Subsequent relief after drop in relief area

[rulefan]

Preferred lies is not an abnormal course condition.

But the same principle would apply.

 

[Peet]

As rulie says, they are different procedures. There is no requirement to confirm preferred lies can be taken AFTER taking an unplayable drop (i.e. how your ball ended up there is irrelevant, the fact is that it is in an area where preferred lies are permitted). Therefore, I very much doubt there will be an interpretation to this exact scenario, although happy if anyone else surprisingly finds something. If your playing partners disagree, I'd ask them to point to the rule that indicates that to be the case.

If you took a drop for an unplayable lie, your ball may well end up at rest in a bad lie. It may bounce and pick up mud. The whole point of using preferred lies is so you can address these issues. Model Local Rule E-3 gives an example how the local rule can be worded, and it simply clarifies that relief can be taken once. However, that is of course to confirm a player cannot take a preferred lie multiple times.

Thanks - I also note that the definition for Nearest Point of Complete Relieve states “ If the player takes relief and then had interference by another condition from which relief is allowed, the player may take relief again by determining a new nearest point of complete relief from the new condition.” This now fully resolves the issue for me.

 

[salfordlad]

But the same principle would apply.

It does not apply equally - see the reference to the USGA detailed advice.

 

[Colin L]

In effect, the permission to prefer your lie under the local rule is based on the rather curious unspoken premise that the entire general area is an "abnormal course condition". Relief from that quasi ACC is unusual in that when your ball is placed, there is still interference from this gigantic ACC. but you are not allowed to take further relief - which is just as well as otherwise you would have to crab sideways 6" at a time until you reached the first cut.

I'll stop there. My early morning musings often get me into a fankle of completely irrelevant, frequently erroneous and usually unhelpful nonsense.

 

[Canfordhacker]

So, theoretical question. If a course has a 1 club length local rule in place for preferring lies, but I only ever take 6 inches for my own ball, can I then return a general play score for handicap purposes? And if not, why not?

 

[rulefan]

So, theoretical question. If a course has a 1 club length local rule in place for preferring lies, but I only ever take 6 inches for my own ball, can I then return a general play score for handicap purposes? And if not, why not?

Have a look at WHS Rule 2.1b(ii). What do you think?

 

[Canfordhacker]

Nice - I'm thinking this

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes."

Means once could do so as one has followed the model rule.

Thanks

 

[rulefan]

Nice - I'm thinking this

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes."

Means once could do so as one has followed the model rule.

Thanks

NB
"The final determination is at the discretion of the Committee, based on the circumstances."

 

[Peet]

So, theoretical question. If a course has a 1 club length local rule in place for preferring lies, but I only ever take 6 inches for my own ball, can I then return a general play score for handicap purposes? And if not, why not?

The preferred lie rule of 1 club is the maximum distance you may place the ball. It is not the minimum. When you consider the lie you may even decide that no placing is required.