Reference point location

[sjw]

Just to clarify, when taking relief from an abnormal course condition (animal scrapings), the reference point is the point where the ball is located at the point where you get complete relief, correct? And then you get a club length from there?

I had a guy the other day that, in trying to explain the rule to another, more junior member, found the nearest point of complete relief correctly, took his stance (at which point the ball is closer to the original location than his feet are, to give you the picture) then said he got a club length from his stance. That can't be right? The guy ended up best part of two club lengths away.

I've made a shoddy diagram... brown is a tree, white is original ball location, blue is new location (where I think the ref point should be) and they're supposed to be feet...

There might be other rules in this diagram that I haven't taken into account. I'm talking purely about the ref point and therefore relief area position.

 

[rulie]

What is the shaded/cross-hatched area?

 

[Orikoru]

I think he's got confused - I think you have it correct. Nearest point of relief, stick a tee peg down, then it's one club length in a semi-circle around that point? However, if you were left-handed then your nearest point of complete relief might be different since you shouldn't be standing in the area you're talking relief from.. that's the only way your feet are involved. Not sure what he was doing.

 

[sjw]

What is the shaded/cross-hatched area?

The abnormal condition. I've not drawn it well at all as the blue obviously isn't the nearest point at all, d'oh. But the question is about, does the stance come into play or not?

 

[sjw]

I think he's got confused - I think you have it correct. Nearest point of relief, stick a tee peg down, then it's one club length in a semi-circle around that point? However, if you were left-handed then your nearest point of complete relief might be different since you shouldn't be standing in the area you're talking relief from.. that's the only way your feet are involved. Not sure what he was doing.

That's what I'm saying. If you're left handed, the relief point would be further from the abnormal condition in my diagram because you need your feet to be clear of it as well. In that case, you'd get more room. That's just lucky that you're left-handed. But for a right-handed golfer, they wouldn't put the tee peg in where their feet were. That's what he did.

 

[sjw]

This diagram from the rules of golf backs up my understanding



If you're taking a stance to find the nearest point of complete relief, that reference point is where the ball would be. I'm not going crazy, right?

 

[Neilds]

That's what I'm saying. If you're left handed, the relief point would be further from the abnormal condition in my diagram because you need your feet to be clear of it as well. In that case, you'd get more room. That's just lucky that you're left-handed. But for a right-handed golfer, they wouldn't put the tee peg in where their feet were. That's what he did.

The NPR is for the ball, not your feet - although your feet do need to be clear of the thing you are getting relief from

 

[sjw]

The NPR is for the ball, not your feet - although your feet do need to be clear of the thing you are getting relief from

Perfectly summarised, that's what I was looking for. This guy has been around long enough to know what he's talking about and should know better - which is what has thrown me off

 

[rulie]

Interference by an abnormal course condition exists for the lie of the ball, the area of intended stance and intended swing. The nearest point of complete (lie, stance, swing) relief is where the ball would lie and there is no interference for the lie of the ball, the area of intended stance or the intended swing. As others have said, if you are taking relief, your stance must not be in part of what you are taking relief from. For example, if you are taking relief from a cart path because your ball is on the cart path, your nearest point of complete relief does not allow you to stand on the cart path.

 

[jim8flog]

The NPR is for the ball, not your feet - although your feet do need to be clear of the thing you are getting relief from

As per rulie

Yes they do. E.g. if you are taking relief for a made up path you must not stand on the path. Relief must be full relief , ball and stance.

 

[rulie]

Another comment - your "relief area" is not always a semi-circle, it can be reduced by some of the condition you are taking relief from.

 

[Orikoru]

I think this guy who was getting the rule wrong obviously has some kind of chip on his shoulder about left-handed people getting a better drop than him in this case.

 

[Steven Rules]

The NPR is for the ball, not your feet - although your feet do need to be clear of the thing you are getting relief from

As others have said, this is an excellent, simple explanation for the question you have asked but....moving on to other matters....

What is the direction of the hole?
What is the significance of depicting the tree in the diagram?
Is the player right- or left-handed?
What is the direction of play for the original lie if the animal scrapings weren't there, noting the presence and proximity of the tree?
What is the thick white vertical stripe towards the left of the diagram?

The reason I ask these questions is that under Rule 16.1a(3) there is no free relief allowed when playing the ball as it lies is clearly unreasonable because of something from which the player is not allowed to take free relief (such as when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush), or when interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

In the situation depicted in the diagram, I am not decreeing there is no entitlement to relief. I am saying that the proximity of the tree would cause me to pay attention to what is the stroke the player would be making if the animal scrapings were not there, and would the animal scrapings still be interfering with that intended stroke?

For example, if the player has no stroke at all because the ball is nestled deep in the roots of the tree, or if the player needs to choose a different direction of play to avoid the tree such that the scrapings are no longer interfering on that revised direction, then it is possible there may be no free relief available under Rule 16.1.

 

[Steven Rules]

This diagram from the rules of golf backs up my understanding

I would say that diagram 16.1A gives an ever clearer depiction of the reference point and relief area in relation to the position of the ball and the feet.

 

[sjw]

As others have said, this is an excellent, simple explanation for the question you have asked but....moving on to other matters....

What is the direction of the hole?
What is the significance of depicting the tree in the diagram?
Is the player right- or left-handed?
What is the direction of play for the original lie if the animal scrapings weren't there, noting the presence and proximity of the tree?
What is the thick white vertical stripe towards the left of the diagram?

The reason I ask these questions is that under Rule 16.1a(3) there is no free relief allowed when playing the ball as it lies is clearly unreasonable because of something from which the player is not allowed to take free relief (such as when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush), or when interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

In the situation depicted in the diagram, I am not decreeing there is no entitlement to relief. I am saying that the proximity of the tree would cause me to pay attention to what is the stroke the player would be making if the animal scrapings were not there, and would the animal scrapings still be interfering with that intended stroke?

For example, if the player has no stroke at all because the ball is nestled deep in the roots of the tree, or if the player needs to choose a different direction of play to avoid the tree such that the scrapings are no longer interfering on that revised direction, then it is possible there may be no free relief available under Rule 16.1.

First of all, having looked back at my rushed diagram, it makes absolutely no sense. I can't remember how close the guy was to the tree, it's very much just an abstract depiction. The white line is OB.

So yeah, while the questions you raise are very good and I've learned something today, don't worry about applying them to the diagram! I've also just realised that the guy was right handed and I've drawn it as LH (the direction of play is up) so doubly nonsense!

But I got the answer I was looking for, so thanks

 

[sjw]

One more question, then. If the golfer is in the following situation

* Ball is in tree roots
* Player has a shot towards or away from the green
*If shooting away from the green, foot is in animal hole

Can they take relief, or is that unreasonable? I'd assume it's unreasonable, but I'd like to be certain

 

[rulefan]

One more question, then. If the golfer is in the following situation

* Ball is in tree roots

Can they take relief, or is that unreasonable? I'd assume it's unreasonable, but I'd like to be certain

That is the significant question. Only the player or a referee can answer that.
In strokeplay he might be well advised to take two balls and sort it out at the end of the round with the committee.
In matchplay an opponent may make a claim if he thinks relief is unreasonable

 

[doublebogey7]

One more question, then. If the golfer is in the following situation

* Ball is in tree roots
* Player has a shot towards or away from the green
*If shooting away from the green, foot is in animal hole

Can they take relief, or is that unreasonable? I'd assume it's unreasonable, but I'd like to be certain

Playing away from the whole in itself would not render the shot unreasonable, but if in doing so his anticipated route to the hole would be no worse than taking an unplayable then I would be ruling it as unreasonable. A referee would also consider the ability of the player to takwe on such a shot.

 

[Steven Rules]

Can they take relief, or is that unreasonable? I'd assume it's unreasonable, but I'd like to be certain

As Rulefan has said, it will depend on the specifics of the situation - the general terrain, layout and conditions affecting the stroke (incl lie, stance, area of intended swing and line of play) - and it is ultimately up to the player and the Committee or a referee to determine. We cannot determine it via an online forum.

I would just reiterate that relief is not available if the proposed actions are clearly unreasonable. Not simply your basic 'unreasonable', or somewhat unreasonable or a little bit unreasonable, but clearly unreasonable.

Clarifications 16.1a(3)/1 and 16.1a(3)/2 have the following to say:

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.

A player may not use a clearly unreasonably stroke to get relief from an abnormal ground condition. If the player's stroke is clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, relief under Rule 16.1 is not allowed, and they must either play the ball as it lies or take unplayable ball relief.