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

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

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.

Very good summary from Dormie. Just to make sure nobody misunderstands what Dormie says in his last sentence he does not mean that you do not get a free relief from an immovable obstruction in abnormal ground conditions (as you do) but you do not get free relief if it is impracticable to make a stroke due to other reasons, eg. tree roots, rocks, etc. from which you normally do not get a free reflief.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Very good summary from Dormie. Just to make sure nobody misunderstands what Dormie says in his last sentence he does not mean that you do not get a free relief from an immovable obstruction in abnormal ground conditions (as you do) but you do not get free relief if it is impracticable to make a stroke due to other reasons, eg. tree roots, rocks, etc. from which you normally do not get a free reflief.

Thanks Ignorant.  I re read my message, and the last was confusing.  I had to stop and think about what the heck I was trying to say in the first place. Sorry.   Actually I was kind of going off on a slight tangent explaining where the ball lay on the course is also critical in determining if one gets relief from an Abnormal ground condition in a lateral or water hazard.  Same idea, Relief is based on where the ball is, not the AGC.

Two reasons why I got into some of this is there was a BIG money game recently in my neck of the woods.  A player's ball lay outside a hazard, however he had interference from an obstruction that was in the hazard.  Big argument as to whether or not there was relief, no one knew what to do.  Asked their Pro, he wasn't sure.  Looked in the Rules book, couldn't decide, etc. I was later asked about it.

I mention AGC because I missed a question on the exam a couple of years ago which had the ball outside the water hazard and the AGC in the hazard.

[Dormie1360]

Here is a great video demonstrating the exception to Rule 24-2.  In this case David Frost is trying to convince the rules official he would be taking this rather obnormal stance regardless if the cart path were there or not.

I don't have permisson to attach videos, however if you scroll down to the bottom of this page, select the video "hoping he would be entitled to releif".

http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=96&Rule;=24http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?

[B-Con]

[quote=Rulesman]The two stroke or loss of hole penalty is the standard penalty used in the Rules.[/quote] Thanks for posting that text, it provides good insight as to why penalties are the way they are. The quoted sentence in particular interests me. I had thought it as being the other way around, one stroke as the standard penalty with two strokes for abnormally bad rule breaks. But if the standard is two, then the question should never be "why two in this case?" it should be "why one in that case"? Other sentences in that text imply that the penalty is to both negate any potential gain and provide a penalty for the rule break, so if an action could save you one stroke than the penalty should be two. So, I think that answers my question.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by B-Con

Thanks for posting that text, it provides good insight as to why penalties are the way they are.

The quoted sentence in particular interests me. I had thought it as being the other way around, one stroke as the standard penalty with two strokes for abnormally bad rule breaks. But if the standard is two, then the question should never be "why two in this case?" it should be "why one in that case"?

Other sentences in that text imply that the penalty is to both negate any potential gain and provide a penalty for the rule break, so if an action could save you one stroke than the penalty should be two.

So, I think that answers my question.

The two-stroke penalty is used for almost all "procedural violations." That is, cases where you actually break a rule. There are exceptions in cases of minor violations (e.g., if you lift your ball to identify it without giving your opponent the choice to observe).

The one-stroke penalties arise by and large in "bad luck" type situations, where you haven't broken a rule. This covers water hazards, OB, unplayable lie, etc.

This isn't a hard-and-fast rule (e.g., cleaning a ball when you're not permitted to do so is only a one stroke penalty), but it's close. I think it's correct to say that if you do not break a rule, you will never incur a two-stroke penalty, but you may encounter one-stroke penalties.