Help with Nearest Point of Relief (cart path)

A cart path runs parallel to a fixed out-of-bounds fence, with a 6-inch strip of grass running between them. My ball came to rest on the 'fence side' of the path. My playing partner informed me that my 'nearest point of relief' would be in that 6-inch strip of grass. I argued otherwise, for the following reasons:

1. I still have to stand on the same obstruction that I was getting relief from in the first place. (i.e., using a left-handed or sideways stance)

2. Even if the out-of-bounds fence didn't exist, the cart path might still interfere with my intended swing (as the 6-inch strip might not give me enough space to swing a clubhead without hitting the path).

Am I right?

If so....what's the proper procedure here? Do I drop first in the grass strip, then take relief a 2nd time? Or do I just make my original drop on the other side of the cart path?

Thanks!
-----------------
Edit: I wrote to the USGA, and their response can be found in Post #72. Basically, the correct procedure is: 1. drop in the strip of grass at the NPR; 2. if I choose to play a left-handed or sideways stroke from there, I am entitled to get free relief again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogeboom

what's the proper procedure here?

---

A cart path is an immovable obstruction.

See the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief" and Rule 24-2.

Read through the relief procedure carefully and you should be able to solve your dilemma.

If not, repost on which part of the procedure is giving you trouble and I will help you further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

A cart path is an immovable obstruction.

See the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief" and Rule 24-2.

Read through the relief procedure carefully and you should be able to solve your dilemma.

If not, repost on which part of the procedure is giving you trouble and I will help you further.

---

Two things give me trouble:

1. The out-of-bounds fence. My friend tells me that I can't use the cart path to get relief from the fence.

2. I'm confused by the phrase "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."

If I place my ball in that 6-inch strip of grass, then the cart path no longer interferes with a right handed swing (i.e., "the stroke the player would have made"). But now the fence interferes with a right-handed swing -- forcing me to take a left-handed stance, at which point the cart path again becomes an obstruction. Right?

An illustration of my situation:


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


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


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


The ball (*) is resting on the cart path. If I drop at point x, I can't take a left-handed stance without my feet being on the cart path; and I can't take a right-handed stance because the fence is in the way. (And, even if the fence weren't there, the edge of the cart path would likely still interfere with my swing.)

Not 100% sure, but my gut says;
If you drop on the 6" strip and are forced to take a left hand swing to even be able to play the ball, then you would be standing on the path and entitled to relief.
Relief further towards the fence us unavailable so your Nearest Point of Relief is on the fairway side of the path.

So the proceedure would be - drop on the 6"
Address the ball left handed - standing on the path
Re-drop on the other side.
I think :scratchch

BUt are you going to play a left handed shot while on the fairway side of the path?? :-)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogeboom

An illustration of my situation:


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


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


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


The ball (*) is resting on the cart path. If I drop at point x, I can't take a left-handed stance without my feet being on the cart path; and I can't take a right-handed stance because the fence is in the way. (And, even if the fence weren't there, the edge of the cart path would likely still interfere with my swing.)

---

Assuming you are right handed, can you get a stance and find a spot that relieves you from the cart path? Looks like point marked "x" to me. If this means you are standing outside the boundary line, or have a awkward stance, so be it. Drop the ball. If you don't have a swing then declare the ball unplayable.

Or, play the ball of the cart path.

IMO, if there is a relief point from a right handed playing position, because that is what you are, then you should take it, and not choose to play the shot left handed, just because you don't like the right handed stance.

But then again, if you decide to find the NPR using a left handed swing, then you would drop the ball on the other, near or lower side of the path. Now, choose the play the shot right handed from this point and we will likely have a heated discussion.

People usually get confused in a tricky drop situation by advancing too quickly through the procedure.

If you follow the procedure slowly and carefully, the problems of a tricky drop area can be dealt with as they come up.

It is very important to get each step correct before you proceed to the next step.
Otherwise, you may be wildly off by the end.

Here are the steps to follow for an obstruction situation.
1. Do I get relief?
2. What are my options for relief?
2. Where is my nearest point of relief?
3. Where is my drop area in relation to that found point?
4. After I drop the ball, is the ball required to be re-dropped?

OK, let's apply these steps to our present situation.

1. Do you get relief from the cart path?
Yes. Your ball is on an immovable obstruction and the exceptions to the Rule do not apply. (Ask if you dont understand why the exceptions dont apply here.)

We now know that we get free relief.
There HAS to be someplace defined in the Rules where we get this free relief.
We just have to find it.

2. There are 3 separate procedures for relief depending on where your ball lies.
Your ball is lying "through the green". Therefore we must follow clause (i) of the relief procedure.

3. We have to drop within one-club length of the nearest point of relief.
Our first task is to FIND the nearest point of relief.
(Remember - There can be ONLY one NEAREST point of relief and that point is the size of the head of a pin)

Without getting too technical, lets say that the point x on your picture IS the correct point (which it probably is).
[If the grass area is 6 inches wide and your club is 4 inches wide, then your argument that you cannot hit the ball from this point without your club hitting the cart path is invalid.]

We now have our correct drop point.
We allowed to drop the ball within one club-length of this spot.

One club length around this spot presents us with a circle in which to drop the ball.
However, by definition, one half of this circle is nearer the hole.
Also, part of the circle will be cut off the cart path (we MUST take full relief from the cart path).

This leaves us with a thin "wedge" of grass in which to drop the ball.
The ball when dropped must first strike the grass (a part of the course) in this wedge.

4. Now we must check to see that our dropped ball has not breached Rule 20-2c.
According to your picture, I will assume the only problem here would be that the ball has rolled back onto the cart path.

If so, the ball is required to be dropped again.
If the ball when re-dropped rolls back onto the cart path, it must be placed as near as possible to the spot where it first struck a part of the course when re-dropped.

Done. We now have our ball on the grass and complete relief from the cart path.

Your swing may now be interferred with by the out of bounds fence, but there is no relief from objects defining out of bounds. Objects defining out of bounds are NOT obstructions.

Specifially to your questions:

Question 1. The out-of-bounds fence. My friend tells me that I can't use the cart path to get relief from the fence.

Answer 1.
You are trying to get relief from the cart path, not the other way around.
You get no relief from the fence.

Question 2. I'm confused by the phrase "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."

If I place my ball in that 6-inch strip of grass, then the cart path no longer interferes with a right handed swing (i.e., "the stroke the player would have made"). But now the fence interferes with a right-handed swing -- forcing me to take a left-handed stance, at which point the cart path again becomes an obstruction. Right?

Answer 2.
You are correct with the first part which say "If I place my ball on that 6 inch strip of grass, then the cart path no longer interferes with a right-handed stroke."

However, the next part, "forcing me to take a left-handed stance at which point the cart path becomes an obstruction" is incorrect.

If you haved follow the obstruction procedure described above, you ball is now on the grass and you have been given complete relief from the card path.

You may now stroke the ball in any manner that you wish (right or left handed).
However, you do not get any manner of free relief from the fence.

This is where the exception to Rule 24-2 comes into effect.
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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC MIST

Assuming you are right handed...

But then again, if you decide to find the NPR using a left handed swing, then you would drop the ball on the other, near or lower side of the path. Now, choose the play the shot right handed from this point and we will likely have a heated discussion.

---

No. We wont have a heated discussion. I will be handing out penalty stokes. ;)

Read carefully the definition of "Nearest Point of Relief" and figure out why you can't use a left-handed stance to find the nearest point of relief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC MIST

Assuming you are right handed, can you get a stance and find a spot that relieves you from the cart path? Looks like point marked "x" to me. If this means you are standing outside the boundary line, or have a awkward stance, so be it. Drop the ball. If you don't have a swing then declare the ball unplayable.

Or, play the ball of the cart path.

IMO, if there is a relief point from a right handed playing position, because that is what you are, then you should take it

---

I guess this goes to the crux of my quandary: when determining the "nearest point of relief", am I forced to act like the out-of-bounds fence isn't there?

And if so, am I forced to take an awkward stance? Why can't I decide to play a left-handed shot? (and then get relief)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

If you haved follow the obstruction procedure described above, you ball is now on the grass and you have been given complete relief from the card path.

You may now stroke the ball in any manner that you wish (right or left handed).
However, you do not get any manner of free relief from the fence.

---

I understand that. (And by the way, your explanation has been VERY helpful so far -- thanks!)

But here's the thing: if I choose to play a left-handed shot from the NPR (or, if I choose to play a right-handed shot back towards the tee box), I will be standing on the cart path. Wouldn't I be entitled to free relief from that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogeboom

But here's the thing: if I choose to play a left-handed shot from the NPR (or, if I choose to play a right-handed shot back towards the tee box), I will be standing on the cart path. Wouldn't I be entitled to free relief from that?

---

No.

You CANNOT "choose" to play right-handed back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF.

Rule 24-2 PROHIBITS a player from taking relief under this Rule if interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

Unless you normally play the course backwards, then "choosing" to play towards the teeing ground would be considered unnecessarily abnormal.

You are "choosing" to play towards the teeing ground because there is an out of bounds fence in your normal direction of play.

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.

You are allowed to play towards the teeing ground if you wish.

However, you may NOT claim free relief under Rule 24-2 to accomplish this stroke.

Rule 24-2. 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 or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

Am I right in thinking that a left-handed player would not have this problem because his nearest point of relief would be on the other side of the path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AAA

Am I right in thinking that a left handed player would not have this problem because his nearest point of relief would be on the other side of the path.

---

Yes.

However, it all depends on the WIDTH of the path.

If the path is one inch wide, right and left hand players would always drop on opposite sides of the path.

If the width of the path is 40 feet, then both right and left hand players would always drop on the same side in a circumstance where the ball was very close to either side of the path.

Both right and left handed players should measure on both sides of the path using their normal stance FROM the suspected nearest points of relief TO the ball.

The shortest of these distances is the actual NEAREST point of relief.

Why can't he play left handed toward the hole and claim relief for his stance on the path.
That would not be an abnormal stroke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AAA

Why can't he play left handed toward the hole and claim relief for his stance on the path.
That would not be an abnormal stroke.

---

You must be joking.

If you have no swing right handed, it's reasonable that you may play left handed and be standing on the path.
I have seen lots of times wher a golfer hit left handed (toe down) when they have no right hand shot. Why should that not be accepted as a resonable stroke under the circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Kilbank

If you have no swing right handed, it's reasonable that you may play left handed and be standing on the path.
I have seen lots of times wher a golfer hit left handed (toe down) when they have no right hand shot. Why should that not be accepted as a resonable stroke under the circumstances?

---

Tell me why you don't have a right handed swing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogeboom

And if so, am I forced to take an awkward stance? Why can't I decide to play a left-handed shot? (and then get relief)

---

If playing right handed takes him toward the teeing area why can't he attempt to play left handed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

You CANNOT "choose" to play right-handed back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF.

---

Okay, fair enough. But what about this decision by the USGA: http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...html#24-2b/9.5


The player chose to play a right-handed swing back towards the tee-box, and in doing so, it created interference which wouldn't have existed if he played a right-handed swing towards the green.

If the player cannot play a right-handed shot because a oob fence prevents it, then playing left-handed is acceptable. If this left-handed stance puts the player on the cart path, he is entitled to claim relief from the obstruction, and will use his left handed stance for referencing the NPR as in 24-2b/17

24-2b/17 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...ision-line.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Q. A right-handed player’s ball is so close to a boundary fence on the left of a hole that the player, in order to play towards the hole, must play left-handed. In playing a left-handed stroke, the player’s backswing would be interfered with by an immovable obstruction. Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?
A. The player is entitled to relief since employment of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is necessary in the circumstances — see Exception under Rule 24-2b.
The proper procedure is for the player to take relief for a left-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).
The player may then use a normal right-handed swing for his next stroke. If the obstruction interferes with the swing or stance for the right-handed stroke, the player may take relief for the right-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

Have to admit this is interesting and appears to contradict Gary's statement. I'll be interested to find out how this works out.

Not trying to contradict anything. Just figure out the correct proceedure. If all of that does not apply, that's fine, but I am having trouble understanding why it would not apply.

Relax Dan. I'm not saying that you're contradicting anything. I'm saying that a decision that appears to address this specific situation conflicts with a statement by Gary.

I'm just interested to see how this pans out. Is there any way to get Gary back on the case?

Clearly, this decision says that playing left-handed is not abnormal as it is toward the hole, and it doesn't limit your ability to later play right-handed if the opportunity arises.

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...lief-image.gif

Hogeboom:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

I believe that there may have been some misunderstandings about your situation.:scratchch



a. Point "X" in your earlier diagram was incorrectly identified as the Nearest Point of Relief. This spot corresponds to "P2" in the illustration above. (For the purposes of our discussion, ignore B1/P1 and B3/P3.)

- This NPR was correct for Decision 24-2b/3.7 (the source of this illustration) because that was the shot that the player simulated for taking relief.

- However, that is not true in our case. The player simulated no such shot (right-handed, toward the hole). He couldn't, there wasn't enough room between the fence and the cart path for him to play such a shot!

b. It's been mentioned that the player may not take relief for the right-handed shot back toward the tee. That assertion is not necessarily correct. (Someone cited Decision 24-2b/9.5 as precluding such option. However, that decision seems to infer the opposite conclusion.)

- Imagine for a moment that the cart path didn't exist. What shot(s) could the player play? Is the player proposing to use an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play? (See recommended procedure described by Decision 24-2b/1.)

- In my opinion, with the ball so close to the boundary fence, it may be very reasonable to chip out backwards toward the fairway. (If the boundary fence is a solid fence, it might also be reasonable to aim directly at the fence for a wall-shot.)

- If so, in taking relief from the cart path, that is the same stance and direction of play that the player would use to ascertain the NPR. He cannot drop it at point P2 because he would be standing on the cart path. Consequently, he will end up dropping the ball on the fairway side of the cart path.

c. I'm not sure whether you got a clear answer on the left-handed shot.

- In this situation, it may be very reasonable for the player to turn around and play a left handed shot toward the hole. Unless blocked by trees or otherwise physically prevented in making the stroke, I'll give almost any player credit that they can advance the ball a couple of dozen yards left-handed (with right-handed clubs).

- The player with the left-handed stance will find his NPR on the fairway side of the cart path.

If you read Decisions 24-2b/16 thru 24-2b/19, I think you'll find the above explanation consistent with those rulings. http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo....html#24-2b/16

:)
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogeboom

.what's the proper procedure here? Do I drop first in the grass strip, then take relief a 2nd time? Or do I just make my original drop on the other side of the cart path?

---

1-1

Despite your well structured post, I am still not sure what the correct answer to Hogeboom's original question is.:confused

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.

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. I know that I wouldn't allow the relief if I'm playing him in match play and in a tournament would get a rules official to sort it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

No.
You CANNOT "choose" to play right-handed back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF.
Rule 24-2 PROHIBITS a player from taking relief under this Rule if interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.
Unless you normally play the course backwards, then "choosing" to play towards the teeing ground would be considered unnecessarily abnormal.
You are "choosing" to play towards the teeing ground because there is an out of bounds fence in your normal direction of play.

---

When I asked if you could play left handed you replied 'you must be joking'
So if playing right handed is abnormal because he is going the wrong way, why is left handed abnormal. He is playing toward the hole because that is where he wants to go, not to get relief

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1dash1

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. :confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AAA

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

http://forum.ottawagolf.com/images/smilies/bookh.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hogeboom

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? :scratchch

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Kilbank

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbower

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by historian

Imagine if the path is not there.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AAA

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

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.