Nearest Point of Relief

[Grizzly]

I'm not sure if this is a rules query, or one of those "am I being unreasonable" type things, but...

Playing a match this morning (supposedly friendly between members of two cricket clubs, but taken very seriously) - my opponent's ball ended up in the middle of a cart path. To the left of the path he had pretty horrendous scrub with thorns etc, to the right first cut rough - he picked up his ball and went to drop it immediately to the right, but I queried this, as by the time he had taken complete relief (ie his stance) he would be appreciably further away from the ball's original location than he would be dropping just off the path to the left. Although he eventually accepted I was "technically correct", he then wanted to play the ball from its original location rather than drop in the ****.

So:
1. I'm pretty sure I was right on the first point?
2. Should he have the option to replace the ball and play from the path, having picked it up?
3. Was I being too precious?

 

[Neilds]

1. Yes, you were right.
2. No, once he has picked up he has stated his intention to drop and must drop in the correct place.
3. No

 

[Backache]

You could ask him if it is reasonable to claim for a catch if it was just a small knick.

 

[Colin L]

1. Yes, you were right.
2. No, once he has picked up he has stated his intention to drop and must drop in the correct place.
3. No

He could replace his ball on the path and play from there with one penalty stroke for lifting his ball without the authority of a rule. [Rule 9.4]

The wise golfer checks out his relief area before lifting his ball.

 

[Grizzly]

You could ask him if it is reasonable to claim for a catch if it was just a small knick.

It's safe to say there's a lot of (allegedly) friendly needle between the two clubs on the pitch!

 

[Ross61]

obviously if he had been left handed he would be able drop on the right side of the path.
Could he have dropped the ball as if he was left handed and Played backwards or sideways as long as his feet were not on the path, ie taking full relief.

 

[rulefan]

obviously if he had been left handed he would be able drop on the right side of the path.
Could he have dropped the ball as if he was left handed and Played backwards or sideways as long as his feet were not on the path, ie taking full relief.

Only if the lefthanded stroke was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

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 their 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 they 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 obstruction interferes 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.