A lojo "wiesy" question

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by wiefan

Hi ya Lojo....I have a question...I am sure that the answer is "NO Penalty" but I will ask it anyway

In Wiesy's first round at the 15th hole...there is a Pix of Wiesy sort of resting her back side on the Bark of the tree to hit her shot....could this be in anyway like "Improving her stance" if she is using the tree to support herself....I don't think so as the tree is BIG and Wiesy's Backside is NOT strong enough to move this tree back and forth....I am just wondering

also a scenerio...suppose the tree was just a small Bendable one...would this have been "Improving her stance"....assuming that the small tree doesn't break with her weight....not that the kid is fat and/or Heavy....heck she is probably just as skinny as the "skinny twigs of small growing trees".....just kidding wiemaniacs

anyway....Lojo and/or her staff of Knowledgeable rules Gurus....what about this kid resting on the Bark of the tree and also the scenerio

anyway....have a good day everyone....I am sure if it was a penalty...we would have had a LOT of WhistleBlowers and again the Kid would be surrounded in Controversy....Holy Baumberger Batman.....or should I say....Holy Ground Hog Day...dejavu time ....anyway....see ya!!

I will try to copy and paste the pix...I dunno if it will work but I will try....see ya!!

cougar has commented that the picture is deceiving and Wie didn't lean against it. Even if she had, it is not a penalty as a golfer is allowed to fairly take their stance, which would include leaning against or even bending (and in some cases breaking) the branches of a tree or bush. Only IF such an act would improve the lie, line of play or stance, would there be a penalty.

An example of improving as stated above would be if one were to back into a bush to take one's stance and in doing so, several branches were bent out of the way of one's backswing.....or, if in doing so a large hanging branch was moved from behind the ball.

You may have seen golfers in the past tie their rainjacket around their waists when 'backing into' a prickly bush .... so they don't get stuck by thorns, etc.

By the way....a tree is NOT an "immovable obstruction"... obstructions are anything artificial. A tree is a "growing object" and a part of the golf course.

greentee.... Bernhard Langer is the golfer who climbed the tree to hit a ball out.

YouTube - bernhard langer b&h open fulford, 1981

[MarinePaul]

The penalty that comes to mind in "improving one's stance" from the trees was Stadler kneeling on his towel.

I disagree that golf is rocket science, but its rules can get confusing.

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by xman5

In the other thread Cougar said

"The 15th hole found her in the right rough next to a tree. She asked for a rules official, who asked her how she would play the shot. Michelle said "left handed, so the stance would be on the cart path". The nearest point of relief was even closer to the tree, so she just punched the ball back into the fairway."

Does that sound correct? As a righthanded player can you say that for the purposes of this shot I will do it left handed and get a ruling as a left handed stance. That does not sound kosher to me. In any event it does not matter because she just played the ball, but it does not sound right to me.

Yes, a right handed player may claim relief from an obstruction if it interferes with his intention to play a shot left handed (and vice versa), and if the abnormal stroke is reasonable.

Here are two Decisions from the Rules which pertain to such an instance:

24-2b/18 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Not Reasonable in Circumstances

Q. A right-handed player’s ball is in a poor lie. A nearby immovable obstruction would not interfere with a normal right-handed swing but it would interfere with a left-handed swing. The player says he wishes to play his next stroke left-handed and, since the obstruction would interfere with such a stroke, he is entitled to proceed under Rule 24-2b. May the player invoke Rule 24-2b?

A. No. If the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke is to escape a poor lie, use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is not justifiable and the player is not entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b — see Exception under Rule 24-2b.

24-2b/17 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances

Q. A right-handed player’s ball is so close to a boundary fence on the left of a hole that the player, in order to play towards the hole, must play left-handed. In playing a left-handed stroke, the player’s backswing would be interfered with by an immovable obstruction. Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?

A. The player is entitled to relief since employment of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is necessary in the circumstances — see Exception under Rule 24-2b.

The proper procedure is for the player to take relief for a left-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

The player may then use a normal right-handed swing for his next stroke. If the obstruction interferes with the swing or stance for the right-handed stroke, the player may take relief for the right-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

The way it was described by cougar.... Wie declared she was going to play the shot left handed, but her nearest point of relief from the cartpath would have been closer to or behind the tree. Thus, she decided to play her original lie.

[wiefan]

Originally Posted by LoJo

cougar has commented that the picture is deceiving and Wie didn't lean against it. Even if she had, it is not a penalty as a golfer is allowed to fairly take their stance, which would include leaning against or even bending (and in some cases breaking) the branches of a tree or bush. Only IF such an act would improve the lie, line of play or stance, would there be a penalty.

An example of improving as stated above would be if one were to back into a bush to take one's stance and in doing so, several branches were bent out of the way of one's backswing.....or, if in doing so a large hanging branch was moved from behind the ball.

You may have seen golfers in the past tie their rainjacket around their waists when 'backing into' a prickly bush .... so they don't get stuck by thorns, etc.

By the way....a tree is NOT an "immovable obstruction"... obstructions are anything artificial. A tree is a "growing object" and a part of the golf course.

greentee.... Bernhard Langer is the golfer who climbed the tree to hit a ball out.

YouTube - bernhard langer b&h open fulford, 1981

Hi ya lojo....thanks for your answers....but I am still confused....the part in red.....is this legal....considering that if Wiesy's Bee situation was a "Safety to the player issue"....couldn't you say that the thorns was also a "safety issue".....and also....am I correct to assume that moving the thorny bush with a rainjacket tied to the waist is actually IMPROVING the stance so to speak and thus a penalty

now about climbing the tree...lets just say that you climb a tree to hit your shot...while gripping your legs around a big branch....suppose some wood chips fall from the tree....this is almost bound to happen....would this then tree shot be considered illegal as in having the original condition NOT the same as when you started

anyway...thanks for the clarification about the tree stuff.....anyway....have a good day...see ya....go Wiesy go!!

[Blue]

Originally Posted by wiefan

now about climbing the tree...lets just say that you climb a tree to hit your shot...while gripping your legs around a big branch....suppose some wood chips fall from the tree....this is almost bound to happen....would this then tree shot be considered illegal as in having the original condition NOT the same as when you started

What happens if while climbing the tree, a few wood chips fall and they hit another golfer nearby and then bounce back up and hit you in the nose, causing you to sneeze, such that you fall out of the tree and land on top of both the other golfer who happens to be holding his/her club and then he hits your ball by mistake and it goes right in the hole, but then because the force and angle was so odd it bounces right out and the ball ends up back in the same tree? And are the rules the same for stroke play as for match play?

[wiefan]

Originally Posted by LoJo

Yes, a right handed player may claim relief from an obstruction if it interferes with his intention to play a shot left handed (and vice versa), and if the abnormal stroke is reasonable.

Here are two Decisions from the Rules which pertain to such an instance:

24-2b/18 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Not Reasonable in Circumstances

Q. A right-handed player’s ball is in a poor lie. A nearby immovable obstruction would not interfere with a normal right-handed swing but it would interfere with a left-handed swing. The player says he wishes to play his next stroke left-handed and, since the obstruction would interfere with such a stroke, he is entitled to proceed under Rule 24-2b. May the player invoke Rule 24-2b?

A. No. If the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke is to escape a poor lie, use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is not justifiable and the player is not entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b — see Exception under Rule 24-2b.

24-2b/17 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances

Q. A right-handed player’s ball is so close to a boundary fence on the left of a hole that the player, in order to play towards the hole, must play left-handed. In playing a left-handed stroke, the player’s backswing would be interfered with by an immovable obstruction. Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?

A. The player is entitled to relief since employment of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is necessary in the circumstances — see Exception under Rule 24-2b.

The proper procedure is for the player to take relief for a left-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

The player may then use a normal right-handed swing for his next stroke. If the obstruction interferes with the swing or stance for the right-handed stroke, the player may take relief for the right-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

The way it was described by cougar.... Wie declared she was going to play the shot left handed, but her nearest point of relief from the cartpath would have been closer to or behind the tree. Thus, she decided to play her original lie.

Hi ya everyone....ok...let me see if I got this straight...since the cartpath affected a left handed swing...this is why Wiesy declared that she was going to play it left handed....now just suppose that the free drop she gets WASN'T closer to the hole and now she can swing right handed....now for some of you....this would be considered "NOT CORRECT"....but in theory...this shows that the player KNOWS the rules and how it can work to her advantage....same same Tiger Woods and the BOULDER MOVING (loose impediment)....

so Lojo...am I to assume that Wiesy could have switched to right handed after the drop, providing of course the drop itself was in a legal position....if so...then I am super proud of the kid for knowing exactly what her options were and the rules itself

but if all of this would have occured...you can BET that tons and tons of people would be outraged and thus the "Controversy surrounding Wiesy" would again be in full bloom.....holy smokes....this kid is dangerous....so many stuff can happen following this kid....amazing amazing amazing

anyway...all of you have a good day....see ya!!

[wiefan]

Hi ya Blue...ahhhh you are getting into the groove of this thread....actually, the rules of golf are so so detailed compared to other sports that even the loosening of wood chips probably was taken into account when the writers of the rules wrote them

it seems to me that Rules of golf seem to leave "No stone unturned" so to speak....they try to cover every imaginable potential scenerio....amazing stuff....

anyway....have a good day....see ya!!

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by wiefan

Hi ya lojo....thanks for your answers....but I am still confused....the part in red.....is this legal....considering that if Wiesy's Bee situation was a "Safety to the player issue"....couldn't you say that the thorns was also a "safety issue".....and also....am I correct to assume that moving the thorny bush with a rainjacket tied to the waist is actually IMPROVING the stance so to speak and thus a penalty

now about climbing the tree...lets just say that you climb a tree to hit your shot...while gripping your legs around a big branch....suppose some wood chips fall from the tree....this is almost bound to happen....would this then tree shot be considered illegal as in having the original condition NOT the same as when you started

anyway...thanks for the clarification about the tree stuff.....anyway....have a good day...see ya....go Wiesy go!!

wiefan.... Bees or poisonous snakes or alligators or fire ants, etc. are considered a "dangerous situation" (not a safety issue), and a player is entitled to relief away from a dangerous situation. Thorns on bushes, poison ivy, or prickly weeds or such things are not nice, but are normal conditions likely to be found on a golf course. They are not 'dangerous situations'...therefore, no relief...but the player may take an Unplayable Lie (R. 28) away from the shrubs if they wish. Of course, it will cost them a stroke to do so.

Backing into a bush is not improving one's STANCE. Stance is what a golfer does with his feet on the ground. You can't improve the AREA of your intended stance by bending anything, etc; however, where your butt is touching isn't where you're feet are going to be touching. I'm oversimplifying it, but I think you can use your incredibly overactive imagination to think of the scenario.

Your tree climbing example is a bit off the wall, but ... same point. Knocking bark off the tree while climbing a tree in an attempt to reach one's ball would not be improving anything unless one were to knock bark off in the specific area of one's lie, intended stance or swing once the player got there.

[LoJo]

Originally Posted by blue

what happens if while climbing the tree, a few wood chips fall and they hit another golfer nearby and then bounce back up and hit you in the nose, causing you to sneeze, such that you fall out of the tree and land on top of both the other golfer who happens to be holding his/her club and then he hits your ball by mistake and it goes right in the hole, but then because the force and angle was so odd it bounces right out and the ball ends up back in the same tree? And are the rules the same for stroke play as for match play?

hahahahahaha!!

[wiefan]

WAY TO GO LOJO!!!!...terriffic explainations....I love it

lemme ask you a personal question......since Wiesy declared that she was going to hit her shot Left Handed knowing that the Cartpath rule was going to at least be implemented...don't you think the kid is VERY smart in knowing what her potential options were within the rules of golf

anyway....I think the kid was very knowledgable when she declared that she was going to hit the shot left handed and probably knew that she could then switch back to right handed....and all of this would fall under playing within the rules as they are written.....and to think...all of this happened because of the "Cartpath"....if there was no cartpath, then no need of a cartpath relief ruling...then she would have just played the shot and moved on

anyway...I think not too many people give her credit on knowing the rules of golf...actually she does....as this situation and the BEES stuff indicate...so what Lojo....you agree with my assessment of Wiesy's knowledge or not....just curious

anyway...thanks for answering my questions....see ya...have a good weekend....go Wiesy go!!