1999 David Frost denied a drop

[saevel25]

I saw this example posted in the Jordan Spieth Casual Water thread. I thought it would be an interesting discussion. 

I want to look at it from this point. If you don't believe you can advance the ball back into play. That your next shot would be equal to or worse than your current shot. That the only play you have might be to chip it out onto the path to get a clean lie. Is it fair for a rules official to deem that shot unreasonable? 

If you have an expected score on a recovery shot of 3.80. If the next shot leave you an expected score of lets say 3.70. You lost 8/10ths of a stroke. If you can take that 3.8 expected score and advance it 20 yards down a dirt path. Let's say the expected score from the dirt path is 3.22 (equivalent to a bunker shot from 140 yards, but it's probably easier than that), you are only losing 4/10ths of a stroke. 

I would say it is a very reasonable play to hit it down the dirt path. I would say if his intended golf stance for that situation puts his foot on the path then he should gain relief from it. 

[Fourputt]

I think that the actual question was whether or not he actually needed to take that wide a stance.  They certainly decided that something about his intention was unreasonable, and that seems to be the most likely culprit.  

[Abu3baid]

Loved the exchange between them, but I'm not sure if he just played that shot just to spite the ref or it was his intention all along.  Either case, thanks for sharing!

[natureboy]

Yeah, I agree advancing down the cart path was quite reasonable given the nasty lie he had and the possibility of hitting into a similar one if he went for the fairway. On the path he'd have a reasonable shot at advancing to the green from slightly closer. Another shot from similar lie in that rough might only get to the fairway.

Extra wide stance possibly justified, but much less reasonable IMO.

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I saw this example posted in the Jordan Spieth Casual Water thread. I thought it would be an interesting discussion. 

I want to look at it from this point. If you don't believe you can advance the ball back into play. That your next shot would be equal to or worse than your current shot. That the only play you have might be to chip it out onto the path to get a clean lie. Is it fair for a rules official to deem that shot unreasonable? 

If you have an expected score on a recovery shot of 3.80. If the next shot leave you an expected score of lets say 3.70. You lost 8/10ths of a stroke. If you can take that 3.8 expected score and advance it 20 yards down a dirt path. Let's say the expected score from the dirt path is 3.22 (equivalent to a bunker shot from 140 yards, but it's probably easier than that), you are only losing 4/10ths of a stroke. 

I would say it is a very reasonable play to hit it down the dirt path. I would say if his intended golf stance for that situation puts his foot on the path then he should gain relief from it. 

"Just hit the damn ball!"  said the ref in his head.

[bkuehn1952]

I am with @Fourputt, it sure seemed like Mr. Frost was attempting to manufacture a scenario where he stepped on a part of the path.  In the end, the heel on the path likely did not affect the outcome, if in fact punching down the path was his original intention.  

[Grinde6]

37 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I am with @Fourputt, it sure seemed like Mr. Frost was attempting to manufacture a scenario where he stepped on a part of the path.  In the end, the heel on the path likely did not affect the outcome, if in fact punching down the path was his original intention.  

But it doesn't matter if it affects the outcome or not, if that was his intended shot and he was touching the cart path he should have got relief.  IMO he should have got relief, because after seeing that lie, there was no way he was controlling where that ball would go if he went towards the fairway.

[DaveP043]

In looking at the lie, and the location of the path, I'm wondering where he wanted to drop.  To get relief from the path, his nearest point of relief appears to be just a few inches deeper into the hay to the right of the path.  Its not like he could drop in the area of lower grass near the path, he'd still be standing on the path.  Maybe he'd located a nice spot to drop it, but its not obvious from any of the views I've seen.

I've seen plenty of people (including me, at least a couple of times) decide to take relief, pick up their ball, and then realize that the NPR is an even worse spot than they were in originally.

[saevel25]

15 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I think that the actual question was whether or not he actually needed to take that wide a stance.  They certainly decided that something about his intention was unreasonable, and that seems to be the most likely culprit.  

I don't think the rules official did a good job explaining what he meant by unreasonable. By the video it sounds like he was saying playing down the path was unreasonable. It was not because it would save him substantial strokes instead of maybe hitting it back into that tall grass. 

If unreasonable was Frost taking that wide stance to play the shot down the path then there could be some debate there. 

[Fourputt]

I said this in the Spieth thread, but it's more appropriate here.  This may have influenced the referee as far as determining what he considered as "reasonable".

Most people, rather than playing toward the path, would have declared the ball unplayable and dropped on the path, which would have been a much safer solution and cost the same number of strokes.  After all the haranguing, if you watch where his ball ends up, he doesn't advance the ball all that far, and almost misses the path.  If he was just playing that shot to prove a point, he may have gotten lucky - it could have been quite costly.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

In looking at the lie, and the location of the path, I'm wondering where he wanted to drop.  To get relief from the path, his nearest point of relief appears to be just a few inches deeper into the hay to the right of the path.  Its not like he could drop in the area of lower grass near the path, he'd still be standing on the path.  Maybe he'd located a nice spot to drop it, but its not obvious from any of the views I've seen.

I've seen plenty of people (including me, at least a couple of times) decide to take relief, pick up their ball, and then realize that the NPR is an even worse spot than they were in originally.

 

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I said this in the Spieth thread, but it's more appropriate here.  This may have influenced the referee as far as determining what he considered as "reasonable".

Most people, rather than playing toward the path, would have declared the ball unplayable and dropped on the path, which would have been a much safer solution and cost the same number of strokes.  After all the haranguing, if you watch where his ball ends up, he doesn't advance the ball all that far, and almost misses the path.  If he was just playing that shot to prove a point, he may have gotten lucky - it could have been quite costly.

Good points.  In other discussions on this, I was thinking that "reasonable" would simply be taking into consideration the shot itself.  "Is it reasonable for you to have to stand like that?" "Is it reasonable for you, @Fourputt, to swing left handed (since you said no ;))?"

I had not considered that the RO might be considering the results and consequences of a drop when deciding on reasonability. In his head, he could be thinking, "I believe you, David, that you might think that this option is reasonable to allow you relief, but considering that if I give you a free drop, you are in no better position than you just were, and if I don't and you take an unplayable, you can drop on the path without the possibility of screwing it up(like he nearly did), that information as a whole makes your request unreasonable."

P.S.  (I need to consider investing in a thesaurus)

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

"I believe you, David, that you might think that this option is reasonable to allow you relief, but considering that if I give you a free drop, you are in no better position than you just were

I don't think that matters. The rules don't care if relief from a path gives you a better or worse shot. Players hit shots off the cart path all the time because the relief would place them in a worse position. 

To me, maybe I need clarification on what reasonable is, if the better option is to hack it out onto the path, versus try to advance it forward, then the shot option is to hack it out. Once that is decided then what stance would you take? If that stance is being interfered with by a path then I think you should get relief from it. If that relief turns out to be worse after figuring out where NPR is then the golfer has a choice not to take relief from the path and playing the ball as it lies or taking an unplayable lie. 

 

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I had not considered that the RO might be considering the results and consequences of a drop when deciding on reasonability. In his head, he could be thinking, "I believe you, David, that you might think that this option is reasonable to allow you relief, but considering that if I give you a free drop, you are in no better position than you just were, and if I don't and you take an unplayable, you can drop on the path without the possibility of screwing it up(like he nearly did), that information as a whole makes your request unreasonable."

Huh??  If I read this right, you're suggesting that the RO might have been considering the risk Frost would have been taking if he did indeed drop, as compared with the "apparently" lower risk of taking an unplayable lie.  I hope that's not the case, I don't think that's part of his job there.  I see two possible questions.  First, is Frost's chosen line reasonable, and I think it was, as compared with trying to carry the ball a long way over the hay.  Second, was the stance he was trying to take reasonable, and that seems less clear to me.  I don't think the RO should be considering whether a play toward the path was more foolish than taking an unplayable.  

It still wouldn't surprise me if Frost was hoping to get relief, without having actually figured out whether relief would put him in a better location.  Or maybe he'd spotted an area of matted down fescue nearby that actually would have been better for him if he could have found an acceptable reason to drop it there without the penalty for unplayable.

 

[Golfingdad]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

Huh??  If I read this right, you're suggesting that the RO might have been considering the risk Frost would have been taking if he did indeed drop, as compared with the "apparently" lower risk of taking an unplayable lie.  I hope that's not the case, I don't think that's part of his job there.  I see two possible questions.  First, is Frost's chosen line reasonable, and I think it was, as compared with trying to carry the ball a long way over the hay.  Second, was the stance he was trying to take reasonable, and that seems less clear to me.  I don't think the RO should be considering whether a play toward the path was more foolish than taking an unplayable.  

It still wouldn't surprise me if Frost was hoping to get relief, without having actually figured out whether relief would put him in a better location.  Or maybe he'd spotted an area of matted down fescue nearby that actually would have been better for him if he could have found an acceptable reason to drop it there without the penalty for unplayable.

 

Ok, my bad then.  I misinterpreted yours and fourputts posts then. :)

[DaveP043]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

Ok, my bad then.  I misinterpreted yours and fourputts posts then. :)

I'm an engineer, like you, so English is at best my second language.  And these situations can get pretty convoluted.

[Dormie1360]

This video was used by the USGA for a number of years in there PGA/USGA national workshops.  The intent was to visually show the exception for relief under R24-2 and R25-1.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Dormie1360

[natureboy]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

In looking at the lie, and the location of the path, I'm wondering where he wanted to drop.  To get relief from the path, his nearest point of relief appears to be just a few inches deeper into the hay to the right of the path.  Its not like he could drop in the area of lower grass near the path, he'd still be standing on the path.  Maybe he'd located a nice spot to drop it, but its not obvious from any of the views I've seen.

I've seen plenty of people (including me, at least a couple of times) decide to take relief, pick up their ball, and then realize that the NPR is an even worse spot than they were in originally.

I wondered that too, but he was likely willing to take the 'free dice roll' before chipping or taking unplayable to see if he got a drop to sit up a bit in the rough. Being in that large tangle of grass could have been about the worst of the lies in that area so he may have figured anything different could potentially be an improvement.

[Aflighter]

On 8/3/2016 at 9:45 AM, Grinde6 said:

But it doesn't matter if it affects the outcome or not, if that was his intended shot and he was touching the cart path he should have got relief.  IMO he should have got relief, because after seeing that lie, there was no way he was controlling where that ball would go if he went towards the fairway.

Exactly.The ref made wrong call.You cannot make a player take the stance you think is the right stance.If he can make his foot touch path then  god he should get relief.