Rulesman

16.1a(3)/1 Obstruction Interfering with Abnormal Stroke May Not Preclude Player From Taking Relief In some situations a player may have to adopt an abnormal swing, stance or direction of play in playing his or her ball to accommodate a given situation. If the abnormal stroke is not clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, the player is permitted to take free relief under Rule 16.1. For example, in the general area, a right-handed player's ball is so close to a boundary object on the left side of a hole that he or she must make a left-handed swing to play towards the hole. In making the left-handed swing, the player's stance is interfered with by an immovable obstruction. The player is allowed relief from the immovable obstruction since use of a left-handed swing is not clearly unreasonable in the circumstances. After the relief procedure for the left-handed swing is complete, the player may then use a normal right-handed swing for the next stroke. If the obstructioninterferes with the right-handed swing, the player may take relief for the right-handed swing under Rule 16.1b or play the ball as it lies.

Indeed, it is all about the 'reasonableness' or practicality of being able to make a stroke if the issue for which you are claiming relief didn't exist. You don't get free relief from anything (embedded ball, cart path, GUR etc) if you can't make a reasonable stroke because of something else preventing you from which you don't get free relief (eg being up against an OOB wall or stuck between the roots of a tree The Rule in question says Exceptions – When Relief Not Allowed for Ball Embedded in General Area: Relief under Rule 16.3b is not allowed: When interference by anything other than the ball being embedded makes the stroke clearly unreasonable (for example, when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush). This shows that if a stroke is reasonable then relief is allowed

If your ball was sitting hard up against and OOB wall but not embedded in the ground you would find it difficult to make a reasonable stroke in any direction. If it was embedded in the ground you would therefore not be entitled to free relief. If the ball was 12" (say) from the wall then you may be able to make a stroke but not necessarily towards the hole. However in the circumstances it would be reasonable and practicable to play in a different direction. Therefore, if the ball was embedded, you would qualify for free relief for the embedded ball which may incidentally get you clear of the OOB wall.

What rule against doing so? The ball is (still) in the teeing area.

The principle applies to all free relief situations. The question to be answered is: 'If the situation from which I may take free relief (cart path, temporary water, embedded ball etc) didn't exist, would I be able to make a reasonable stroke at the ball? If the answer is no because something else interferes that you don't get free relief from (eg a tree or OOB wall), then you don't get free relief from the cart path etc.

Just to reinforce iacas's point. If a chip sideways is the reasonable shot you would have played if the ball had not been embedded and you drop in the relief area, you do not have to play a chip. If you now have a good lie and view, you may play a wood to the green if you wish.

This is very under publicised addition to the Rules

Part 2 – Conformance of Clubs 2. Shaft a. Straightness "The shaft must be straight from the top of the grip to a point not more than 5 inches (127 mm) above the sole, measured from the point where the shaft ceases to be straight along the axis of the bent part of the shaft and the neck and/or socket."

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rulesarticles/clarifications-of-the-2019-rules-of-golf.html#rule11

The swipe missed but then he backhanded the moving ball into the hole. ?

No different to bending over to pick up your ball or place it on a tee.

You can't not permit stroke and distance. I assume you meant we will only be using stroke and distance

We don't see many of them in this neck of the woods

The R&A have said they will continue with new rules in Scotland but not in the ROW.

No idea. Where did the proximity of bunkers/penalty areas/OOB to the landing zone come from? But perhaps it was a compromise between all or none. A course without bunkers is significantly easier than the same course with 60 bunkers