Washout / Newly Seeded Area

[natgolfer]

In the City and District Championship at Greensmere on Tuesday, my fellow competitor hit his ball into a washed out area to the left of #18, which was also in a roped, newly seeded area(GUR).

Asking for a ruling, I suggested that he first take relief from the washed out area, which was permitted in the local rules for the day, and he did, properly. He dropped the ball within 1 club length of his nearst point of relief and as he was still in the newly seeded area(ground under repair) I then suggested that he could take relief from the GUR. His NPR was 6 paces away, over a cart path and in the "rough." His net move was app. 8 paces from where the original ball was.

When checking the scorecards another FC who was spectating by the 18th, berated me for allowing my FC a "too generous amount of relief," and that it was my job to "protect the field." He was very upset about this, however, he did not complain to DR, who was in charge of the rules for the day.

I still think that it was correct for my FC to get relief from the washout first and the GUR second, even though his ball ended getting moved a significant distance.

Was I correct?

[Kilroy]

I think you were correct, as long as first point of relief was the closest point not closer to the hole from the condition that determined the relief, and the next relief was the closest available relief to the second condition. How far that is away from where the ball originally lay is irrelevant.

My guess anyway.

[Gary Hill]

Why do you describe his nearest point of relief as "over the cartpath"?

Why didn't he take relief from the GUR and drop on the cartpath?

The nearest point of relief is "not in a hazard or on a putting green". It doesnt say anything about not being on a cartpath.

You were correct in taking relief in two steps.
1. relief from washout
2. then relief from the GUR

The distance involved is irrelevant.
For example: If his ball was in the middle of a newly seeded area that was 50 sq. yards in size, he would obviously need to move his ball a significant distance to get relief.

If the FC was so concerned, why didn't he raise the matter with the Committee (as you and the player involved should also have done).

I would like to hear more of the details concerning: "Asking for a ruling, I suggested..."

[natgolfer]

As his marker, he asked me about the proper precedure and I explained what I felt he should do. I also, suggested that if there was any doubt in his mind about what should be done, that he play two balls and then get an official ruling. He declined, which I thought was kinda dumb.

The cart path ran through roped GUR which was on both sides of the path. His first drop from the washout was close to the path but his stance was not on it. To obtain complete relief from the GUR, the NPR was taken on the other side of the path, which I now realize was incorrect because in reality, the path was his NPR from the GUR, but his NPR from the path would have put him in the GUR on the other side of the path, and his NPR from the GUR on the other side of the path, was where he dropped the ball.

I still think he played from the correct spot, with relief having to be taken from: 1. the washout, 2. the GUR, 3. the path, 4. the GUR.

[Gary Hill]

I just wanted to clarify that you were explaining prodcedural options as opposed to suggesting his next play.
(eg. "You have no shot. If I were you, I would take a drop." is not allowed.)
Information on the Rules is never "advice".

As his marker, he asked me about the proper precedure

Contrary to most golfers' belief, your marker has no special significance with respect to anything other than your actual scorecard.
Any fellow-competitor may be employed in or informed of a procedural matter.

The player was within his rights to take relief from the washout and then from the newly seeded GUR.
However, since the washout was within the newly seeded GUR, the easiest course of action would have been to take relief from newly seeded GUR first. This would have automatically eliminated the "washout" issue.

I agree that, using the correct NPR procedure, the player "probably" would have ended up playing from where he eventually did.
However, the player has, in fact, played a stroke from a wrong place (Rule 20-7) and would incurr a two stroke penalty under Rule 25. If a serious breach was involved (the player either gained a significant advantage or negotiated a significant distance without making a stroke), he may also have been subject to disqualification.

[natgolfer]

However, the player has, in fact, played a stroke from a wrong place (Rule 20-7) and would incurr a two stroke penalty under Rule 25.

The above confuses me, which is not too difficult to do, as he did not actually play a shot from a wrong place, IMO. If we forget about the cart path for a moment, the player's NPR from the washout was 6 paces to the right of the ball's location, whereas, when we measured on the other side of the washout, the point of possible relief was actually 9 paces, including approximately one additional pace as he was left handed, so the club would have been placed on the ground a little farther away. The distance back toward the tee was 7 paces. Therefore, where he dropped the ball was the correct spot, again, IMO.

Yes, there was a cart path bisecting the areas of GUR, however, taking relief from the GUR, path and GUR, would have put him in the exact spot from which he actually hit the shot. No distinct advantage was obtained by doing this.

Now, because of the configuration of the GUR, had his ball been literally, one foot farther forward, his NPR would have been on the other side from where he eventually dropped, in some rocks and trees. While we both know that this is tough luck, I suspect that there would have been some severe gnashing of teeth, before the young man accepted that he had to play from the junk. His shot from the washed out area IN the GUR was almost impossible, and from the rocks/trees, it was impossible. Declaring the ball unplayable may have been his only option.

[Gary Hill]

After he took relief from the washout area, his ball was in play in the seeded GUR.

His NPR was on the cartpath (you have confirmed this).

Rule 25-2b (Relief from Abnormal Ground Conditions) REQUIRES that a ball be dropped within one clublength of this point.

He did not. He dropped the ball in some other place and played it.
Therefore, he has played from a wrong place.

It is only speculation on your part that taking relief from the GUR onto the cartpath, then relief from the cartpath to the right into more GUR, then relief from that GUR would end up in the same place as where he actually played from. You have to actually drop three times to find out.

It doesnt matter whether a distinct advantange was gained or not. He dropped and played from a wrong place.

Similarily, if you play from 1 inch forward of the tee markers, no distinct advantange is gained, but it is still a two stroke penalty.

[RU418]

I have read with interest but still somewhat confused. If the cart path is NPR and you are allowed NPR of 1 club length under Abnormal Ground Conditions and this places the ball back into GUR, then isn't the next NPR back onto the cart path or does NPR mean NPR which avoids interference? (Not closer to the hole?)

There is always the option to play the ball from the cart path but not the GUR as stated in Rule 25 Note 2. (Definitions) Is this correct?

[Gary Hill]

The “nearest point of relief” is the reference point for taking relief without penalty from interference by an immovable obstruction (Rule 24-2), an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a wrong putting green (Rule 25-3).
It is the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies, which is not nearer the hole and at which, if the ball were so positioned, no interference (as defined) would exist.

The (as defined) part means:
When taking relief from the GUR, the NPR must avoid the GUR.
When taking relief from the cartpath, the NPR must avoid the cartpath.

The Rules also provide for a scenario where relief from one situation puts you right back into a situation from which relief was just taken.

Picture a scenario in which there is casual water adjacent to a cart path.

The player takes relief from the cart path and drops into the casual water.
The player then takes relief from the casual water and his ball comes to rest back on the cartpath.
If it is evident that relief from the cartpath will put the player again into the casual water, the player may now find his NPR which will avoid BOTH the casual water and the cartpath.
However, this may NOT be done in a single procedure.

As to the question in this thread, I believe there was quite a different picture.

There was GUR on the left, then to the right of the GUR there was a cartpath. To the right of the cartpath, there was more GUR.
(For explanation purposes, I will refer to the two abnormal ground conditions as LFT-GUR and RGT-GUR)
(I will also assume that the player re-drops when applicable.)

If the ball lies in the LFT-GUR, the NPR would be on the cartpath and the player would drop on the cartpath.

The player takes relief from the cartpath and his ball ends up back in the LFT-GUR.

It is evident that his NPR is right back on the cartpath, so the player would find his NPR that avoids the LFT-GUR and the cartpath.

This point would be farther to the right in the RFT-GUR and the player would drop in the RGT-GUR.

If the RGT-GUR is wider than the cartpath, his NPR would be back onto the cartpath.

The player would again drop on the cartpath when taking relief from the RGT-GUR.

After this procedure, the player may NOW find his nearest point of relief which avoids the LFT-GUR, the cartpath, and the RGT-GUR.


This whole mess of dropping and re-dropping could have been easily prevented by including the cartpath when defining the margins of the GUR.
A white line painted across the cartpath at the entrance and exit points of the GUR or a simple notation in the Local Rules would have allowed the player to escape the area with a SINGLE drop.

There is always the option to play the ball from the cart path but not the GUR as stated in Rule 25 Note 2. (Definitions) Is this correct?

Note 2: The Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting play from ground under repair or an environmentally-sensitive area which has been defined as ground under repair.

Play is not generally prohibited from GUR.
However, the Committee may wish to prohibit play from specific areas of GUR (flower beds, newly seeded areas, etc.)
A Local Rule is required to indentify these specific areas.