- Thread starter
- #21
NEhomer
Well-Known Member
This has been interesting you guys so thanks.
I take this craziness away from it thanks to one of steeler's links. Nobody bothered to trapse 30 ft back into the puckers to see if the tree had broken cleanly off at which point it would indeed be a loose impediment. Then, because of this rule from that link:
Q.If part of a large branch which has fallen from a tree (and thus is a loose impediment) interferes with a player's swing, may the player break off the interfering part rather than move the whole branch?
A.Yes.
!!! So dude being unable to move the tree could have cut away interfering branches and played the ball! ...unless the base hadn't severed.
Fuckin' golf
I take this craziness away from it thanks to one of steeler's links. Nobody bothered to trapse 30 ft back into the puckers to see if the tree had broken cleanly off at which point it would indeed be a loose impediment. Then, because of this rule from that link:
Q.If part of a large branch which has fallen from a tree (and thus is a loose impediment) interferes with a player's swing, may the player break off the interfering part rather than move the whole branch?
A.Yes.
!!! So dude being unable to move the tree could have cut away interfering branches and played the ball! ...unless the base hadn't severed.
Fuckin' golf