Please help settle a dispute regarding taking relief from a path under rule 16 1a

[Oldcodger]

The ball was positioned 1 foot from the right edge of the path. I considered that taking relief on the right side would have involved taking a stance off the path (complete relief) and dropping would have placed the ball farther from the original position than dropping on the left had side, where stance was not a consideration for a right handed golfer. Is this a correct interpretation of this rule. (Ball was not nearer the hole on either drop.)

 

[Colin L]

The ball was positioned 1 foot from the right edge of the path. I considered that taking relief on the right side would have involved taking a stance off the path (complete relief) and dropping would have placed the ball farther from the original position than dropping on the left had side, where stance was not a consideration for a right handed golfer. Is this a correct interpretation of this rule. (Ball was not nearer the hole on either drop.)

You are correct in understanding that the Nearest Point of Complete Relief could be on one side or other. It would be quite possible that for the reasons of stance that you gave the NCPR is on the left of a narrow path. The wider the path the less likely it would be.

 

[rulefan]

The ball was positioned 1 foot from the right edge of the path. I considered that taking relief on the right side would have involved taking a stance off the path (complete relief) and dropping would have placed the ball farther from the original position than dropping on the left had side, where stance was not a consideration for a right handed golfer. Is this a correct interpretation of this rule. (Ball was not nearer the hole on either drop.)

Dropping the ball is not part of determining where the Nearest Point of Complete Relief is. As Traminator indicates, it is where the ball would be iit was placed where the clubhead is. Remember, the ball may be dropped within 1 clublength of that place.

See the diagram in Rule 16.1a here
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/h...etype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=16&subrulenum=1

 

[jim8flog]

One important point in ascertaining the nearest point of relief is that the club used to ascertain the point must be the club that would have been used had relief not been needed.

E.G If a driver was used for when the shot would have been a wedge shot this could result in relief being taken on the wrong side of the path.

• Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke the player would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.
Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

One important point in ascertaining the nearest point of relief is that the club used to ascertain the point must be the club that would have been used had relief not been needed.

E.G If a driver was used for when the shot would have been a wedge shot this could result in relief being taken on the wrong side of the path.

• Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke the player would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.
Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

As we are talking basics of relief.

In addition to measuring using the club you'd have used were relief not available, should the NPR enable the player to play the same shot as he would have done were he not taking relief.

My understanding is that the answer is NO. The shot options available to you after taking relief are quite independent of the shot options you'd have had had you not chosen (or been required) to take free relief.

As many times as your free relief might give you better options - you'll sometimes only have poorer options - but that's just golf - it's the player's choice whether to take the relief or not (unless it is required by LR or similar).

 

[nickjdavis]

But don't forget....once the NPR has been determined with the SW the player then has a semi circle area defined by the longest club in his bag which defines his relief area into which he can drop....he should notice that if he drops within a particular area within the area of relief that he would be able to use a longer club, such as a hybrid in your example, to play his shot without interference from the original obstruction.

Its perfectly feasible that once a player has taken relief that "new" shot options might be available to him that didn't exist before relief was taken. I guess it then gets treated as a "new shot" and if the use of a longer club brings the original interference back into play, or a new interference into play, then the player goes through the relief process a second time....this time taking his hybrid as the club with which he determines relief.

 

[Old Skier]

So let me give you this scenario because there is a massive hole in what you've just written...
Player's ball is on the right hand edge of a wide path and as the ball lies, the only shot that he would play is with a sand wedge to get over the branches in front of him, no viable alternative.
Dropping to the right hand side of the path, he is now in a position where he is clear of the branches and it is extremely obvious that his choice of shot is now a long iron/hybrid/wood, but according to you he has to determine his npr with a sand wedge? When addressing the ball with his hybrid, he will now be standing on the path so he hasn't actually taken full relief....

Not following, why is anyone using a sand wedge as a measure when taking relief

 

[doublebogey7]

So let me give you this scenario because there is a massive hole in what you've just written...
Player's ball is on the right hand edge of a wide path and as the ball lies, the only shot that he would play is with a sand wedge to get over the branches in front of him, no viable alternative.
Dropping to the right hand side of the path, he is now in a position where he is clear of the branches and it is extremely obvious that his choice of shot is now a long iron/hybrid/wood, but according to you he has to determine his npr with a sand wedge? When addressing the ball with his hybrid, he will now be standing on the path so he hasn't actually taken full relief....

You mean according to The Rules of Golf, https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/pages/definitions#definition-N

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Because they've now (2019) decided that you use the club you would have used if the path wasn't there, I used the example that the SW was the only logical choice as there were branches to go over.
Once you measure this and drop though, if you can then use a 3 wood and the path then gets under your feet again, it's another drop...

Seems silly to me, they should let us work out what club we're going to hit after the drop and use that to measure, like before.

However as Nick points out, there is a club length from the NPCR anyway.

Typical of the rules of golf to make it much harder than it needs to be.

 

[doublebogey7]

Because they've now (2019) decided that you use the club you would have used if the path wasn't there, I used the example that the SW was the only logical choice as there were branches to go over.
Once you measure this and drop though, if you can then use a 3 wood and the path then gets under your feet again, it's another drop...

Seems silly to me, they should let us work out what club we're going to hit after the drop and use that to measure, like before.

However as Nick points out, there is a club length from the NPCR anyway.

This was not a 2019 rule change, it has always been that way to my knowledge. The problem with your suggestion, is that it would allow a player to potentially choose their NPR simply by changing the club they which to play the shot and would make that process more complicated to measure. I've yet to see the situation you describe as players simply use the 1 club length to ensure a longer club can be used.

 

[Oldcodger]

The ball was positioned 1 foot from the right edge of the path. I considered that taking relief on the right side would have involved taking a stance off the path (complete relief) and dropping would have placed the ball farther from the original position than dropping on the left had side, where stance was not a consideration for a right handed golfer. Is this a correct interpretation of this rule. (Ball was not nearer the hole on either drop.)

Thanks to all for confirming my interpretation of this rule.

 

[rulefan]

Because they've now (2019) .......

That was not a 2019 rule change!!
But the Definition was reworded with exactly the same meaning.

 

[bobmac]

When I last played golf, you established the npr with the club you would normally use, place a tee down then using the driver, measure another club length.
Has that changed?

 

[Colin L]

When I last played golf, you established the npr with the club you would normally use, place a tee down then using the driver, measure another club length.
Has that changed?

No.

 

[jim8flog]

So let me give you this scenario because there is a massive hole in what you've just written...
Player's ball is on the right hand edge of a wide path and as the ball lies, the only shot that he would play is with a sand wedge to get over the branches in front of him, no viable alternative.
Dropping to the right hand side of the path, he is now in a position where he is clear of the branches and it is extremely obvious that his choice of shot is now a long iron/hybrid/wood, but according to you he has to determine his npr with a sand wedge? When addressing the ball with his hybrid, he will now be standing on the path so he hasn't actually taken full relief....

Totally agree with you they have not taken full relief if they stand on the path to play their next shot and must redrop.

Remember;- they have a relief area which can be a drivers length from the nearest point of relief.

 

[jim8flog]

Can you expand on what wording was changed please?

I'm with Bob, previously we would measure the NPR with the club we wished to use with our next shot, however now we are told that we measure it with the club that we would use from where the ball lies prior to the drop. There will be occasions when those choices of club will be different, as detailed above.

When I last played golf, you established the npr with the club you would normally use, place a tee down then using the driver, measure another club length.
Has that changed?

From the 2019 definitions

Nearest Point of Complete Relief
The reference point for taking free relief from an abnormal course condition (Rule 16.1), dangerous animal condition (Rule 16.2), wrong green (Rule 13.1f) or no play zone (Rules 16.1f and 17.1e), or in taking relief under certain Local Rules.
It is the estimated point where the ball would lie that is:
• Nearest to the ball’s original spot, but not nearer the hole than that spot,
• In the required area of the course, and
• Where the condition does not interfere with the stroke the player would have made from the original spot if the condition was not there.
Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

 

[Whereditgo]

Searching round the Internet for the previous rules, here is an example of what was previously in place (I acknowledge it is not taken directly from the R&A or USGA) :
"Remember that the nearest point of relief is the spot where the ball would lie when you take a stance, with the club you would normally use to hit the upcoming shot, in the direction you would be hitting it, and not be interfered with by the cart path in any way."

This is CLEARLY different to what appears to be the current rule, ie you must measure with the club you would use if the obstruction wasn't there, ie the ball was in the same position but there was no path under it.

Weird - I read it as being clearly the same as the current rule.

 

[Whereditgo]

Estimating this reference point requires the player to identify the choice of club, stance, swing and line of play he or she would have used for that stroke.

when you take a stance, with the club you would normally use to hit the upcoming shot, in the direction you would be hitting it,

Re-read and still seem the same to me

 

[Whereditgo]

One refers to where the ball currently lies, the other refers to where you think it will be after you drop it.

Determine the reference point using the club you would have used to play the stroke had the ACC not been there, then measure with the longest club in your bag (except putter), then use whatever club you want for the stroke. I read both to mean just this with different wording?

 

[Foxholer]

So let me give you this scenario because there is a massive hole in what you've just written...
Player's ball is on the right hand edge of a wide path and as the ball lies, the only shot that he would play is with a sand wedge to get over the branches in front of him, no viable alternative.
Dropping to the right hand side of the path, he is now in a position where he is clear of the branches and it is extremely obvious that his choice of shot is now a long iron/hybrid/wood, but according to you he has to determine his npr with a sand wedge? When addressing the ball with his hybrid, he will now be standing on the path so he hasn't actually taken full relief....

At which point, (s)he is entitled to reapply the rule of free relief - using the ball's current position as the point of reference. No (practical) limit how many times that can occur.
So no 'massive hole' at all! Each determination/action should be assessed separately only once it occurs - not anticipated as part of a previous ruling (though possibly by the player). Btw. Having determined the 'relief point' player can drop up to 1 club length (club not specified, so driver fine) from that point. so unlikely to get into a situation where a 2nd drop is required.