Failure to take full relief - why 2 strokes of penalty?

It's a violation because by not taking full relief, you're showing that you don't actually need relief and are choosing a better place than you would if you did take full relief. It's taking advantage when full relief might mean that you have a harder shot and you choose not to drop completely away from the path or whatever it is. You can't pick and choose.

Same penalty as playing from a Wrong Place (Rule 20-7). Seems fair to me.

The following from R S Tufts may be of interest.

10. When We Do Wrong

Nobody wants to incur a penalty [Definitions: Penalty] but there are so many in the Rules that they are often a factor in the results of play. Generally speaking there are four kinds of penalties. 1) Those which come as a result of play, such as a ball played out of bounds, the striking of another ball in stroke play when both balls lay on the putting green prior to the stroke, etc. 2) Those which are a result of accidental acts of the player, such as a ball moved in address. 3) Those which are the result of purposeful acts of the player, such as lifting a ball in play before holing  out, improving the lie of the ball, etc. It should be noted that even purposeful acts are usually inadvertent or done in ignorance of the Rules.

4) Those which come from a failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules, such as putting a ball in play incorrectly, delaying play, etc. Fortunately in golf the deliberate violation of the Rules is a rare occurrence and it is an interesting demonstration of the high moral plane on which the game is universally played that those who intentionally violate the Rules soon find it difficult to arrange matches. Since few violations are of the deliberate sort, it is obvious that the word “penalty”

is not used in the Rules in its sense of being punishment.

The word “adjustment” would be more appropriate and it is here that we arrive at the principle which applies to penalties. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation . In other words, whether the violation be inadvertent or deliberate, or whether it occurs as a result of play or be due to the accidental or purposeful act of the player, or whether it be brought about by failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules regardless of the circumstances, the penalty must always be of sufficient magnitude to discourage the player from seeking or receiving advantage under the Rules.

The purpose of the Rules is to insure that as far as possible everyone plays the same game. The penalties serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected Rule players will play a game wholly different from golf. The penalties must be adequate to provide this protection for if they are too light it is conceivable that golf would become a game of negotiation, with the golfer deliberately accepting penalties in order to obtain some advantage. Thus the Rules

themselves would provide the golfer with an inexpensive method of avoiding the results of a badly played shot. Under these conditions golf would lose all character and become a travesty. In order to maintain this principle, it must be admitted that at times the penalties appear to be unduly severe. It is impossible to provide a

completely graduated scale of penalties, though the Rules do permit modifying the penalty of disqualification [Rule 33-7], and the penalty applied to each particular rule must be specific and adequate at least to match the maximum advantage which the player is likely to receive. The penalties cannot be expected, nor are they intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation.

As regards their severity, penalties can be divided into three general gradations: one stroke, two strokes in stroke play and its equivalent of loss of hole in match play, and disqualification. It is interesting to examine each of these classifications in the light of the principle that the penalty must not be less than the advantage gained.

ONE STROKE PENALTIES

The one stroke penalty is most commonly incurred in connection with the accidental moving of the ball, either by the player [Rule 18-2a and 2b] or in the moving of a loose impediment [Rule 18-2c]. It is inconceivable that the player can obtain any greater advantage from the accidental moving of his ball than he can by striking it purposefully with a club and, therefore, a penalty of one stroke meets the requirement of the principle. For similar reasons the penalty is only one stroke for dropping a ball improperly [Rule 20-2a], striking a ball more than once while

making a stroke [Rule 14-4], etc. When a ball cannot be played from a water hazard and the player elects to drop behind the hazard, the penalty of one stroke is the equivalent of the recovery stroke which the player might otherwise have played [Rule 26-1].

Another one stroke penalty covers the provisions for dropping from an unplayable lie [Rule 28]. In this instance the penalty may be infinitely less than the advantage gained by the player, as the diabolical little sphere with which the game is played has the unhappy faculty of tucking itself away in some really frightful situations. However, at this juncture, the Rules exhibit unexpected generosity by providing two avenues of escape (dropping within two club lengths of the lie not nearer the hole or dropping behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly

between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit how far behind that point the ball may be dropped) which are the equivalent of a recovery by the expenditure of one stroke. However, the two options above do not cover the situation where the ball has entered an area in which there is no possible place where a ball can be dropped without again becoming unplayable. Under these

circumstances there is no other alternative than to put a ball in play again at the spot from which the original ball was last played. Supposedly the penalty for this procedure should be distance only, which is the equivalent of the one-stroke penalty for the two options discussed above. Unfortunately this cannot be done for the following reasons:

In the case of an unplayable ball [Rule 28] the player is the sole judge as to when the ball is unplayable. This must be so because it is impracticable to define the conditions which make a ball unplayable, it is basically a matter of opinion. Since the player may declare any ball unplayable, regardless of the actual nature of the lie, if the Rules were to permit the replay of a shot from where previously played with loss of distance only, there would be many instances in which it would be to the advantage of the player to accept the penalty rather than to attempt to play his ball. A little imagination will readily bring to mind many such cases.

The obvious one is the ball misplayed into very deep woods from which the player will be fortunate to extricate himself with several strokes. Obviously, if the penalty were loss of distance only he would be better off to replay the shot from where the previous stroke was played. However, if the player elects to drop behind the point where his ball lays or within two club-lengths, then he does not avoid the general difficulty into which he has played himself and it is reasonable to permit him to obtain relief from a bad lie for a penalty of one stroke. The use of the loss of distance only penalty must be avoided because there can be situations in which the distance that a ball has covered actually results in the ball being further from the hole or in a more unfavorable situation. This occurs, for example, with the half

topped approach or when a too strongly stroked putt on a fast green goes beyond the hole and down a bank or into a bunker. The right to replay from where the last stroke was played without further penalty would result in a substantial gain for the player. Thus it is only too apparent that there must be a penalty of one stroke and distance for the replaying of an unplayable ball from where the last stroke was played. Aside from the maintenance of the principle now under discussion, the penalty for an unplayable ball has a very important bearing on other Rule situations to be considered in the discussion commencing in Chapter 18.

TWO-STROKE AND LOSS OF HOLE PENALTIES

The two-stroke penalty in stroke play and loss of hole in match play is the general penalty under the Rules. In most cases it is obvious that a lighter penalty would be inadequate. For example, in the case of a ball in motion stopped or deflected by the player himself, his partner or either of their caddies [Rule 19-2], it is obvious that the advantage to the player or his side might be considerable. The ball might have been headed for some difficulty, such as a bunker, from which the player’s ability to recover in one stroke would be uncertain and, whether the stopping or deflecting of the ball was intentional or accidental, the advantage would be substantial. A one-stroke penalty would be less than the advantage the player might derive, and the Rules therefore provide for a penalty of two strokes in stroke play and loss of hole in match play. A glance through the Rule book will show that in a majority of the cases where the two-stroke and loss of hole penalty is provided, the player is in a position, through the infraction of the Rule, to gain some sort of indefinite advantage. The probability is that the advantage will be no greater than one stroke but there is usually the possibility that it may be greater and therefore the penalty of two strokes is provided. Just a few examples of such rules will serve to direct attention to the many others not cited: the play of a practice stroke [Rule 7-2], giving or receiving advice [Rule 8-1], improving the lie [Rule 13], not striking the

ball fairly [Rule 14-1], taking undue relief from obstructions [Rule 24] and many others. The two stroke or loss of hole penalty is the standard penalty used in the Rules. Obviously any lesser penalty would not fully equalize the possible advantages received by the player in the situations for which it is used.

DISQUALIFICATION PENALTIES

In just the same way that there are situations which cannot be properly covered with a one stroke penalty, there are times when a penalty of two or even any number of additional strokes becomes inadequate. For these situations the only acceptable adjustment is the elimination of the player from the hole or from the competition by disqualification. It should be noted that, unfortunately, golfers are

generally under the impression that disqualification implies dishonorable conduct. This is not correct. The most common use of the disqualification penalty occurs in stroke play in connection with the return of incorrect scores [Rule 6-6]. If a lower score is returned with the deliberate intention of cheating, the player is guilty of dishonorable conduct of the most flagrant character but wrong scores are seldom of this sort and are usually due to the gross carelessness of the golfer in properly

checking his score. Since the posting of an incorrect score could, by publication of incorrect information, affect the play of other competitors in the field and since it is impractical under the Rules to distinguish between the intentional return of a low score and the careless commission, the penalty of disqualification must be standard. Though the penalty of disqualification appears unduly severe, actually the rule-makers never like to eliminate a player from a competition without good reason. For example, it seems really brutal to disqualify a player in stroke play for having played from outside the teeing ground without correcting the error [Rule 11-4b]. However, if the general penalty for stroke play of two strokes were the penalty for this particular infraction, it would be possible for a golfer to make a score of three on every hole simply by teeing his ball next to the hole and

knocking it in. The use of the disqualification penalty is necessary here to assure that the principle established under Chapter 6 is maintained. There are a number of instances where the penalty under a Rule is loss of hole in match play but is disqualification for stroke play. It might appear that the more severe penalty in stroke play is unwarranted. Unfortunately there are certain situations in which there is no way of estimating the advantage gained by the player as a result of the violation. For this occurrence in match play the score for the hole in question can be eliminated, since a round at match play is in effect composed of the results of 18 separate competitions, no one of which directly affects the play of the others. By contrast, in stroke play, the score for one hole is added to the score for one next one and throwing out the score for one hole eliminates the total. Therefore when the player’s score for any one hole cannot be determined, the advantage gained by the player is equally indeterminable and the disqualification penalty is the only one that meets the requirements of the principle under consideration. The classic example of a situation where anything less than the disqualification penalty is not possible in stroke play occurs when the player simply fails to hole out with the ball in play [Rule 3-2]. The circumstances are similar when the player has played a wrong ball [Rule 15-3] and failed to complete the play of the hole with the ball driven from the tee and are almost the same in foursome play when the partners have played in incorrect order without correcting the error [Rule 29-3].

Whereas, in these cases, disqualification in stroke play is the only

possible penalty, in match play only the score for the hole in question

need be disregarded [Rules 15-2 and 29-2].

When it comes to penalties, the golfer can be confident of one fact: the pressure for their mitigation over the years has been terrific. If the governing bodies of golf have not reduced them, it has most assuredly been due to an inability to devise ways and means of doing so without creating a violation of the principles under discussion.

This is good text. Where did you find it?

The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf

by Richard S Tufts

It is a classic originally published 50 years ago. An updated version is available on the USGA website.

I have that particular book on my shelf of golf books....

Maybe I should read it again... ('Big Blush')

I found the following explenation witch other may also find intresting:

http://www.barryrhodes.com/2011/03/taking-complete-relief-eg-from.html

Now in the given situation the ball roles back towards the gravel path and the player proceeds to take the shot whilst touching the immovable obstruction, incurring a 2

stroke penalty.

So would he have gotten another free drop?

Not "another" free drop. Normal dropping rules apply. You drop once, if the drop was not succesful  (like above) then drop a second time. If not succesful then place the ball where it touched ground first time on second drop.

Yes, he would.  As pointed out, after the second drop, if the ball stopped at a point where he still did not have full relief from the obstruction, he would then place the ball where it first struck the course on the re-drop.

When taking a "proper' drop, there are 7 reasons when a re-drop is mandatory requiring ONE re drop.  There are, however, ways to take an improper drop, in which case there is no limit to the number of drops one has to take before he/she gets it right.  Two examples would be the ball striking the player when dropped, and the ball first hitting the course outside the area defined by nearest point of relief and the drop area.

Also, the reason why you are dropping again can affect your ability to change relief options after the first drop.

I guess this would be a good time to introduce myself.  I'm an advid golfer who studies rules as a hobby.  When I retire in a few years I hope to do some rules volunteering locally.  I'm heading off to my 5th USGA/PGA 4 day Rules workshop next week.  I enjoy reading these types of forums. It's good practice answering questions......... and I'm sure I won't always be right.

John

As a foreigner I have to ask what 'advid' means? I do know 'avid', is that somewhere close?

Typo.....saw it......couldn't find an "edit reply" option on this board.

It's not just the same penalty, it is why he is being penalized.  By failing to take complete relief, he is playing from a wrong place, and is penalized 2 strokes under the applicable relief rule - Rule 24 or Rule 25, whichever one he was taking relief under.  The only time that complete relief is not required is when the drop is being made in a bunker where the best relief in the bunker is only partial relief (i.e. if a bunker is almost covered with casual water, the ball may be dropped on the only dry spot which meets the relief requirement, but where there is not enough room for the player's stance to also be out of the water.)

If I may ask, how is full relief defined? How would I know where full relief is located from a place I want to take relief from?

Thanks

Interference by Something occurs when a ball lies in or touches the Problem or when the Problem interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing.

Therefore full relief is achieved only when there is no interference from any or all of the conditions.

The procedure for determining the npr is in Decision 24-2b/1

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-24/#24-2b/1

but read the next few decisions also

In addition see Decision 25-1b/1 for diagrams which will help

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-25/#25-1b/2

NPR or nearest point of relief is probably one of the most misunderstood things that I see.  The above decisions give some good examples.  Remember, you drop within one club length of the NPR, not one club length from the obstruction.  Also once the ball strikes the course after the drop, if it comes to a rest within 2 club lengths from where it first struck the course, its a good drop. (Provided the other requirements of 20-2c, when to re-drop are met.)  So in a practical since, after taking relief your ball could wind up 3 club lengths from the interference and be a good drop.

It's important to realize that the NPR can be in a bush, tree, etc. so before you lift your ball for relief make sure you have a good ideal where you're NPR will be.  Once you lift your ball under an applicable rule, you need to follow that rule through, otherwise you could be looking at penalties.

A couple of other points.  This is not a get out of jail free rule.  An example in the decisions gives an example of a ball lying between two tree roots.  The player may have to stand on a cart path to play the ball, but there is no way he could make a stroke at the ball lying between the roots, so the player can not take advantage of the obstruction rule to get his ball away from the roots.  It has to be reasonable that you could have made the stroke with the interference not being there.  In this case, the player couldn't, so no relief.

Second, a determining fact for allowing relief is based on where you ball is located, not the interference.  For example, you do not get relief from immovable obstructions in a hazard.  However, if your ball rests outside the hazard, and the obstruction within the hazard interferes with you swing, you can take relief.  The opposite is also true.  If you ball lies in the hazard, and the obstruction is outside the hazard, you do not get relief.  The key is where the ball is, not the obstruction.  This is the same for relief from abnormal ground conditions.