Rules question,...

[iacas]

the original question was (or was supposed to be)

If you're saying that his original stance would have been interfered with by BOTH the post and the path, then I'm virtually 100% confident he absolutely must take relief from both.

I thought the question was that he was interfered with by the post, but his drop left him so close to the cart path that he'd be standing on it if he dropped - not that he was also standing on it to begin with.

there was room for him to put it in a place where neither the path or the post would be in play, but he didn't like that spot, (tree's in front of him) he liked it where his feet were on the path and no tree's in front of him,...

Again, nearly 100% confident he has to either play it as it lies or take complete relief from the post and the path.

How close were the two? I'm guessing the path (if the guy's a righty) is on the left side of the hole, such that the post is on the inside (right side) of the path? If you're going to ask a rules question, please try to be precise in how you word things. It changes things. P.S. I could point out that if you take relief from a red hazard, you can't drop into a yellow hazard. I think the same logic applies here.

[kregan]

Is it not the players choice to stand on the cart path if it gives him a better line after he takes releif from the post? Another words he does not "have" to take relief from standing on the cart path. Right?

[iacas]

Is it not the players choice to stand on the cart path if it gives him a better line after he takes releif from the post? Another words he does not "have" to take relief from standing on the cart path. Right?

If you choose to take relief, you must take complete relief. If his original ball position left him standing on the cart path, again, I'm nearly 100% positive you can't say "I'm taking relief from the post, but not the cart path."

[heyscuba]

If you choose to take relief, you must take complete relief. If his original ball position left him standing on the cart path, again, I'm nearly 100% positive you can't say "I'm taking relief from the post, but not the cart path."

Thanks, I agree,...

Nearest point is not always the best point,...

[iacas]

Thanks, I agree,...

This still begs the interesting question of a post and a cartpath separated by enough space that only one affects you at any time, but the nearest point is between them so that there's no room between them to take relief from both.

I've emailed the USGA back to ask for a clarification, not only about that variation but about the variation wherein you can take relief from one that affects you, but perhaps you use that one clublength and end up standing on the cartpath or something. I think that's probably a legitimate drop.

[heyscuba]

heyscuba - You simply have to state what you are taking relief from. In this case, he should state he's taking relief from the stake (immovable obstruction). Find the nearest point of relief and drop within 1 club.

Sorry Powerfade, I don't think that's right,... maybe you can't visualize the situation,... in my eye's his nearest point of relief was away from the cart path and the post, it put him in a clear spot with a clear swing and no feet on the path, no post in the way, but the tree's came into play there,.... he didn't like that so he wanted to take the relief by stepping backwards one step and drop the ball in between the path and the post but leaving his feet on the path,... he then wanted to hit it from there, he thought he had the choice of hitting it with his feet on the cart path, but I say no, taking relief from the post means taking full relief,... if you put the ball where you again get relief then you didn't take full relief,...

if I knew how to add an attachment to this site I'd draw you a picture,... thanks for the note,... heyscuba

[kregan]

I remember seeing Tiger hit from the cart path in metal spikes but he had decide not to take any relief because he had a good lie in the rough and didn't want to chance a bad lie from a drop.

With that in mind I was under the impression that if the ball was palyable it would be the players choice to stand on a path.

I will be interesting to see what the officials say.

[heyscuba]

I remember seeing Tiger hit from the cart path in metal spikes but he had decide not to take any relief because he had a good lie in the rough and didn't want to chance a bad lie from a drop.

the ball was not playable,....

imagine you're standing there addressing the ball (righthand golfer) your feet are on the path, and a post is next to the ball,...... no way to hit this ball,... you need to take relief,.... I don't think you can take relief and still keep your feet on the path,... you can choose to hit the ball with your feet on the path if it already lies there,... but you can't move it to a place like that when taking a free drop, you need to take full relief,... which is what you must do in this situation,,,,, I'm repeating myself,...

[martin00015]

If you choose to take relief, you must take complete relief. If his original ball position left him standing on the cart path, again, I'm nearly 100% positive you can't say "I'm taking relief from the post, but not the cart path."

The post and the path are different situations, the player is not obliged to tie the two together unless a local rule says so.

The player can choose to take relief from the post only, leaving his stance on the cart path if he wishes. He can then consider the path as a totally new situation, albeit under the same rule, and has the choice to play the ball as it (now) lies. Alternatively, the player may choose to take relief from the cart path to start with which presumably will also tak him away from the post. This is analogous to decision 25-1b/11.

[heyscuba]

The post and the path are different situations, the player is not obliged to tie the two together unless a local rule says so.

Drawing of the situation attached Please tell then what does it mean when the rules say "take full relief,... if he takes relief from the post and is still on the path, he didn't take full relief right? have a look at this attachment,... (I hope I did it right) it's a crude drawing of the siuation,...

[iacas]

The post and the path are different situations, the player is not obliged to tie the two together unless a local rule says so.

Not according to the USGA, though again, I've asked for clarification. Furthermore, the OP has clarified that the guy's stance put him on the cart path to begin with.

And no, it's not analogous to 25-1b/11. Both the cart path and the post are immovable obstructions. Casual water and GUR aren't the same kind of thing. Two immovable obstructions are. I'll await the clarification email from the USGA before I say more.

[Q.Q.Quillume]

...This is analogous to decision 25-1b/11.

There is no Decision 25-1b/11. There is a Decision 25/1 "Soft, Mushy Earth" and Decision 25/2 "Overflow from Water Hazard.

[iacas]

There is no Decision 25-1b/11. There is a Decision 25/1 "Soft, Mushy Earth" and Decision 25/2 "Overflow from Water Hazard.

Decision 25-1b/11 .

[Q.Q.Quillume]

Decision 25-1b/11

I would have never found that. My apologies & thanks for the link.

[kregan]

Drawing looks good, I guess it depends on if full relief is intended for the ball or the ball and the player.

If it is just the ball then he got full relief from the post even though his feet where still on the path. I take it he wasn't asking for relief from the path, just the post right?

Drawing of the situation attached

[iacas]

Drawing looks good, I guess it depends on if full relief is intended for the ball or the ball and the player.

You can't take relief for just one - the ball or the player. It's "stance and swing." They're one and the same - full relief is from both.

[martin00015]

Drawing of the situation attached

From the drawing it looks like the post is part of a small fence. Unless there is a local rule in force that ties the areas together - the principle within decision 33-8/25 - then the fence and path are distinctly different obstructions. The player may choose to obtain relief from the fence and as long as the fence does not interfere with his swing or his stance, then full relief has been taken.

The path may then be considered seperately - see decision 24-2b/9. On the other hand, if the player chose initially to take relief from the path instead, then he can disregard the fence. Having dropped his ball in accordance with rule 24-2 if the fence then intereferes with his stance or swing he can find a new nearest point of relief from his new position. This may have landed him where you diagram shows, but of course, it may also land him back on the path. In which case, the principle of decision 1-4/8 can be applied.

[iacas]

It seems 1-4/8 would apply in a situation where the post interfered, then the path, then the post, then the path, with the player having the option to play with his stance on the path if he desired. Again, I'll await the USGA's word on that, but it seems likely that may be the case. Same with 24-2b/9 to an extent.

I get what you're saying about 24-2b/9, but the point here is that both obstructions interfere in the ball's original position, and I'm still not entirely sure he is entitled to say "I'm taking relief from that one which interferes with my swing, but not this one which interferes with my stance" when both are actively interfering with his current position. 24-2b/9 talks about dropping and having a new thing interfere, not two existing things.

But either way, I'm glad I asked the USGA for clarification. It seems the first person who responded to me might not have gotten things quite right, or may have at least misunderstood what I was asking.