Help with Nearest Point of Relief (cart path)

[Hogeboom]

Point "X" in your earlier diagram was incorrectly identified as the Nearest Point of Relief.

Maybe, maybe not. The USGA ( http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...html#24-2b/3.5 ) says:

Q. What is the procedure if a player is unable physically to
determine the nearest point of relief because...a boundary fence
prevents the player from adopting the required address position?

A. The nearest point of relief in both cases must be estimated
and the player must drop the ball within one club-length of the
estimated point, not nearer the hole.

So, I guess that means that I must determine the NPR as if the OOB fence wasn't there? But once I place my ball in that strip, it looks like I am entitled to free relief if I decide to play a left-handed (or sideways) shot.

At this point, I am pretty sure that I am entitled to free relief.........but I still can't figure out the proper procedure.

[1dash1]

Did I understand correctly? A left handed shot is not abnormal. The path would interfere with LH stance allowing relief. NPR would be close to the path fairway side. Taking 1 club length would give the player room to play right handed.

AAA:

Decision 24-2b/17 pretty much answers all your questions:
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo....html#24-2b/17

[1dash1]

Maybe, maybe not. The USGA ( http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...html#24-2b/3.5 ) says ...

Hogeboom:

You're skipping a step.

You're setting an NPR at Point "X" based on an assumed right-handed shot that doesn't exist! For the original ball resting on the cart path, the boundary fence physically prevents you from playing the right-handed shot toward the hole.

The Exception under Rule 24-2 (loosely paraphrased) says that if you have no shot, you have no relief. How can you have an NPR when you are not eligible for relief?

The answer is that you can't. Instead, you need to start with a shot that the player can play, before finding the NPR.

And I suggest that you review Decision 24-2b/1: http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/decisions/dec24.html#24-2b/1

It describes a two-step process

"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."

(Underline added for emphasis.)

If you follow the steps, one by one, I think you'll see what I mean.

==================================================

SUMMARY:

There is no right-handed shot toward the hole.

Hence, there is no NPR for the right-handed shot toward the hole.

There is a left-handed shot toward the hole.

See Decision 24-2b/17: http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo....html#24-2b/17

There is a right-handed shot away from the hole.

Decision 24-2b/9.5 seems to support the idea of playing away from the hole (back to the fairway), if necessary: http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...html#24-2b/9.5

[el tigre]

Not nessesary to do so. The left hand shot would be nessesary to get a club on the ball after the first drop, so it is reasonable to use the left hand stance, and get relief from that. That does not mean he has to play the shot after the next drop left handed.

Dan, you have already been given FULL RELIEF from this obstruction by claiming that it interferes with your original right-handed swing, and dropped your ball accordingly. You cannot simply switch sides and claim interference all over again from the SAME obstruction that you have just been given full relief from.

As I see it, the only way you might have a case for relief on the other side of the cart path is if it is clear that your only shot at your ball at its original position on the cart path is to play left-handed. However, this was not mentioned in Hogeboom's original outline of the facts.

I know that since I don't carry any left handed clubs that using one of my regular clubs would definitely make the shot abnormal. I guess if the player is playing many of his shots as a lefty with his right handed clubs then that's normal.

You can play a left-handed recovery shot with a blade or mallet putter fairly well, and it is a shot that I have had to use on occasion. It doesn't have to be your normal shot - if it is your best option under the circumstances then I don't think it would be "unnecessarily abnormal". But I would find it difficult to believe that someone could make a swing with any other kind of club that would not be "unnecessarily abnormal".

[historian]

The Exception to Rule 24-2 says that you may NOT use Rule 24-2 (Immovable Obstruction) to get relief from anthing OTHER THAN relief from the Immovable Obstruction.

In choosing to play towards the teeing ground, you are using the fence as your problem, but trying to solve that problem with relief from Rule 24-2.
The Exception to Rule 24-2 prohibits solving your problem in this manner.

I do not agree with this part of your assessment. Correct, the player cannot change his stance solely to create the interference, for instance by taking a left-handed stance when it is perfectly possible to take a right-handed stance or by adopting a very wide stance to get a foot onto a path.

However, if it is not possible to take a normal stance because of the terrain or an oob fence, then it is considered reasonable for the player to take up an unusual stance in order to play the ball, and changing to play left-handed in this situation is such an option.

Imagine if the path is not there.

A player coming to this situation would be allowed to take up an abnormal stance in order to play the ball without question if it was impossible for him to take up his usual stance.
Now introduce the path... in this new stance, if there is interference with the player's line of swing or stance from an immovable obstruction, then he is entitled to relief under rule 24.
Don't be misled by the exception noted under rule 24-2b:

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

This does not apply straightaway to this scenario because the player is not acting under rule 24 when changing to a left-handed stance; he is doing that because he cannot take up a normal stance. When he takes up the left handed stance and finds his feet on the path, only then does rule 24-2 come into it.

Now, if he can't play a stroke because of something other than an immovable obstruction -- like the ball is nestled right against an oob post, or it is lying in a deep rut ,etc, then the exception would kick in and no relief would be granted. But if the ball is playable, regardless of our player's prowess as a left-handed player, then he is entitled to relief.
In finding the NPR he must use the left-handed stance for reference, and drop the ball as prescribed. After that, he is not compelled to play left-handed -- if he can take up a right-handed stance he may do so.

[AAA]

Imagine if the path is not there.

Thanks, that is a very good way of explaining it.

[oldmaninblack]

Thanks, that is a very good way of explaining it.

Since Gary Hill is the nationally certified RCGA rules official, I wouldn't accept Historian's comments until Gary has a chance to reply.

Not that Gary is infallible

[Gary Hill]

I have seen a lot of Decisions posted in regards to this thread, but no one has posted the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief".

Perhaps there is a clue there.

[GarthM]

Nearest Point of Relief
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:

(i) that is not nearer the hole, and
(ii) where, if the ball were so positioned, no interference by the condition from which relief is sought would exist for the stroke the player would have made from the original position if the condition were not there.

Note: In order to determine the nearest point of relief accurately, the player should use 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 a stroke.

So based on the note, adopting the left-handed stance to obtain relief would be wrong?

[Kilroy]

In this case you are not adopting a left hand stance "to get relief". You are using it so you can hit the ball, since you have no swing against the boundary fence.

[el tigre]

So based on the note, adopting the left-handed stance to obtain relief would be wrong?

Not necessarily. If a LH stance was necessary to execute "the stroke the player would have made from the original position if the condition were not there", then I think you are fine. But if you could have played a RH shot from the cart path but the NPR and drop puts you closer to the OB fence making a RH shot no longer possible, then you cannot use a LH stance from the new position to claim interference. Nor do I believe that a RH player could adopt a LH stance at the original position to obtain relief if a RH shot was possible.

[spidey]

OK, so the definition of nearest point of relief is "where no interference from the condition exists".

So, in this case, even though the player cannot make a normal swing at the ball, once the ball is dropped at the estimated point of relief, then by definition, no interference from the immovable obstruction exists. That's understood.

However, there's an issue that's not addressed. The issue being that now, once the ball is dropped, a different interference from the same obstruction exists. The player now cannot play a stroke normally toward the hole, so an unconventional approach is the only choice without penalty. Now, given that the decisions quote an instance where relief is available for different interference from the same obstruction, what differentiates this situation sufficiently from the one quoted in the decisions that would prescribe treating it differently? In my opinion, nothing. The player is not capable of taking a normal right-handed stance and playing the ball toward the hole.

...follow-up for Gary. Suppose for a change, that upon taking original relief from the obstruction, the player elected to play sideways, back to the fairway. Given that any stance on the fence side would not provide relief (due to his leading foot necessarily being on the path) would the nearest point of relief then be the other side?

[1dash1]

Spidey:

There's a misunderstanding here. It's either yours or mine.

Let's start from the top:

1. The ball is on the cart path, is the player entitled to relief?

Not necessarily. He's got to be able to play a shot that it is not unreasonable. (The language of the rule says, "... unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.")

2. Okay, so what's a reasonable shot?

Imagine the cart path wasn't there. What shots could he play? There may be several choices. We're only interested in the one the player says he would play.

3. The player should simulate the stance and direction of play with the club he says he would use for the shot that he would play if the cart path weren't there.

Is the shot he says he would play a reasonable shot, i.e., not an unnecessarily abnormal stance swing, or direction of play?

It ought to be, since that's how we got here. But sometimes, when the player actually sets up, it doesn't look right. And if it doesn't look right, it probably isn't right.

4. Is the player entitled to relief?

What? I thought we started off with the player entitled to relief?

The answer is "no". What we did was assume that we would get relief because the ball was sitting on the cart path, but we really don't know whether the player is eligible until after we check for the reasonableness of the shot he intends to play AND verify that there is interference from the cart path for that shot.

Now we check and see that there is a shot and there is interference, so yes the player's entitled to relief.

Note: We haven't even gotten to finding the Nearest Point of Relief yet, much less dropped a ball at that point!!

And here's where we clear up our misunderstanding.

You said, "So, in this case, even though the player cannot make a normal swing at the ball, once the ball is dropped at the estimated point of relief, then by definition, no interference from the immovable obstruction exists. That's understood."

Where is this ball that you just dropped and what direction of play did you simulate in order to check whether the shot was reasonable/eligible for relief?

[Hogeboom]

I have seen a lot of Decisions posted in regards to this thread, but no one has posted the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief".

Perhaps there is a clue there.

Okay. By that definition, it looks like I must place my ball in that strip of grass. (It's the closest spot where there's NO interference by the cart path for my original right-handed swing).

But then what? Decisions 24-2b/9.5, 24-2b/17, 24-2b/3, and 24-2b/6 all seem to indicate that if I subsequently decided to play a sideways (or left-handed) shot, I would once again be entitled to free relief.

[1dash1]

[QUOTE=Hogeboom]Okay. By that definition, it looks like I must place my ball in that strip of grass. (It's the closest spot where there's NO interference by the cart path for my original right-handed swing).[QUOTE]

Hogeboom:

What original right-handed swing are you referring to?

I suggest you reconsider the original shot. Is it physically possible for him to have played the "original right-handed" shot that you're talking about?

[Hogeboom]

[QUOTE=1dash1]

Hogeboom:

What original right-handed swing are you referring to?

When my ball was on the cart path originally, I was able to take a proper right-hand stance. Nothing interfered with my intended swing except the cart path.

Then, I removed my ball from the cart path and placed it at the alleged NPR (in the strip of grass). At this point, the cart path no longer interfered with my original right-handed stance/swing.

However, it was no longer feasible for me to make a right-handed swing. But it was feasible for me to make a left-handed or sideways shot.

Based on Decisions 24-2b/17 and 24-2b/9.5, I believe I was entitled to free relief if I decided to play a left-handed or sideways shot.

If not.....please explain why. And please explain how my situation differs from Decisions 24-2b/17 and 24-2b/9.5.

[1dash1]

[QUOTE=Hogeboom]

When my ball was on the cart path originally, I was able to take a proper right-hand stance. Nothing interfered with my intended swing except the cart path.

Then, I removed my ball from the cart path and placed it at the alleged NPR (in the strip of grass). At this point, the cart path no longer interfered with my original right-handed stance/swing.

Hogeboom:

I thought this was the situation you described:

==================
x
--*--------------- () hole


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


== out of bounds fence
-- cart path
* ball
x spot that my partner claims is the NPR

How can you take a proper right-handed stance (within the six inch strip between the boundary fence and the cart path) with the ball lying at the edge of the cart path as shown?

[Kilroy]

How can you take a proper right-handed stance (within the six inch strip between the boundary fence and the cart path) with the ball lying at the edge of the cart path as shown?

I thought it was established that you must act as though nothing was there. You are taking relief from the path, not the boundary fence. That was the nature of the original question. Isn't the fence (or anything else) interfering with the swing or stance irrelevant to that drop?

[Hogeboom]

[QUOTE=1dash1]

Hogeboom:

I thought this was the situation you described:

==================

x
--*--------------- () hole


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


== out of bounds fence
-- cart path
* ball
x spot that my partner claims is the NPR

How can you take a proper right-handed stance (within the six inch strip between the boundary fence and the cart path) with the ball lying at the edge of the cart path as shown?

Obviously my ASCII-art skills are a bit lacking! In the real situation, the ball was not literally on the edge of the path -- it was maybe 10-15 inches from the edge. Had the path not been there, I probably could have taken a normal right-handed swing.

Sorry for the confusion!

[1dash1]

Dan:

I think that is where our misunderstanding starts.

- The player is not eligible for relief for an imaginary shot.

- However, in proceeding to identify the reference point for taking relief (the Nearest Point of Relief), it may turn out to be at a position where only an imaginary shot could be played.

So, the key here is NOT focusing on the NPR in such a tunnel vision manner. The key is to identify the player's eligibility to take relief FIRST.

Once we've identified the stance, club, and direction of play AND verified that there is, in fact, interference from the cart path; then we proceed to finding the NPR.

If you go back and re-read my posts, that is what I have been trying to emphasize.

[Kilroy]

I was uner the impression that the origional condition allowed for relief from the cart path.

If the OB fence interfered with the origonal lie, no relief would be available in the first instance.

Now that Hogeboom has clarified that a swing from the original lie was indeed feasible, I expect the remainder of the steps (left hand lie proceedure) would then apply?

Just when you think you have something of a working knowlege of the rules...

[1dash1]

Dan:

We'll see.

[1dash1]

Obviously my ASCII-art skills are a bit lacking! In the real situation, the ball was not literally on the edge of the path -- it was maybe 10-15 inches from the edge. Had the path not been there, I probably could have taken a normal right-handed swing,

Hogeboom:

No problem. But let's verify one more thing before proceeding:

In concluding that the Nearest Point of Relief is somewhere in the six inch strip between the cart path and the fence, did you use the same stance, club and direction of play as you simulated for the original ball lying at rest on the cart path?

If I'm not mistaken, it will be a cramped, ugly swing; because the original shot would have been severely restricted by the boundary fence.

While we disregard the interfering effects of the boundary fence when pinpointing the Nearest Point of Relief; we must use the same cramped, ugly swing that the relief originally granted. It's not clear from the facts presented whether the cart path will interfere with such an ugly shot played from the six inch strip.

[Hogeboom]

Hogeboom:

No problem. But let's verify one more thing before proceeding:

In concluding that the Nearest Point of Relief is somewhere in the six inch strip between the cart path and the fence, did you use the same stance, club and direction of play as you simulated for the original ball lying at rest on the cart path?

No. In accordance with Decision 24-2b/3.5 ( http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...html#24-2b/3.5 ), I estimated where the NPR would be if I had been able to use the same stance/club/direction. That's the "X" in my diagram.

From this NPR, the cart path would not interfere with my original right-handed swing. However, the cart path would interfere if I decided to change my direction of play (e.g., sideways) or if I decided to play left-handed.

[1dash1]

Hogeboom:

I'm still a bit confused. You answered, "no", but the rest of the answer seems to imply otherwise.

For the time being, I'll assume that you did simulate the ugly, cramped right-handed shot (not a free open swing) in determining the NPR and that there factually was no interference from the cart path at that point. (If you did not do this, the following comments are premature.)

* * * * *

Given the correct NPR and the proper drop, the ball is in play and it's the start of a new situation. Treat it the same as if your original shot rolled up and came to rest there. If you would have been entitled to relief then, you are entitled to relief now. Forget about the original right hand shot! Treat this as a brand new situation. Now, as a brand new situation, are you entitled to relief?

Earlier you stated, "Based on Decisions 24-2b/17 and 24-2b/9.5, I believe I was entitled to free relief if I decided to play a left-handed or sideways shot."

We don't know, we don't have very many facts to work with. The only thing we know is that we haven't seen any facts that would contradict your assertion.

[Gary Hill]

I thought it was established that you must act as though nothing was there.

Do you mean "act as though nothing was there" when determining whether or not you get relief from the original lie on the cart path or "act as though nothing was there when determining your NPR?

[AAA]

If I'm not mistaken, it will be a cramped, ugly swing; because the original shot would have been severely restricted by the boundary fence.

While we disregard the interfering effects of the boundary fence when pinpointing the Nearest Point of Relief; we must use the same cramped, ugly swing that the relief originally granted. It's not clear from the facts presented whether the cart path will interfere with such an ugly shot played from the six inch strip.

Can you please clarify, as the answer to my question below will help me make a lot more sense of this thread. One minute I think I've got it and the next

If the path had not been there for the original shot and the ball finished 7" from the fence, a right handed player would no doubt have used a left handed shot to further his ball towards the hole. Is he entiltled to use that address to determine NPR if there is a path 6" from the fence?

[1dash1]

If the path had not been there for the original shot and the ball finished 7" from the fence, a right handed player would no doubt have used a left handed shot to further his ball towards the hole. Is he entiltled to use that address to determine NPR if there is a path 6" from the fence?

AAA:

The short answer is "yes".

=========================================

The long answer is:

For the ball that comes to rest at the edge of a cart path that runs parallel to and 6" away from a boundary fence, the player may simulate a left-handed shot provided that he doesn't use an unnecessarily abnormal:
- stance,
- swing
- or direction of play;
and provided that there is nothing else that physically precludes the player from taking the shot.

If the cart path interferes (as defined by Rule 24-2) with such left-handed shot, then the player is entitled to relief. And it is with this left-handed shot in mind that the player must ascertain the Nearest Point of Relief.

[Kilroy]

Do you mean "act as though nothing was there" when determining whether or not you get relief from the original lie on the cart path or "act as though nothing was there when determining your NPR?

I was refering to acting as though the fence, tree whatever was not there when deciding NPR.

[spidey]

Spidey:

There's a misunderstanding here. It's either yours or mine.

....dash....

I'm not sure who you are, but you're very repetitive. You sound like you may be a rules official, or maybe just a rules buff. Perhaps you should just tell us your credentials?

The situation in this case has already been established that relief from the original condition may be taken. I'm not changing that. That makes most of this post redundant, so I'm clipping it.

Let's start
{clip}
Where is this ball that you just dropped and what direction of play did you simulate in order to check whether the shot was reasonable/eligible for relief?

[/i]

An estimated point of relief, by definition, is one where a swing cannot be simulated due to an obstacle.

...as I said in my post, it's on the 6" swath of grass. Now, think, man. 6". How long are your shoes? How wide are your shoes. If you try to stand on the fence side of the ball, the ball at address will be between your feet. You cannot swing at it without taking a divot out of your FootJoys.

You must either play to the fairway or to tee. Those are the only reasonable choices. If you play to the tee, your feet are now on the path and and you are taking a different shot than that of the original relief. If you play to the fairway, then at least one shoe will have to be on the path, again a new shot different from the original one and dictated by circumstance. So why, since you are taking the only reasonable shot in either case and either one is interfered with by the immovable obstruction, can't you get relief?