Relief from immovable obstruction

[Steven Rules]

Of course, the planned right-handed stroke would need to be reasonable - see Rule 16.1a(3)

....and Clarification 16.1a(3)/1 pretty much describes that exact scenario.

 

[Steven Rules]

The explanations in the Definition and Clarifications for Nearest Point of Complete Relief provide a lot of clarity around this scenario. They are well worth a read.

 

[rulefan]

The direction of play means the LHers feet would not be on the track - but as you say the option of him playing backwards after dropping on the 18" strip would still see him standing on the track.

I'll add that my argument for keeping the track 'in bounds' is that the area between the fairway and the track is filled with mature trees - to a depth of maybe 6-10yds between 1st cut rough and track. As a result actually taking relief from the track may not be the players best option given his NPR may find him having to play a shot blocked by trees - when his shot off the track may have a clearer line back to the fairway.

Oops. I meant RHer.

 

[salfordlad]

For those still working through the issues, the clarification and other references Steven makes above are helpful. These also may help:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

For those still working through the issues, the clarification and other references Steven makes above are helpful. These also may help:

Bottom video was especially useful - though in truth the fact that he 'didn't fancy' playing the shot because he might clatter the tree or hurt himself doesn't seem a reasonable reason for playing left-handed then seeking relief - he could still take a stance and hit his ball without clattering the tree. Only by trying to get distance does he risk hitting the tree - he could simply nudge the ball a couple of yards past the tree and then he'd have a clear swing.

 

[Steven Rules]

doesn't seem a reasonable reason for playing left-handed then seeking relief

The requirement is not that that it must be reasonable. Rather, the requirement is that it must not be clearly unreasonable under the circumstances. Rule 16.1a(3)

A subtle but important distinction.

 

[Pants]

Thanks guys. Good to know

 

[salfordlad]

A further angle often misunderstood is that NPCR (and associated relief area) is specific to the stroke that you would have made from where the ball came to rest if the relief condition did not exist. To demonstrate: ball on cart path in a spot where, if the path was not there, you would play a wedge to a strategic position on the fairway; so you define your NPCR for that wedge stroke and drop in the relief area and let's assume on landing in the relief area the ball bounces and finishes close to the NPCR within the relief area. That ball is now in play, relief is completed correctly. If, from this new ball position, the player realises they can now play a fairway wood and they take a stance but their feet are on the cart path, is the player required to lift the ball and drop again? Answer is no, this is a completely fresh situation and there is no requirement to take relief.

 

[rulie]

A further angle often misunderstood is that NPCR (and associated relief area) is specific to the stroke that you would have made from where the ball came to rest if the relief condition did not exist. To demonstrate: ball on cart path in a spot where, if the path was not there, you would play a wedge to a strategic position on the fairway; so you define your NPCR for that wedge stroke and drop in the relief area and let's assume on landing in the relief area the ball bounces and finishes close to the NPCR within the relief area. That ball is now in play, relief is completed correctly. If, from this new ball position, the player realises they can now play a fairway wood and they take a stance but their feet are on the cart path, is the player required to lift the ball and drop again? Answer is no, this is a completely fresh situation and there is no requirement to take relief.

The obvious follow-up question - is he permitted to take relief for his now intended stroke with the fairway wood?
Meanwhile the group behind is waiting impatiently, hands on hips!

 

[Steven Rules]

For those still working through the issues, the clarification and other references Steven makes above are helpful. These also may help:

Both those videos were outstanding in terms of accuracy and clarity.

 

[Slab]

For those still working through the issues, the clarification and other references Steven makes above are helpful. These also may help:

Thanks for posting

As an (silly) aside the 2nd vid was a much tougher watch due to the black socks/shorts faux pas

 

[salfordlad]

Thanks for posting

As an (silly) aside the 2nd vid was a much tougher watch due to the black socks/shorts faux pas

Agree. Jay subsequently joined the USGA Rules team and, among other things, makes rules vids for them now. They have smartened him up with USGA logo-ed gear.

 

[salfordlad]

The obvious follow-up question - is he permitted to take relief for his now intended stroke with the fairway wood?
Meanwhile the group behind is waiting impatiently, hands on hips!

Indeed so! I thought that was implicit in my last sentence - I was hoping folk would join those dots but I have no issue with your preference for explicit.

 

[salfordlad]

Both those videos were outstanding in terms of accuracy and clarity.

His material is high quality rules education, and highly complementary, in taking a very practical approach, to the stuff on the R&A and USGA sites.

 

[Colin L]

The requirement is not that that it must be reasonable. Rather, the requirement is that it must not be clearly unreasonable under the circumstances. Rule 16.1a(3)

A subtle but important distinction.

And a distinction not widely realised, I reckon.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Thanks to all for what has been an interesting and informative discussion