Drop query

[richart]

I had an unplayable lie under a bush the other day. The only relief I could take where I could get a swing was two club lengths to the side, no nearer the hole. I did this and had a drop in a huge puddle 20 foot wide at least. My nearest point of relief to drop out of the puddle was back under the bush.

Seemed like I could never get relief and play the ball so picked up. It was a 4 ball better ball comp and my partner was in a good position. I suppose I could have played from the puddle but it was deep, and I didn't fancy covering myself in mud. Did I miss an alternative (couldn't be bothered to walk back to the tee, before talking penalty from under bush, line and site was not an option either )

 

[Colin L]

You missed the option of deeming the ball unplayable as often as necessary to clear the puddle by 2 club length drops or by going back on the line from the hole through where your ball lay in the puddle or a mixture of the two.

 

[nemicu]

If the puddle was to the side of the bush then you would be entitled to relief from casual water. Don't forget this is stance as well and remember you are taking relief from different situations. The initial drop for unplayable is under a penalty of one stroke - casual water is free relief. Therefore, the nearest point of relief from intended line AND stance cannot be where you have already taken relief from under penalty. You CAN"T invoke a free relief from the bush claiming your stance is in casual water, but you can once you have taken a drop under penalty from the original unplayable lie. Or of course you could go back on a line as far back as the original shot if necessary. You can't keep declaring it unplayable as often as necessary as noted above, unless you want a stroke penalty every time you declare it unplayable!

 

[Foxholer]

If the puddle was to the side of the bush then you would be entitled to relief from casual water. Don't forget this is stance as well and remember you are taking relief from different situations. The initial drop for unplayable is under a penalty of one stroke - casual water is free relief. Therefore, the nearest point of relief from intended line AND stance cannot be where you have already taken relief from under penalty. You CAN"T invoke a free relief from the bush claiming your stance is in casual water, but you can once you have taken a drop under penalty from the original unplayable lie. Or of course you could go back on a line as far back as the original shot if necessary. You can't keep declaring it unplayable as often as necessary as noted above, unless you want a stroke penalty every time you declare it unplayable!

Re the bold bit....Yes it can! It's Nearest Pt of Relief, not Nearest Pt of Good Relief!

 

[nemicu]

Re the bold bit....Yes it can! It's Nearest Pt of Relief, not Nearest Pt of Good Relief!

Well maybe you would need a certain amount of common sense. Unless it's a particularly large bush, it would be pretty difficult to drop a ball back into it and avoid casual water with your stance too. In other words, you would need to be pretty dumb to take this option and you would certainly be better off using option 2 and going back along the line of the ball and flag (OP said this was not an option though he could not be bothered to do the walk of shame back to the tee lol). Without seeing the lie in question it would be difficult to call.

 

[backwoodsman]

You missed the option of deeming the ball unplayable as often as necessary to clear the puddle by 2 club length drops or by going back on the line from the hole through where your ball lay in the puddle or a mixture of the two.

This above...


Presumably an "unplayable" two clubs to the side gets you room for a swing and a supposed shot (albeit wet). Another unplayable should/could get you back on a line behind the casual water. Assuming it was a tee shot into the bush, then you're now playing four. Which would put you in a similar position as if you'd gone back and played an S&D shot which didn't quite go back into the bush.

(Ok, I dare say there sometime will be geographical circumstances that means this won't work).

 

[Colin L]

If the puddle was to the side of the bush then you would be entitled to relief from casual water. Don't forget this is stance as well and remember you are taking relief from different situations. The initial drop for unplayable is under a penalty of one stroke - casual water is free relief. Therefore, the nearest point of relief from intended line AND stance cannot be where you have already taken relief from under penalty. You CAN"T invoke a free relief from the bush claiming your stance is in casual water, but you can once you have taken a drop under penalty from the original unplayable lie. Or of course you could go back on a line as far back as the original shot if necessary. You can't keep declaring it unplayable as often as necessary as noted above, unless you want a stroke penalty every time you declare it unplayable!

This is a bit muddled, nemicu.
Richart decided his ball was unplayable under the bush and chose to to drop within 2 club lengths in accordance with Rule 28. If he then chose to take relief from the casual water, that is a completely new and distinct action that has no relationship to the ball unplayable action. To say, Therefore, the nearest point of relief from intended line AND stance cannot be where you have already taken relief from under penalty. is simply incorrect, as Foxholer has pointed out.

Or of course you could go back on a line as far back as the original shot if necessary. doesn't make much sense either. The option in Rule 28 is to go as far back on a line from the hole through where the ball lay. The position of the original shot is irrelevant: perhaps you are thinking of playing from where the previous stroke was made, but Richart had decided not to do that.

Richart asked if he had overlooked any options. Deeming his ball unplayable as many times as it took to clear the water or reach a place in the water where his nearest point of relief was workable (I didn't mention that possibility above) was an option he seemed to have overlooked. Since he already knew his drop from the bush was under penalty, I think it was safe to take it that he would each of a series of further drops would also be under penalty.

 

[nemicu]

This is a bit muddled, nemicu.
Richart decided his ball was unplayable under the bush and chose to to drop within 2 club lengths in accordance with Rule 28. If he then chose to take relief from the casual water, that is a completely new and distinct action that has no relationship to the ball unplayable action. To say, Therefore, the nearest point of relief from intended line AND stance cannot be where you have already taken relief from under penalty. is simply incorrect, as Foxholer has pointed out.

Or of course you could go back on a line as far back as the original shot if necessary. doesn't make much sense either. The option in Rule 28 is to go as far back on a line from the hole through where the ball lay. The position of the original shot is irrelevant: perhaps you are thinking of playing from where the previous stroke was made, but Richart had decided not to do that.

Richart asked if he had overlooked any options. Deeming his ball unplayable as many times as it took to clear the water or reach a place in the water where his nearest point of relief was workable (I didn't mention that possibility above) was an option he seemed to have overlooked. Since he already knew his drop from the bush was under penalty, I think it was safe to take it that he would each of a series of further drops would also be under penalty.

Yes I realise what you are saying, but since none of us actually saw the lie in question or can see the size of the bush either, I think it's still possible to rule out dropping from the original unplayable lie if the OP was unaware of the stance and line of intended swing part ASSUMING this kept him in casual water AND the bush simultaneously. Otherwise, it's not complete relief from casual water - is it? And as we've already established, he cannot invoke free relief from the original position claiming casual water because a stroke is clearly unreasonable. I hope that makes it (somewhat) clearer. But yes, it's possible to drop at the nearest point of relief in the bush, if your stance allows it - which we don't really know. I think.

 

[Foxholer]

Well maybe you would need a certain amount of common sense. Unless it's a particularly large bush, it would be pretty difficult to drop a ball back into it and avoid casual water with your stance too. In other words, you would need to be pretty dumb to take this option and you would certainly be better off using option 2 and going back along the line of the ball and flag (OP said this was not an option though he could not be bothered to do the walk of shame back to the tee lol). Without seeing the lie in question it would be difficult to call.

I don't see what would be difficult about it at all! You are assuming that the puddle extended into the bush. I believe the OP was saying that the puddle came near the bush, but not into it - it couldn't be NPOR if it did! NPOR has nothing with getting a stance or swing per se; simply not having a stance or swing affected by the casual water (in this case).

 

[nemicu]

I don't see what would be difficult about it at all! You are assuming that the puddle extended into the bush. I believe the OP was saying that the puddle came near the bush, but not into it - it couldn't be NPOR if it did! NPOR has nothing with getting a stance or swing per se; simply not having a stance or swing affected by the casual water (in this case).

See my latter posts. Maybe the OP could draw us all a picture? Unless you find busting my balls better entertainment.

 

[Colin L]

Yes I realise what you are saying, but since none of us actually saw the lie in question or can see the size of the bush either, I think it's still possible to rule out dropping from the original unplayable lie if the OP was unaware of the stance and line of intended swing part ASSUMING this kept him in casual water AND the bush simultaneously. Otherwise, it's not complete relief from casual water - is it? And as we've already established, he cannot invoke free relief from the original position claiming casual water because a stroke is clearly unreasonable. I hope that makes it (somewhat) clearer. But yes, it's possible to drop at the nearest point of relief in the bush, if your stance allows it - which we don't really know. I think.

This is getting even more muddled and I can't actually follow much of it.

Richart says his ball was unplayable. He dropped within 2 club lengths under penalty into casual water. He then realised his nearest point of relief was back in the bush and wondered if there was any other way out of his dilemma. There was another way as I described - albeit potentially expensive in penalty strokes. It really was that simple.

How can we "rule out dropping from the original unplayable lie"? He was entitled to do that under Rule 28. He was not saying that his stance would have been in casual water; he was not trying to get free relief from the bush on the grounds that his stance was in casual water so whether a stroke would have been impracticable is irrelevant. He tells us that after his drop his nearest point of relief was back in the bush so so we just accept that this was the case. If his stance was going to be in the casual water, by definition that wouldn't have been the nearest point of relief.

 

[Foxholer]

See my latter posts. Maybe the OP could draw us all a picture? Unless you find busting my balls better entertainment.

Not trying to bust balls at all. Just pointing out what I believe your incorrect assumption seems to be.

Here's the scenario as I see it - not good with pictures.

There's a huge casual water puddle. Next to it (but not in it) is a bush, which is where the OP's ball has ended up - unplayable. Only option for the Unplayable would be into the C/W. But that's not very nice either as NPOR from there is back into the bush! So OP-er is 'stymied'!

I believe you are thinking that the casual water puddle extends into the bush - at least some of the way (to where the ball originally ended up).

 

[rulefan]

I had an unplayable lie under a bush the other day. The only relief I could take where I could get a swing was two club lengths to the side, no nearer the hole. I did this and had a drop in a huge puddle 20 foot wide at least. My nearest point of relief to drop out of the puddle was back under the bush.

Seemed like I could never get relief and play the ball so picked up. It was a 4 ball better ball comp and my partner was in a good position. I suppose I could have played from the puddle but it was deep, and I didn't fancy covering myself in mud. Did I miss an alternative (couldn't be bothered to walk back to the tee, before talking penalty from under bush, line and site was not an option either )

Although you decided to take a 2cl drop for the initial relief from the bush, you could still have chosen to take one of the options you ignored (ie to play under stroke and distance from where you made the stroke that put you in the bush.
Even though your ball was now in the casual water, that option still remains open to you. You can go back to the place where you last made a stroke with a 1 stroke penalty and loss if distance. This would limit the number of potential unplayables to get you away from the bush and the water.

28/6.5

Player Deems Ball Unplayable a Second Time and Wishes to Proceed Under Stroke and Distance After Dropping a Ball Under Other Unplayable Option

Q.A player plays a stroke from Point A to Point B. The player deems his ball unplayable and proceeds under either Rule 28b or 28c. After dropping under penalty of one stroke, the ball comes to rest at Point C. The player deems his ball unplayable for a second time and wishes to proceed under Rule 28a, playing from Point A. Is this permissible?

A.Yes. The player may play from Point A because he did not make a stroke at the ball from either Point B or Point C. Point A was the spot from which the original ball was last played. The player would incur a total of two penalty strokes.

 

[nemicu]

Not trying to bust balls at all. Just pointing out what I believe your incorrect assumption seems to be.

Here's the scenario as I see it - not good with pictures.

There's a huge casual water puddle. Next to it (but not in it) is a bush, which is where the OP's ball has ended up - unplayable. Only option for the Unplayable would be into the C/W. But that's not very nice either as NPOR from there is back into the bush! So OP-er is 'stymied'!

I believe you are thinking that the casual water puddle extends into the bush - at least some of the way (to where the ball originally ended up).

That's more or less it. I don't find my assumption any more or less glaring than the assumption the bush isn't surrounded by water or at least small enough to render any shot played on or around it to be possible without standing in casual water. The OP isn't really clear on this, or moreover really clear if he knows the casual water ruling to the letter either, which is probably why they posted asking the question. Without any further clarity, other than the OP's reluctance to walk back along the line or the tee, I would reserve any judgement. Apologies for sounding waspy, but give a newbie a break.

 

[richart]

This is getting even more muddled and I can't actually follow much of it.

Richart says his ball was unplayable. He dropped within 2 club lengths under penalty into casual water. He then realised his nearest point of relief was back in the bush and wondered if there was any other way out of his dilemma. There was another way as I described - albeit potentially expensive in penalty strokes. It really was that simple.

How can we "rule out dropping from the original unplayable lie"? He was entitled to do that under Rule 28. He was not saying that his stance would have been in casual water; he was not trying to get free relief from the bush on the grounds that his stance was in casual water so whether a stroke would have been impracticable is irrelevant. He tells us that after his drop his nearest point of relief was back in the bush so so we just accept that this was the case. If his stance was going to be in the casual water, by definition that wouldn't have been the nearest point of relief.

That seems to sum it up. Huge puddle to the side of the bush. It would not have interferred with my stance, so no free relief. By taking two club lengths I was clear of the bush, but had to drop in the puddle. As the puddle was so big, and i was on the edge of it, the nearest point of relief was back in the bush. Line and sight was no good as I would still have been in the bushes, and I realised I could go back to the tee, but as it was our 10th hole, it was a long walk back up the hill.

It does seem strange to take a penalty drop, and because of the puddle have to drop back in the bushes. If it had been a medal I would probably have put the water proofs on and given it a smack out of the puddle.

Nearest point of relief is not always to your advantage.

 

[atticusfinch]

All you can do is take the facts that are presented. Additional facts may be necessary, but speculating about what they might be is futile.

 

[Colin L]

Nemicu, in terms of Richart's description, it really doesn't matter how big or small the bush was or where the casual water was. He chose to deem his ball unplayable, which he can do any time, anywhere and for any reason. He could have done so even if his stance had been in casual water: it would have been daft to do so when free relief would have been a possibility, but it would have been legitimate. He could have stood in casual water and made a stroke at his ball in the bush. There is no reason to suppose he did not know how to proceed with taking relief from casual water: he tells us where the nearest point of relief was going to be which rather suggests he knows the rule well enough to know that the NPR is a specific point no matter how unreasonable or even impossible the lie might be. As Atticus, says, it's best just to take query on the facts presented.

I hope the situation and the answers given are clear and that they have been helpful.

 

[sawtooth]

I wouldn't of had a clue what to do with the puddle and bush so would have probably gone back and played another to be safe.

 

[richart]

I wouldn't of had a clue what to do with the puddle and bush so would have probably gone back and played another to be safe.

Off the tee I could actually see my ball, good glasses, so knew I would walk straight to it. Couldn't face the walk back though, and as it happened my partner got a net par on the hardest hole on the course. Just unfortunate that ball was under a bush, and there was no way right or left handed I could strike the ball. Without the puddle and with two club lengths I would have been fine. With the puddle back where I started. Never happened to me before in all my years playing, but then the weather has been a bit wet.

 

[Birchy]

Off the tee I could actually see my ball, good glasses, so knew I would walk straight to it. Couldn't face the walk back though, and as it happened my partner got a net par on the hardest hole on the course. Just unfortunate that ball was under a bush, and there was no way right or left handed I could strike the ball. Without the puddle and with two club lengths I would have been fine. With the puddle back where I started. Never happened to me before in all my years playing, but then the weather has been a bit wet.

After reading all this thread I reckon next time it will be definitely easier if you avoid the bush