+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 132
-
07-04-2005 07:50 PM #31
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by 1dash1
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.
-
07-04-2005 08:00 PM #321dash1GuestOriginally Posted by AAA
Decision 24-2b/17 pretty much answers all your questions:
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo....html#24-2b/17
-
07-04-2005 08:31 PM #331dash1GuestOriginally Posted by 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.
And I suggest that you review Decision 24-2b/1: http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/decisions/dec24.html#24-2b/1
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.
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. "
If you follow the steps, one by one, I think you'll see what I mean.
"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.)
==================================================
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
Last edited by 1dash1; 07-04-2005 at 08:54 PM.
-
07-05-2005 12:09 AM #34Originally Posted by Dan Kilbank
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.
Originally Posted by gbower[COLOR=green][B]Golf is a game invented by the same people who think music comes out of bagpipes.[/B][/COLOR]
-
07-05-2005 02:26 AM #35
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9
Originally Posted by Gary Hill
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.
-
07-05-2005 08:52 AM #36
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
Originally Posted by historian
-
07-05-2005 10:08 AM #37
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 142
Originally Posted by AAA
Not that Gary is infallible
-
07-07-2005 03:39 AM #38
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.
-
07-07-2005 07:21 AM #39Nearest 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.
-
07-07-2005 08:00 AM #40
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.
-
07-07-2005 09:32 AM #41Originally Posted by GarthM[COLOR=green][B]Golf is a game invented by the same people who think music comes out of bagpipes.[/B][/COLOR]
-
07-07-2005 09:37 AM #42
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?[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]
-
07-07-2005 10:14 AM #431dash1Guest
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?
4. Is the player entitled to relief?
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.
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?
-
07-07-2005 11:55 AM #44
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by Gary Hill
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.
-
07-07-2005 12:57 PM #451dash1Guest
[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?
-
07-07-2005 02:05 PM #46
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
[QUOTE=1dash1]
Originally Posted by Hogeboom
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.
-
07-07-2005 03:58 PM #471dash1Guest
[QUOTE=Hogeboom]
Originally Posted by 1dash1
I thought this was the situation you described:
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?==================
x
--*--------------- () hole
------------------
== out of bounds fence
-- cart path
* ball
x spot that my partner claims is the NPR
-
07-07-2005 04:10 PM #48How 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?
-
07-07-2005 04:44 PM #49
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
[QUOTE=1dash1]
Originally Posted by Hogeboom
Sorry for the confusion!
-
07-07-2005 04:47 PM #501dash1Guest
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.
-
07-07-2005 04:57 PM #51
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...
-
07-07-2005 06:34 PM #521dash1Guest
Dan:
We'll see.
-
07-07-2005 07:26 PM #531dash1GuestOriginally Posted by 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.
-
07-07-2005 07:44 PM #54
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 23
Originally Posted by 1dash1
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.
-
07-07-2005 09:14 PM #551dash1Guest
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.
-
07-08-2005 01:03 AM #56Originally Posted by Dan Kilbank
-
07-08-2005 04:07 AM #57
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
Originally Posted by 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?
-
07-08-2005 05:34 AM #581dash1GuestOriginally Posted by 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.Last edited by 1dash1; 07-11-2005 at 02:37 PM.
-
07-08-2005 06:01 AM #59Originally Posted by Gary Hill
-
07-08-2005 09:55 AM #60Originally Posted by 1dash1
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.
Originally Posted by 1dash1
...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?[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]
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