Improper Relief Taken?

[LobWedge]

A player hits their lay-up on a par-5 into the deep rough on the right side of the hole, 3 yards off the fairway, and a half yard from the edge of the semi-rough, about 140 yards from the pin.

The player gets to the ball and notices that the ball is sitting way down in the rough, and also notices a sprinkler head in the semi-rough that would be behind them when their stance is taken. Upon noticing the sprinkler head, the player takes a 3 or 4 hybrid from their bag, and takes their stance to address the ball. Doing this puts the sprinkler head under their left heel.

The player claims they're entitled to relief from the obstruction based on the stance with the hybrid club, and a FC agrees. The player takes relief from the condition, marking the NPR, taking one clublength from that point (no nearer the hole), and drops their ball. The one clublength has allowed the player to drop their ball from the heavy rough now into the semi-rough. With the ball now back in play, the player returns to their bag and, instead of pulling the same hybrid club, pulls a mid-iron and plays their next shot onto the green.

Does the fact that the player used a longer, lower lofted club in order to establish the need for relief, and has now used a shorter more lofted club to play their next shot from rough that is much shorter, constitute improper relief? Should the player be penalized?

[gbower]

In the decision below it says it is recommended to use the club he would use for the shot. I had a guy try this with me at a recent tournament and tried to pull his driver out so he'd be standing on a sprinker head and when I asked him if he'd really use that club he chuckled and said " I had to try" but it didn't work. His lie wasn't that bad and he made a good shot. Some people will try anything.

---------------------------------------------------------------


24-2b/1 Determining “Nearest Point of Relief”

Q. The Note to the Definition of “Nearest Point of Relief” provides that the player should determine this point “by using the club with which he would have made his next stroke if the condition were not there to simulate the address position, direction of play and swing for such stroke.” May the player use any club, address position, direction of play or swing in determining the nearest point of relief?

A. No. In determining the nearest point of relief accurately it is recommended that the player use the club, address position, direction of play and swing (right or left-handed) that he would have used had the obstruction or condition not been there. For example, the player has interference from an immovable obstruction and, were it not for the obstruction, he would have used a right-handed stroke with a 4-iron to play the ball from its original position towards the green. To determine the nearest point of relief accurately, he should use a right-handed stroke with a 4-iron and the direction of play should be towards the green. See also Decisions 20-2c/0.7 and 20-2c/0.8.

[LobWedge]

In the decision below it says it is recommended to use the club he would use for the shot. I had a guy try this with me at a recent tournament and tried to pull his driver out so he'd be standing on a sprinker head and when I asked him if he'd really use that club he chuckled and said " I had to try" but it didn't work. His lie wasn't that bad and he made a good shot. Some people will try anything.

---------------------------------------------------------------


24-2b/1 Determining “Nearest Point of Relief”

Q. The Note to the Definition of “Nearest Point of Relief” provides that the player should determine this point “by using the club with which he would have made his next stroke if the condition were not there to simulate the address position, direction of play and swing for such stroke.” May the player use any club, address position, direction of play or swing in determining the nearest point of relief?

A. No. In determining the nearest point of relief accurately it is recommended that the player use the club, address position, direction of play and swing (right or left-handed) that he would have used had the obstruction or condition not been there. For example, the player has interference from an immovable obstruction and, were it not for the obstruction, he would have used a right-handed stroke with a 4-iron to play the ball from its original position towards the green. To determine the nearest point of relief accurately, he should use a right-handed stroke with a 4-iron and the direction of play should be towards the green. See also Decisions 20-2c/0.7 and 20-2c/0.8.

That's how I see it too Gerry, but 4 LPGA rules officials saw it differently.

[BC MIST]

That's how I see it too Gerry, but 4 LPGA rules officials saw it differently.

Any idea why 4 officials were involved?

Normally it works like this: When one official makes a ruling and someone wants a another opinion, a second official is called, the first backs away and says nothing while the second makes a ruling as though the first ruling had not been made. If any of the officials is the Referee, his/her decision is final.

Is it possible that there a fact missing about which you are not aware as the ruling is clearly contrary to the rule?

[jvincent]

I'm guessing only one or two was the designated official.

When Lori Kane got a ruling on #9 Thursday there were several people there talking about option but they waited for one specific person to arrive.

[BC MIST]

Is it possible that there a fact missing about which you are not aware as the ruling is clearly contrary to the rule?

Upon reconsideration of my post above, may I add this? With a bad lie in deep rough is it possible that using a hybrid club to play the shot is a better choice than an iron? An iron is more likely to twist closed coming through causing a pull/hook type ball flight, whereas a hybrid club will bounce through the long grass, increasing the chance of a good shot.

The important question is: What club would the player hit, if the sprinkler head (IO)was not there? If the answer is the hybrid over the iron, for the reason given above, the ruling does make sense. While this MAY be an example of a player manipulating the rule for her advantage, maybe not, as the hybrid could be a logical choice.

Or would a sand wedge be better?

[gbower]

I didn't say what they did was wrong as like BC said the hybrid may have been the club of choice out of that deep rough. All I did was post the decision on the specific rule. I saw that rough at the Hunt Club and saw a lot of players just chipping out to the fairway and taking their medicine.

[LobWedge]

Any idea why 4 officials were involved?

Because I was standing in the LPGA trailer talking to them about it, after the fact. I witnessed the situation in question on the 9th hole. There were no RO's present when it happened.

[LobWedge]

Upon reconsideration of my post above, may I add this? With a bad lie in deep rough is it possible that using a hybrid club to play the shot is a better choice than an iron? An iron is more likely to twist closed coming through causing a pull/hook type ball flight, whereas a hybrid club will bounce through the long grass, increasing the chance of a good shot.

The important question is: What club would the player hit, if the sprinkler head (IO)was not there? If the answer is the hybrid over the iron, for the reason given above, the ruling does make sense. While this MAY be an example of a player manipulating the rule for her advantage, maybe not, as the hybrid could be a logical choice.

Or would a sand wedge be better?

She was taking dead aim at the pin with her stance. IMO, the ball would have come out either hot, popped up, or not at all if the hybrid was used. I'm certain she was using the hybrid only to ensure she would be making contact with the sprinkler head.