Help with Nearest Point of Relief (cart path)

[Hogeboom]

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.

I was not able to "simulate" the shot because the fence was now in my way. So I estimated where I might stand, and where the ball might go. That's the "X" in my diagram.

However, the fundamental point behind my question has little to do with whether I could simulate a shot, or whether the strip of grass was 6 inches, 12 inches, or 24 inches. The fundamental point is this:

If -- after dropping at the NPR -- I decide to play a left-handed or sideways shot, and I subsequently encounter an immovable obstruction, am I entitled to take free relief again?

Based on what I've read here, I think the answer is "Yes". But it's not a unanimous opinion.

So....if the correct answer is "No", then I would like to see an explanation why -- and why my situation differs from Decisions 24-2b/17 and 24-2b/9.5.

Thanks.

[1dash1]

Hogeboom:

I said "simulate", because that is what we are referring back to: the shot that was simulated for the original ball lying on the cart path. However, I see your point that one doesn't simulate an imaginary shot. "Estimate" is a better choice of words.

As to the rest, I believe you understand my position. Why others think contrarily, you'll have to get that answer from them.

[1dash1]

Perhaps you should just tell us your credentials?

See my Profile.

.

The situation in this case has already been established that relief from the original condition may be taken. I'm not changing that.

As has subsequently been made clear, there was a misunderstanding of the original situation. The original author was not talking about 6", he was talking about 16" to 21" away from the boundary fence.

.

...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?

I've never argued that the player was not entitled to relief. I've questioned the process in which such conclusion was drawn. If the process was valid, the conclusion (most likely) was valid. :checkered

[Hogeboom]

As has subsequently been made clear, there was a misunderstanding of the original situation. The original author was not talking about 6", he was talking about 16" to 21" away from the boundary fence.

Correct. But I think that the exact location of the ball -- whether it's on the edge of the path, 10 inches from the edge, or 15 inches from the edge -- is somewhat irrelevant. The principle should be the same.

[1dash1]

Hogeboom:

Agreed. The principle is the same, but the situational answer may be different.

I'd discuss this last point further, but I think I've overstayed my welcome on this subject.

[spidey]

See my Profile.

ROFL. Little wonder that you are only marginally less difficult to understand than Gary. ;-)

I've never argued that the player was not entitled to relief. I've questioned the process in which such conclusion was drawn. If the process was valid, the conclusion (most likely) was valid. :checkered

Ok, so if I try to paraphrase:

1) Gary says that you cannot simulate a right-handed swing to the hole once you've taken relief from the path, therefore it falls under the exception to 24-2 and therefore you don't get relief.

2) Dash says that you can get relief if you simulate a proper right handed swing but play away from the hole, since you can't make a normal swing, therefore you may get relief.

3) Neither of you has clarified why the quoted decisions don't contradict the rule, and how we can be sure we're applying the exception to the rule properly.

If the player had to play toward a hazard, or make an unbalanced stance or scoop a swing at the ball in order to demonstrate interference by the obstruction, I can see there being no relief. However in this instance, it looks like the player is able to take a reasonable and viable stance in order to play the ball, resulting in interference by the immovable obstruction.

Finally, and this hasn't been addressed by either of you, if relief is available, and the ball is dropped on the fairway side, and subsequently no interference from anything exists, the player should be able to play toward the hole. Yes?

[1dash1]

Spidey:

The situation may differ, but Message #27 answers (b) and (c) apply to your questions (2) and (3).
http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showpost...5&postcount=27

- If you find my answer or the decisions inconsistent, please point out the discrepancy and I'll be happy to explain.

- I'm not commenting on other people's answers, I'll let them defend themselves.

As to your final question, I believe the answer you seek is this:

If the player has properly completed the relief procedure and the ball is correctly in play, then the player is free to play it in any manner that he chooses, consistent with the rules, as if the ball had naturally come to rest there with his original shot.

And I said as much, in message #55. Granted, it's hard to keep track of who is saying what in this discussion.

[Gary Hill]

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

OK.

[historian]

ROFL. Little wonder that you are only marginally less difficult to understand than Gary. ;-)



Ok, so if I try to paraphrase:

1) Gary says that you cannot simulate a right-handed swing to the hole once you've taken relief from the path, therefore it falls under the exception to 24-2 and therefore you don't get relief.

2) Dash says that you can get relief if you simulate a proper right handed swing but play away from the hole, since you can't make a normal swing, therefore you may get relief.

3) Neither of you has clarified why the quoted decisions don't contradict the rule, and how we can be sure we're applying the exception to the rule properly.

If the player had to play toward a hazard, or make an unbalanced stance or scoop a swing at the ball in order to demonstrate interference by the obstruction, I can see there being no relief. However in this instance, it looks like the player is able to take a reasonable and viable stance in order to play the ball, resulting in interference by the immovable obstruction.

Finally, and this hasn't been addressed by either of you, if relief is available, and the ball is dropped on the fairway side, and subsequently no interference from anything exists, the player should be able to play toward the hole. Yes?

Some of your points have been addressed:
http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showpost...2&postcount=18

[Gary Hill]

1) Gary says that you cannot simulate a right-handed swing to the hole once you've taken relief from the path, therefore it falls under the exception to 24-2 and therefore you don't get relief.

Huh? Where did I say that?

[spidey]

Huh? Where did I say that?

You said it in Post #9 and didn't subsequently re-address or otherwise qualify it.

In effect, you now have interference by object defining out of bounds (the fence) and you are not allow to use this Rule to get free relief.

[Hogeboom]

I just wanted to let everyone know that I wrote to the USGA and this was the response I got:


"As Decision 24-2b/17 explains, if the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances and the player has interference from an immovable obstruction for that abnormal stroke, then he is entitled to relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b.

XXXXXXXX
Rules Education and Technology
USGA"



I imagine this will be the final word on the subject.

[Colby]

maybe

[AAA]

maybe

maybe not

[Gary Hill]

I just wanted to let everyone know that I wrote to the USGA and this was the response I got:


"As Decision 24-2b/17 explains, if the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances and the player has interference from an immovable obstruction for that abnormal stroke, then he is entitled to relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b.

XXXXXXXX
Rules Education and Technology
USGA"



I imagine this will be the final word on the subject.

And the value of posting an opinion from a Rules clerk in Far Hills, New Jersey is what?

[AAA]

And the value of posting an opinion from a Rules clerk in Far Hills, New Jersey is what?

As opposed to whose?

As this 'clerk' has replied as an official of the USGA one can assume that he has the authority to make the statement. Has a person of authority in the RCGA made a contrary statement? Or have you got such authority?

Incidentally, are you saying he is wrong?

[spidey]

I think Gary is saying that we are in the jurisdiction of the RCGA and if you had consulted somebody, it should have been somebody with RCGA credentials.

[Kilroy]

Also that response does not cover the entire situation and the decision has already been refered to in discussing the appropriate part of the answer.

[1dash1]

And the value of posting an opinion from a Rules clerk in Far Hills, New Jersey is what?

The respondent's title is usually, "Rules Associate".

The status of the response is an informal response from the USGA by a learned person, one who operates under the guidance of the Rules of Golf Committee of the USGA. The quality of response is generally very high.

In my personal experience, the degree of confidence that one places in the response is more dependent on how the question was written, than on the veracity of the response.

In this particular instance, I concur with the answer. So it must be right, eh?

[Hogeboom]

And the value of posting an opinion from a Rules clerk in Far Hills, New Jersey is what?

Don't get defensive just because you were wrong.

I posed my question through the USGA's official protocol, and I got a response from one of their Rules Education Managers. That's about as incontrovertible as you can get, as far as I'm concerned.

I withheld the person's name out of respect for privacy, but I guarantee you he was a high ranking Rules official within the USGA.

[AAA]

I posed my question through the USGA's official protocol, and I got a response from one of their Rules Education Managers.

Was the question as asked in your original posting ?

[Hogeboom]

Was the question as asked in your original posting ?

Of course. I also included all the follow-up details that I had left out of my original post.

[AAA]

'In my personal experience, the degree of confidence that one places in the response is more dependent on how the question was written, than on the veracity of the response.'

Just following up 1dash1's comment - to ensure there was no loophole

[AAA]

And the value of posting an opinion from a Rules clerk in Far Hills, New Jersey is what?

Is he wrong ?

[Colby]

I think you all may have missed the point Gary was trying to make somewhere in this post. The USGA Rules official made a ruling without being there. Without being able to see the exact layout, how wide the strip of grass is, where the ball dropped, how big the fence was, the ability of the player, etc, etc. It's not quite the same as someone phoning in and saying a player contravened the rules as there is usually video tape evidence.

Have you never seen a rules official get asked a question at a tournament? They wander over to the site in question, evaluate all the options while physically there and then give the ruling. The tour doesn't phone or email a person in New Jersey, they make sure they are on site!

Is he wrong ?

Is he right? We don't really know because he wasn't there to see all of the factors involved to make this ruling. After the fact is just a best guess.

[1dash1]

Colby:



The USGA's response is correct, regardless of the facts in evidence, because it is a conditional answer.

"As Decision 24-2b/17 explains, if the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances and the player has interference from an immovable obstruction for that abnormal stroke, then he is entitled to relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b."

"If the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances... " - This is a matter for the Committee to investigate and determine. Not only must the stroke be reasonable from the standpoint of direction of play under the circumstances, but it also has to be reasonable from the standpoint of being able to play the ball.

"And the player has interference from an immovable obstruction for that abnormal stroke... " - Again, the Committee must ascertain that there factually was interference for the subject stroke.

"Then he is entitled to relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b" - The ruling follows accordingly.

So, the USGA's response lays out the framework for how the Committee should consider the problem.

[Gary Hill]

I was making the point that Decision 24-2b/17 has been posted in this thread many times.

Posting the decision again does not get us any closer to the answer of whether or not the decision applies to our original question.

[Kilroy]

Posting the decision again does not get us any closer to the answer of whether or not the decision applies to our original question.

Ok Gary, so what are we mising?
Looks to most of us like the player should be allowed to drop in the first instance on the 6' strip of grass that would be his NPR. He may then (reasonably) make an unusual stroke at the ball left handed, landing his feet back on the cart path, allowing him new relief. Since the OB fence prevents further movement to the left of the path, he may drop on the right side. Then play on as normal.
That's pretty much what I said way back in post 5 (83 posts ago).
If that is not correct please tell us why. I understand that you want to give us a fishing rod instead of the fish, but after almost 100 posts I think we'd appreciate knowing what is wrong with that proceedure, once and for all.

[Colby]

Colby:



The USGA's response is correct, regardless of the facts in evidence, because it is a conditional answer.

"As Decision 24-2b/17 explains, if the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances and the player has interference from an immovable obstruction for that abnormal stroke, then he is entitled to relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b."

"If the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances... " - This is a matter for the Committee to investigate and determine. Not only must the stroke be reasonable from the standpoint of direction of play under the circumstances, but it also has to be reasonable from the standpoint of being able to play the ball.

"And the player has interference from an immovable obstruction for that abnormal stroke... " - Again, the Committee must ascertain that there factually was interference for the subject stroke.

"Then he is entitled to relief without penalty under Rule 24-2b" - The ruling follows accordingly.

So, the USGA's response lays out the framework for how the Committee should consider the problem.

And that is my point. It is not the ANSWER. It is the means to the answer. The local committee must make the decision to allow or disallow the relief without penalty, not the USGA guy in New Jersey.

[historian]

Is he wrong ?

He is correct.