On Mar 22, 5:18 am, "M L Wadsworth"
Post by M L WadsworthPost by david s-aMalcolm,
My news reader is set up to eliminate all posts once they have been read
and I have moved out if the reader. I inadvertently moved out of the
reader without addressing your query...however, I think you were querying
the new decision 25-1b/25.5. The only thing I can think of is that it is a
not unreasonable extension of the rule to be applied to the exception. If
the ball was merely lying in a rabbit scrape or bird damage in the same
position as the entrance to the burrow then the exception would
apply.....just because the burrow carried the ball away from that point
should not be turned to an advantage....although this somewhat belies the
issue described in D25-1b/23! In other words, I don't know!
cheers
david
David,
"There are four referees (David, Malcolm, John and Peter) who used to
reply to this group and if you are all still watching I would
appreciate your opinions of the following. It is basically to do with
rabbit burrows, rule 25 and its associated Decisions.
If a ball runs into a rabbit burrow and is underground then the
following is stated.
25-1b/23 deals with a ball entering a burrow and coming to rest OOB
25-1b/24 deals with a ball entering a burrow OOB and coming to rest in
bounds
25-1b/25 deals with a ball entering a burrow and coming to rest under
a putting green
All three take as their point of reference the nearest point of relief
which is vertically above the position of the underground ball with
the exception of /25 which rightly states that the position must be
further determined to remove it from the putting green from the point
previously found.
I have no problems with any of these but I read the new Decision this
year 25-1b/25.5 and I copy it below.
25-1b/25.5
Application of Exception to Rule 25-1b When Ball Lies Underground in
Burrowing Animal Hole
Q Through the green, a player's ball comes to rest underground in a
hole made
by a burrowing animal. A large bush is immediately next to and
overhanging the
entrance to the hole. Given the Exception to Rule 25-1b, is the player
entitled to relief
without penalty from the burrowing animal hole?
A FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE EXCEPTION TO RULE 25-1b A BALL LYING
UNDERGROUND IN A BURROWING ANIMAL HOLE IS DEEMED TO LIE AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE HOLE.
If the nature of the area surrounding the entrance to the hole is such
that it is clearly unreasonable for the player to make a stroke at a
ball lying at any part of the entrance to the hole (e.g. because of
the overhanging bush), the player is not entitled to relief without
penalty under Rule 25-1b. Otherwise, the player is entitled to relief
without penalty under Rule 25-1b.
If the ball lies in a hole, but is not underground, it is the position
of the ball, rather
than the entrance to the hole, which is relevant in determining
whether the Exception
to Rule 25-1b applies. (New)
I have CAPITALISED the phrase that puzzles me. Why is the point of
reference at the entrance of the hole contrary to its actual position
as is the case with the other three?
Sorry that it is a bit long.
Pat"
Hi Pat,
I don't have an answer to the Why, but I remembered this response from
Andy McFee to a posting elsewhere a couple of years ago. Is this along
similar lines? I would post the direct link and give credit if i knew
how, but I wasn't able to do that.
JohnT
"Although I was not there I do have some knowledge of this case which
may help.
The two highly experienced officials did not forget about the
exception, indeed the first official denied relief on the basis of it,
but sought a second opinion because he was not sure (very good
refereeing, as judgment calls are perfect examples of when second
opinions are valid). The second official concluded that the ball was
only under the tree because it had firstly gone down the rabbit hole
and gave relief accordingly. I was called for an opinion and confirmed
that relief, in the circumstances outlined to me, was the correct
call.
We had the exact same ruling some years ago with Mark Roe at the
Forest of Arden and we again (me again I am afraid !) gave relief on a
second opinion. If a ball goes into a deep gorse bush and happens to
be lying in a rabbit hole, relief would be denied as the ball is in
the gorse bush first, and anything else is secondary.
If however, the only way a ball can get under a tree is because it has
entered a rabbit hole, JP and I take the view that these cases warrant
relief as the ball is in the rabbit hole first and anything else is
secondary.
Hope this helps. "