+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 90 of 132
-
07-08-2005 11:44 AM #61
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by 1dash1
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.
-
07-08-2005 01:42 PM #621dash1Guest
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.
-
07-08-2005 01:43 PM #631dash1GuestOriginally Posted by spidey
.
Originally Posted by spidey
.
Originally Posted by spidey
-
07-08-2005 02:57 PM #64
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by 1dash1
-
07-08-2005 03:20 PM #651dash1Guest
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.
-
07-08-2005 03:28 PM #66Originally Posted by 1dash1
Originally Posted by 1dash1
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?[color=blue]s[/color][color=red]p[/color][color=blue]i[/color][color=red]d[/color][color=blue]e[/color][color=red]y[/color]
[color=seagreen]"Got more dirt than ball. Here we go again."
Alan Shepard, Apollo 14 Commander, Amateur-Golfer, preparing to take another swing during his famous moon walk in 1971.
[/color]
-
07-08-2005 04:06 PM #671dash1Guest
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.
As to your final question, I believe the answer you seek is this:
- I'm not commenting on other people's answers, I'll let them defend themselves.
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.
-
07-09-2005 02:34 AM #68
-
07-09-2005 02:56 AM #69
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9
Originally Posted by spidey
http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showpost...2&postcount=18
-
07-09-2005 12:47 PM #70Originally Posted by spidey
-
07-11-2005 09:22 AM #71Originally Posted by Gary Hill
Originally Posted by RulezLast edited by spidey; 07-12-2005 at 09:50 AM.
[color=blue]s[/color][color=red]p[/color][color=blue]i[/color][color=red]d[/color][color=blue]e[/color][color=red]y[/color]
[color=seagreen]"Got more dirt than ball. Here we go again."
Alan Shepard, Apollo 14 Commander, Amateur-Golfer, preparing to take another swing during his famous moon walk in 1971.
[/color]
-
07-11-2005 11:37 AM #72
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
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.
-
07-11-2005 11:41 AM #73
maybe
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Colby
-
07-11-2005 06:10 PM #74
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
Originally Posted by Colby
-
07-12-2005 07:17 AM #75Originally Posted by Hogeboom
-
07-12-2005 09:39 AM #76
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
Originally Posted by Gary Hill
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?
-
07-12-2005 09:49 AM #77
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.
[color=blue]s[/color][color=red]p[/color][color=blue]i[/color][color=red]d[/color][color=blue]e[/color][color=red]y[/color]
[color=seagreen]"Got more dirt than ball. Here we go again."
Alan Shepard, Apollo 14 Commander, Amateur-Golfer, preparing to take another swing during his famous moon walk in 1971.
[/color]
-
07-12-2005 10:09 AM #78
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.
-
07-12-2005 10:25 AM #791dash1GuestOriginally Posted by Gary Hill
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?
-
07-12-2005 11:45 AM #80
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by Gary Hill
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.
-
07-12-2005 11:50 AM #81
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
Originally Posted by Hogeboom
-
07-12-2005 03:09 PM #82
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by AAA
-
07-12-2005 06:16 PM #83
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
'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
-
07-17-2005 05:53 PM #84
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
Originally Posted by Gary Hill
-
07-17-2005 07:17 PM #85
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!
Originally Posted by AAAIt could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Colby
-
07-17-2005 09:26 PM #861dash1Guest
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.
-
07-18-2005 07:04 AM #87
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.
-
07-18-2005 07:28 AM #88Posting the decision again does not get us any closer to the answer of whether or not the decision applies to our original question.
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.
-
07-18-2005 08:59 AM #89Originally Posted by 1dash1It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Colby
-
07-18-2005 09:27 AM #90
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9
Originally Posted by AAA
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Relief from a cart path
By mpare in forum Rules Of GolfReplies: 12Last Post: 05-23-2007, 08:48 PM -
Nearest Point of Relief What Club to Use.
By BC MIST in forum Rules Of GolfReplies: 20Last Post: 04-05-2007, 12:34 AM -
Where to Take Relief From A Cart Path
By Kilroy in forum InstructionReplies: 0Last Post: 06-24-2005, 01:34 PM -
Nearest point of relief
By spidey in forum Rules Of GolfReplies: 1Last Post: 05-14-2003, 05:43 PM -
Club Used to determine Nearest Point of relief.
By natgolfer in forum Rules Of GolfReplies: 3Last Post: 08-12-2002, 03:34 PM