An Nearest Point of Relief (NPR) dilemma

[DaveP043]

Are you sure about that?

IMO the player must drop the ball at a spot, where full relief of the immovable obstruction is given.

If he would have to stand on the same IO, from which he is taking relief, he would have to drop somewhere else.

The way I read the original question, the player takes relief from the cart path, on the side closest to the boundary, since that is his nearest point of relief, and it gives him complete relief from the cart path for his stance and swing.  Even if he has to stand in the hazard or out of bounds, that's still his closest point.  Once he has dropped, its a new situation, and in that new situation, a left-handed swing may be the reasonable shot.  Here's the decision:

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 making 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 use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is reasonable 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) .

[Golfingdad]

Are you sure about that?

IMO the player must drop the ball at a spot, where full relief of the immovable obstruction is given.

If he would have to stand on the same IO, from which he is taking relief, he would have to drop somewhere else.

Yeah, we covered this in the thread I linked above.  The NPR for the cart path drop is determined by the swing and stance you would have taken if you were playing that ball off the cart path.  Not until AFTER that drop do you assess the new situation.

Just as Dave mentions ...

The way I read the original question, the player takes relief from the cart path, on the side closest to the boundary, since that is his nearest point of relief, and it gives him complete relief from the cart path for his stance and swing.  Even if he has to stand in the hazard or out of bounds, that's still his closest point.  Once he has dropped, its a new situation, and in that new situation, a left-handed swing may be the reasonable shot.

So after the drop, if a left handed swing is reasonable, then now you get to take relief from the cart path again.  If it works out that OB is close enough to the cart path, then your NPR might be on the "course" side of the path, but you're still taking relief for that left handed swing.  AFTER this second drop, now you realize it's feasible to swing right handed, so ... you're probably now standing back on the path again which would allow for a third, and hopefully final, drop even slightly more "course side" of the path.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highdriver

Quote:

Once that drop is made, physical situations could make a left-handed shot "reasonable,: which would again put the players feet on the cart path.

Are you sure about that?

IMO the player must drop the ball at a spot, where full relief of the immovable obstruction is given.

If he would have to stand on the same IO , from which he is taking relief, he would have to drop somewhere else.

The player only has to locate the NPR that offers complete relief for the intended swing.  Even if the drop for a right handed player makes it unreasonable to swing right handed, it is still a proper drop.  If necessary, the player may then take relief for the left handed interference.

[Highdriver]

@Dave, Golfingdad and Fourputt

Thank you for clearing things up for me!

[RandyBobbitt]

I attended a USGA rules seminar many years ago. The instructor addressed the issue of looking for your nearest point of relief but sometimes finding that puts you dead behind a tree or in another unpleasant situation. He had a great line that I will always remember:  "The rules say you get the nearest point of relief, not the nearest point of relief that you like."

[Rulesman]

n = nicest - not.

[Fourputt]

I attended a USGA rules seminar many years ago. The instructor addressed the issue of looking for your nearest point of relief but sometimes finding that puts you dead behind a tree or in another unpleasant situation. He had a great line that I will always remember:  "The rules say you get the nearest point of relief, not the nearest point of relief that you like."

Yep.  "nearest" means exactly that, the nearest point that gives complete relief from the situation which is not in a hazard or on a putting green.  No fudging, no matter what sort of bad situation that might result in.

[DrvFrShow]

I had an interesting one. My ball was on the left hand edge of the cart path. I am allowed to be able to make normal a stance. There are out of bounds stakes 6" off the left hand side of the cart path and a wooden fence less than two feet from the edge of the path. I would not be able to take a normal stance. Nor, would I be able to drop the ball within one club length without having the ball roll out of bounds. Even setting the ball on the ground in that six inch zone, the cart path (raised) would interfere with my stroke - I'm not going to break a club and injure my shoulder. I don't believe the spirit of the rules don't want you to do that. So I took my drop on the fairway side of the cart path no nearer the hole.

If someone says I should have taken an unplayable lie and my choice was S&D;, walking back 180 yds on these feet was out of the question.

[Fourputt]

I had an interesting one. My ball was on the left hand edge of the cart path. I am allowed to be able to make normal a stance. There are out of bounds stakes 6" off the left hand side of the cart path and a wooden fence less than two feet from the edge of the path. I would not be able to take a normal stance. Nor, would I be able to drop the ball within one club length without having the ball roll out of bounds. Even setting the ball on the ground in that six inch zone, the cart path (raised) would interfere with my stroke - I'm not going to break a club and injure my shoulder. I don't believe the spirit of the rules don't want you to do that. So I took my drop on the fairway side of the cart path no nearer the hole.

If someone says I should have taken an unplayable lie and my choice was S&D;, walking back 180 yds on these feet was out of the question.

If you want the right answer, the course is mismarked.  The out of bounds should be right up the the edge of the cart path to eliminate any question.  If this was a tournament that I was officiating, I'd make that a stipulation on the hard card, that the left side of the cart path on that hole was out of bounds, from X point to X point (those points would be clearly marked in white marking paint).

Technically, you should be dropping in the 6" between the obstruction and the OB.  If that truly can't be done without interference (and I'd have to see the spot to make such a determination), then you would of course drop on the other side because that would be the nearest point of complete relief from the obstruction .  Nobody would tell you that you have to take stroke and distance, at least nobody who knows the rules of golf.

[Dormie1360]

First, the rules do give you relief from the obstruction so you don't hurt your shoulder or club.   You don't, however, get to decide what's "fairest".

If you had enough grass, in bounds, to the left of the cart path to play a stroke without striking the path, that would have been your NPR.  The fact that the fence and OOB stakes were there is irrelevant.

Some food for thought, however.

Once you dropped, or subsequently placed your ball in that narrow area to the left of the path, you now have a new situation.  Because of your proximity to the fence, if your only play is a left handed stroke, your feet would now be back on the path. So now, because your feet are on the path, you get relief from the cart path because of your left handed stroke. Your nearest point of relief would then be to the right of the path.  Continuing with a left handed stroke, your NPR would be a few inches right of the path.  You drop and again  have a new situation.  So now a right handed stroke would be your play again, but because you are now facing the other way, your feet are again on the path.  So you take relief again,  the NPR being further right of the path.

Rules can work in your favor.

To avoid situations like this, courses will often mark either the left edge of the path as the OOB margin, or the path itself as OOB.

Edit: what Rick said.

[Fourputt]

First, the rules do give you relief from the obstruction so you don't hurt your shoulder or club.   You don't, however, get to decide what's "fairest".

If you had enough grass, in bounds, to the left of the cart path to play a stroke without striking the path, that would have been your NPR.  The fact that the fence and OOB stakes were there is irrelevant.

Some food for thought, however.

Once you dropped, or subsequently placed your ball in that narrow area to the left of the path, you now have a new situation.  Because of your proximity to the fence, if your only play is a left handed stroke, your feet would now be back on the path. So now, because your feet are on the path, you get relief from the cart path because of your left handed stroke. Your nearest point of relief would then be to the right of the path.  Continuing with a left handed stroke, your NPR would be a few inches right of the path.  You drop and again  have a new situation.  So now a right handed stroke would be your play again, but because you are now facing the other way, your feet are again on the path.  So you take relief again,  the NPR being further right of the path.

Rules can work in your favor.

To avoid situations like this, courses will often mark either the left edge of the path as the OOB margin, or the path itself as OOB.

Edit: what Rick said.

One more comment to this.  If, after dropping (and placing if necessary), it is no more reasonable to play a left handed stroke in the wrong direction than it is to play an abbreviated right handed stroke more or less toward the hole, then the drop stands and no further relief is allowed.  The rest of Dormie's procedure is only allowed if that is the only reasonable option available to the player.  You can't choose to play an opposite handed stroke away from the hole just to set up an additional relief situation.

[DrvFrShow]

First, the rules do give you relief from the obstruction so you don't hurt your shoulder or club.   You don't, however, get to decide what's "fairest".

If you had enough grass, in bounds, to the left of the cart path to play a stroke without striking the path, that would have been your NPR.  The fact that the fence and OOB stakes were there is irrelevant.

Some food for thought, however.

Once you dropped, or subsequently placed your ball in that narrow area to the left of the path, you now have a new situation.  Because of your proximity to the fence, if your only play is a left handed stroke, your feet would now be back on the path. So now, because your feet are on the path, you get relief from the cart path because of your left handed stroke. Your nearest point of relief would then be to the right of the path.  Continuing with a left handed stroke, your NPR would be a few inches right of the path.  You drop and again  have a new situation.  So now a right handed stroke would be your play again, but because you are now facing the other way, your feet are again on the path.  So you take relief again,  the NPR being further right of the path.

Rules can work in your favor.

To avoid situations like this, courses will often mark either the left edge of the path as the OOB margin, or the path itself as OOB.

Edit: what Rick said.

But you are allowed to take a normal stance, and the fence prevented me from doing that. So that set up the left handed option only, and I'm right handed. And from what I read in another ruling, there is no penalty if the player goes directly to the final spot without going through the entire process if it is obvious they would end up there, and it was obvious to me.

[Dormie1360]

But you are allowed to take a normal stance, and the fence prevented me from doing that. So that set up the left handed option only, and I'm right handed. And from what I read in another ruling, there is no penalty if the player goes directly to the final spot without going through the entire process if it is obvious they would end up there, and it was obvious to me.

No, I'm afraid you don't have it right.  First, you are not required to have a normal stance.  You are just required to have relief from the cart path.  Second assuming your only option was a left handed swing after taking relief (See Fourputt's post)  you have to go through each drop, you can't just skip and go to the last one.

Decision 24-2b/3.7 has a good diagram showing this, but I can not seem copy it from the USGA's new website.  Below is decision 24-2b/3.5

24-2b/3.5

Player Unable Physically to Determine Nearest Point of Relief

Q. In proceeding under Rule 24-2b(i) or Rule 25-1b(i) , the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief" provides that to determine the nearest point of relief accurately, the player should use the club, address position, direction of play and swing (right or left-handed) that he would have used from the original position had the obstruction or condition not been there. What is the procedure if a player is unable physically to determine the nearest point of relief because, for example, that point is within the trunk of a tree or 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.

[Golfingdad]

One more comment to this.  If, after dropping (and placing if necessary), it is no more reasonable to play a left handed stroke in the wrong direction than it is to play an abbreviated right handed stroke more or less toward the hole, then the drop stands and no further relief is allowed.  The rest of Dormie's procedure is only allowed if that is the only reasonable option available to the player.  You can't choose to play an opposite handed stroke away from the hole just to set up an additional relief situation.

Not sure I follow what you're saying. If you're unable to take a right handed stroke and you switch to left handed, it's cuz you want to keep going the correct direction. If you are gonna play away from the hole, then you could still hit it right handed.

[Dormie1360]

But you are allowed to take a normal stance, and the fence prevented me from doing that. So that set up the left handed option only, and I'm right handed. And from what I read in another ruling, there is no penalty if the player goes directly to the final spot without going through the entire process if it is obvious they would end up there, and it was obvious to me.

Also see this.

24-2b/3

Player Determines Nearest Point of Relief But Physically Unable to Play Intended Stroke

Q. In proceeding under Rule 24-2b(i) or Rule 25-1b(i) , the Definition of "Nearest Point of Relief" provides that to determine the nearest point of relief accurately, the player should use the club, address position, direction of play and swing (right or left-handed) that he would have used to make his next stroke had the obstruction or condition not been there. What is the procedure if, having determined the stroke he would have used, he is unable physically to make such a stroke from, what would appear to be, the nearest point of relief because either (a) the direction of play is blocked by a tree, or (b) he is unable to take the backswing for the intended stroke due to a bush?

A. The point identified is the nearest point of relief. The fact that at this point the player cannot make the intended stroke due to something other than the obstruction or condition from which relief is being taken does not alter this result. The player must drop the ball within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, not nearer the hole. Once the ball is in play, the player must then decide what type of stroke he will make. This stroke may be different from the one he would have made from the ball's original position had the obstruction or condition not been there.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

One more comment to this.  If, after dropping (and placing if necessary), it is no more reasonable to play a left handed stroke in the wrong direction than it is to play an abbreviated right handed stroke more or less toward the hole, then the drop stands and no further relief is allowed.  The rest of Dormie's procedure is only allowed if that is the only reasonable option available to the player.  You can't choose to play an opposite handed stroke away from the hole just to set up an additional relief situation.

Not sure I follow what you're saying. If you're unable to take a right handed stroke and you switch to left handed, it's cuz you want to keep going the correct direction. If you are gonna play away from the hole, then you could still hit it right handed.

In the scenario that DrvFrShow set up, she would be playing away from the normal direction of play (and it would seem it would be away from the hole) if she was to swing left handed.  There must be reasonable justification for such play or the stance would not be allowable for obtaining additional relief.  I'm not saying that such a situation would not be possible, but that the circumstances must be right for it to be allowed.

[Golfingdad]

In the scenario that DrvFrShow set up, she would be playing away from the normal direction of play (and it would seem it would be away from the hole) if she was to swing left handed.  There must be reasonable justification for such play or the stance would not be allowable for obtaining additional relief.  I'm not saying that such a situation would not be possible, but that the circumstances must be right for it to be allowed.

Gotcha. Thanks. I'd like to think that most courses would be smart enough to do like you suggested and either mark the edge of the path as the OB, or push it far enough away from the path that the situations being discussed couldn't occur, but I imagine many aren't.

[Rulesman]

There must be reasonable justification for such play or the stance would not be allowable for obtaining additional relief.  I'm not saying that such a situation would not be possible, but that the circumstances must be right for it to be allowed.

My words added in red.

.

24-2b/17

Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances

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 making a left-handed stroke, the player's backswing would be interfered with by an immovable obstruction or the player's stance would be interfered with by the path. Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?

A. The player is entitled to relief since use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is reasonable 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) .