstruction also gave incidental relief from the tree.

So, this is where I was stuck when I first read the thread.

Basically -- you are saying that if the tree was right between the ball and the green, that you cannot take a stance to hit right at the green (and hence also right at the tree) just so that you can stand on the path and claim interference, right? That the only "reasonable" stroke would be somehow around the tree, and only if during that shot your stance was on the path, that you'd get interference and the free relief. I'm curious how "reasonable" the shot has to be to be "reasonable". What if it is was a very skinny tree, though still in the way? What if part of the green would be available? Or are these calls up to the player and what their stated intent is?

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Would the player have to declare his intent prior to the drop? Would he then have to pursue that intent even if the drop allowed him a clearer shot at the green?

 

[JEFF4i]

Would he have to declare why he plans on moving his ball? Of course. Even if not, it protects your bumb. And yes, of course, you are allowed to "get lucky" if the rules work in your favor. Sometimes they don't, sometimes they do.