Cart Path = Immovable Obstruction

[BC MIST]

I am appalled at the number of golfers who do not yet understand how to find the "nearest point of relief" when their ball comes to rest on a cart path. Most just pick up the ball and drop it on the side of the cart path that gives them the easiest shot to the green/fairway. Many do these because they do not know what to do, while a few others do it deliberately(cheat).

24-2 (b) explains how to take relief from an immovable obstruction, but it is the "EXCEPTION" that has me intrigued. It reads: "A player may NOT take relief under this rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction."

So, if my ball comes to rest on the tee side at the base of a huge tree AND my feet are on a cart path(immovable obstruction) I am NOT allowed to take relief, even though in doing so, I may have a clear shot forward. In essence, the lie of the ball helps to determine whether or not I may take relief.

If few players know how to take relief properly under normal circumstances, I wonder how many know this exception to the rule, assuming that I am correct?

[Gary Hill]

So, if my ball comes to rest on the tee side at the base of a huge tree AND my feet are on a cart path(immovable obstruction) I am NOT allowed to take relief

Not exactly.

You are allowed to take relief. (e.g. Rule 28 Ball Unplayable)

However, you would not be allowed to take relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b because of Exception (a) as you correctly pointed out.

[LobWedge]

You're reading it backwards. You are entitled to relief from the immovable obstruction based on the intended line of your stroke. Dropping within one club length of your nearest point of relief is your entitlement under this rule, regardless of the fact that the tree may or may not still be in your line of play when you make your drop.

[Gary Hill]

You are entitled to relief from the immovable obstruction based on the intended line of your stroke.

You are not entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b if there is interference by the tree.

[Colby]

ok, I have a question on this then.

My ball is lieing between the cart path and a lateral hazard in a thin strip of grass. My feet are on the cart path if I take my stance to hit the ball. The ball is not near anything, but there is a tree trunk 25 feet ahead in a direct line between my ball and the flag. I can still reach the green by hitting to the left side of tree, however if I take relief from the cart path, I would have a direct line to the flag.

From the discussion above, i should get no relief from the cart path in this situation. Is that correct?

I'm asking because I saw this done one day while the guy explaining it said it is good to know the rules in this case. I took it as correct because the golfer was standing on the cart path.

Very interesting.

[el tigre]

24-2 (b) explains how to take relief from an immovable obstruction, but it is the "EXCEPTION" that has me intrigued. It reads: "A player may NOT take relief under this rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction."

So, if my ball comes to rest on the tee side at the base of a huge tree AND my feet are on a cart path(immovable obstruction) I am NOT allowed to take relief, even though in doing so, I may have a clear shot forward. In essence, the lie of the ball helps to determine whether or not I may take relief.

Hmmm, this is based on the assumption that the player's next stroke must be towards the pin. If the player is on the tee side at the base of a huge tree, then it is very reasonable to assume that his next stroke would be a pitch sideways toward the fairway. Of course, taking his stance for such a stroke may remove the interference by the cart path - but if it didn't then I would think the exception would not apply and he would still be entitled to relief under 24-2(b). After all, the rule states "clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke" but it doesn't say where this stroke should be aimed at. What do think, Gary?

[LobWedge]

You are not entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b if there is interference by the tree.

Correct, however I am entitled to relief because of the cartpath.

[Colby]

Correct, however I am entitled to relief because of the cartpath.

With that exception, I don't think so now.

[BC MIST]

Correct, however I am entitled to relief because of the cartpath.

No, you are not.

If the interference was solely from the cart path, then you would be entitled to get relief. However, because the ball rests snugly against the tree, you would then be getting free relief from the tree. No way. I know this sounds contrary to the procedure that we frequently use to get relief, but, that is what the exception is all about.

In el tigre's scenario where he wants to chip the ball sideways, relief would not be necessary as he would not be standing on the cart path.

[Gary Hill]

Correct, however I am entitled to relief because of the cartpath.

No. There is nothing in the Rules that guarantees you get relief from an immovable obstruction.

You do NOT get relief under Rule 24-2b if there is also interference by something else.

You do NOT get relief under Rule 24-2b if interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.
(e.g I feel like playing this stroke left-handed. Oops, now I am on the cart path.)

[Gary Hill]

ok, I have a question on this then.

My ball is lieing between the cart path and a lateral hazard in a thin strip of grass. My feet are on the cart path if I take my stance to hit the ball. The ball is not near anything, but there is a tree trunk 25 feet ahead in a direct line between my ball and the flag. I can still reach the green by hitting to the left side of tree, however if I take relief from the cart path, I would have a direct line to the flag.

From the discussion above, i should get no relief from the cart path in this situation. Is that correct?

In the scenarios you have described about, you DO get relief from the cart path.

The tree (25 feet ahead of you) is not interferring with you stance, stroke, or area of intended swing.
(ie. you cannont reach it with your club)

Therefore, there is no interference from the tree, so you get relief from the cart path under Rule 24-2b.

[Gary Hill]

Hmmm, this is based on the assumption that the player's next stroke must be towards the pin. If the player is on the tee side at the base of a huge tree, then it is very reasonable to assume that his next stroke would be a pitch sideways toward the fairway. Of course, taking his stance for such a stroke may remove the interference by the cart path - but if it didn't then I would think the exception would not apply and he would still be entitled to relief under 24-2(b). After all, the rule states "clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke" but it doesn't say where this stroke should be aimed at. What do think, Gary?

If the player decides to play the stroke sideways because of the tree (which IS reasonable) and because of his sideways stroke his feet land on the cartpath, he DOES get relief from the cart path under Rule 24-2b. If after taking relief under Rule 24-2b, the player has a clear shot to the putting green, lucky him.

[Colby]

In the scenarios you have described about, you DO get relief from the cart path.

The tree (25 feet ahead of you) is not interferring with you stance, stroke, or area of intended swing.
(ie. you cannont reach it with your club)

Therefore, there is no interference from the tree, so you get relief from the cart path under Rule 24-2b.

Thanks Gary, I understand now.

[LobWedge]

No. There is nothing in the Rules that guarantees you get relief from an immovable obstruction.

You do NOT get relief under Rule 24-2b if there is also interference by something else.

You do NOT get relief under Rule 24-2b if interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.
(e.g I feel like playing this stroke left-handed. Oops, now I am on the cart path.)

Then the exception is worded poorly, because I interpret it to say that I am not entitled to relief from those things that may be fixed but not defined as "immovable obstructions" in Section II.

[BullDog]

You do NOT get relief under Rule 24-2b if interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.
(e.g I feel like playing this stroke left-handed. Oops, now I am on the cart path.)

You're probably going to laugh me off the forum as I recall you posting something recently about golf analysts not knowing all the rules correctly, but there was, in a televised PGA tournament 2 weeks ago, a rules segment after a commercial break.

The scenario more or less described what you wrote above. The guy flipped his club over so the club face would face the ball when taking a lefty stance, giving him a shot that would require him to stand on the cart path. Because of that, he was able to take relief. The concluding sentence of that lesson was something along the lines that you can sometimes use the rules to your advantage.

So, that particular segment intended to be a teaching tool for newbies watching the PGA on TV was incorrect? Just double checking. I clearly remember this because I recall thinking that I would never be able to make contact trying to hit a ball that way and I never would have thought about doing something like that.

I understand an analyst or colour comentator not knowing intricate rule details. But someone during a rules segment being blatantly wrong? Am I that naive to believe that this would be impossible and a bad thing to do to such impressionable minds?

Mike

[Gary Hill]

Then the exception is worded poorly, because I interpret it to say that I am not entitled to relief from those things that may be fixed but not defined as "immovable obstructions" in Section II.

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction

"A player may not take relief under this Rule" <---- Rule 24-2b Immovable Obstructions (eg cart path)

You may not take relief from the cart path. That is what it says.

This Rule and Exception has NOTHING to do with taking relief from the tree.

[Gary Hill]

I recall thinking that I would never be able to make contact trying to hit a ball that way and I never would have thought about doing something like that.

That is exactly why the professional player would be given relief and you would not be given relief.

A professional is going to hit the ball left-handed whether or not the cart path is there. So he would not be using an unnecessarily abnormal direction of play.

You would not be able to make contact using a left-handed swing. Therefore, your desire to play left-handed would be solely for the purpose of getting relief.

Exception (b) prohibits the use of Rule 24-2b in this manner.

[GarthM]

You would not be able to make contact using a left-handed swing. Therefore, your desire to play left-handed would be solely for the purpose of getting relief.

Who becomes the judge of whether or not I can make contact left handed???

GarthM

[BC MIST]

Now that we understand the exception for situations involving immovable obstructions(cart paths), may I add that the same exception applies when your stance or lie is interferred with by casual water and grounds under repair. (Rule 25, Abnormal Ground Conditions...)

So, if your ball is UP against a tree, IN casual water, ON grounds under repair and your stance is ON a cart path, do you get free relief? No sireee! You play it as it lies or declare it unplayable.

Golf can be a cruel game.

This apparent contradiction of relief versus no relief is similar to the rule that says that you cannot hit a moving ball(except tee and hazards) and yet if your ball is hanging over the edge of the hole and moving, that you have 10 seconds for the ball to fall in the hole. If the ball is moving, in this instance you can hit the moving ball.

I once heard a local golf show host ridiculing the 10 second rule as being impossible to apply because, "YOU CAN"T HIT A MOVING BALL." Unfortunately, he failed to understand that the 10 second rule supercedes the moving ball rule. Simple. He also suggested to golfers that they throw a temper tantrum, slowly take off their golf glove and saunter towards the hole, for the purpose of giving the moving ball more time to fall in the hole. Of course, he didn't understand the part of the rule that says that the golfer must get to the hole "without undue delay," either.

[BC MIST]

Who becomes the judge of whether or not I can make contact left handed??? GarthM

YOU are the sole judge. If you know that you cannot make contact but set up that way for the purpose of getting free relief, you are breaking the rule. (Exception b)
If you feel that you can make contact and set up that way, then you may take relief.

The Rules of Golf are not set up to be applied by an independent referee as in hockey, basketball, football, etc., but by the player, whom we presume is honest and rules knowledgeable. This is part of what makes golf such an honourable game, however, it is also leaves the game vulnerable, as we all probably know golfers who will break rules(cheat) at the blink of an eye.

There is nothing more satisfying in golf, that playing a great game or achieving a personal best score, playing by the rules. Nothing! The cheaters will never experience this glorious feeling. Never! They may win an extra prize or two, but the truly important aspects of the game, will never be theirs to savour.

[Kilroy]

So, if your ball is UP against a tree, IN casual water, ON grounds under repair and your stance is ON a cart path, do you get free relief? No sireee! You play it as it lies or declare it unplayable.

I understand where the unplayable lie prohibits the use of the immovable obstruction relief. No problem here, since I am not entitled to a get out of jail free card.

However, if I am in casual water, or GUR (abnormal ground condition) or on a car path (immovable obstruction), I get free relief.

But these exceptions exist...

24-2. Immovable Obstruction
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction

Rule 25 abnormal ground condition
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition

They seem to cancel each other out. acording to this, if I have both abnormal ground condition and an immovable obstruction I have to take an unplayable lie???!!!???
That can't be right, what are we missing here?

[Big_duck]

Two step process, take relief from the immovable obstruction. If this results in being in an abnormal ground condition take relief again. I am sure there is a previous thread on this (relief from cart path into casual water).

[Kilroy]

I think we are talking about both conditions existing for the same lie, not after taking relief from the first condition.

[el tigre]

So, if your ball is UP against a tree, IN casual water, ON grounds under repair and your stance is ON a cart path, do you get free relief? No sireee! You play it as it lies or declare it unplayable.

As I tried to show in my scenario above, this is not necessarily true. As Gary has acknowledged, it depends very much on whether it is "reasonable" to make a particular stroke.

As pointed out above, if your ball is UP against a tree and it is reasonable to make a stroke sideways then you would still get relief if you are still ON a cart path (or IN casual water or ON GUR). You also have to remember that the rules say that you "may" get relief, which means that you are not specifically prohibited from making a stroke when your ball/stance is ON a cart path, IN casual water or ON GUR. I believe this is relevant because it means that it may not be "unreasonable" for you to make a stroke while standing on a cart path, in casual water, etc. - so the exception may not apply and you would still get free relief.

IMHO, the rules are mostly designed to make the game LESS cruel - which is a good thing!

[spidey]

So, if your ball is UP against a tree, IN casual water, ON grounds under repair and your stance is ON a cart path, do you get free relief? No sireee! You play it as it lies or declare it unplayable.

Waitaminnit. That's not what the rule says. At least it depends on how you read this sentence.

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play

It is not unreasonable to make a stroke at a ball when it is in casual water or in ground under repair if you are standing on a cart path. The cart path is not interfering with your ability to make a stroke at a ball in GUR or casual water.

However, if there is a tree, which is not in the abnormal ground condition, interfering with your ability to make a stroke at a ball which is in an abnormal ground condition, then you do not get relief. Either I'm reading your sentence incorrectly, or it is worded incorrectly.

[Gary Hill]

Who becomes the judge of whether or not I can make contact left handed???

It is not a question of whether or not you can make contact left-handed.

The question is: What would I do if the cart path were not here?

If you would take an unplayable if the cart path were not there, then taking relief under Rule 24-2b is not allowed.

[EDSGOLF]

If you would take an unplayable if the cart path were not there, then taking relief under Rule 24-2b is not allowed.

I was a bit confused with exceptions or not, but with the above statement, it is much clearer Gary.

[Gary Hill]

If you ball is in a position where there is interference under Rule 24-2b (Immovable Obstruction) AND interference under Rule 25-1 (Abnormal Ground Conditions), you may take relief under either Rule.

The purpose of the Exception to each of these Rules is to prevent the player from obtaining free relief when it is clearly unreasonable for him to play a stroke because of interference by something from which free relief is not available.

Since free relief is allowed under both these conditions, the Exceptions to each Rule are not applied against each other.

[Kilroy]

That certainly makes more sense. It's not suprising that people get confused.
32 rules, a billiion real life situations. understanding the rulebook; priceless.

[Gary Hill]

errr.. 34 Rules