Cart Path Relief

Do you take relief based on how far the ball must move to accommodate "complete relief" including stance? Or do you figure stance required to hit the shot into the equation?

Abnormal Course Conditions (Including Immovable Obstructions)Interference from Immovable Obstructions Q. I have interference from a cart path, sprinkler head or other artificial object (immovable obstruction) – what are my options?

A. You may either play your ball as it lies or take free relief. To take relief, you must find the nearest point of complete relief from the artificial object and drop your original ball or another ball away from the object and within one club-length of that point not nearer the hole (see Rule 16.1).

I hate this rule. I have seen a number of instances where the nearest point of relief is not determinable based on where the ball sits on the path. Usually everyone will agree on the player taking the most advantageous spot but not always. Nothing like two guys arguing over the nearest point of relief. Often at my course the nearest point of relief is in the nasty rough right up against the hazard which is not much fun as the golfer has to scratch up a shiny new club to hit the ball or take incorrect relief which happens very often. Also I have two friends who have had this rule explained to them at least a hundred times and neither one of them ever seem to be able to get it. One puts a club down next to his ball and starts measuring while the other usually takes a stance facing back towards the tee. I have also had to explain the rule numerous times to various golfers in tournaments. Not sure why it seems so hard to grasp.

I do wish that they would make a simple special rule for cart path interference that average golfers could grasp easily.

Anyone that doesn’t understand nearest point of relief and how to drop hasn’t taken the time to learn the rule.

you say “I do wish that they would make a simple special rule for cart path interference that average golfers could grasp easily.”

but in the case of any lack of understanding, blame is on the player not the rules writer. It couldn’t be simpler.

Agree!! The Rule is very easy to understand and apply. Find the nearest point to where the ball lies that provides complete relief and drop within one club-length of that point, no nearer the hole. The Rule guarantees free relief from the cart path does not guarantee that you can play the ball from that nearest point of complete relief. It's the "nearest" point of complete relief, not the "nicest" point of relief".

Ouch, I believe I completely blew this one today. My direction of play was generally the opposite side of the diagram but not parallel to the path, more to the northwest, and my ball was B1 and I (apparently wrongly) assumed that because going to the left side of the path was generally closer to the hole, I had to drop on the other side. Yikes.

@rogolf and @b.helts, you guys make very good points and you are correct in an ideal sense. Unfortunately that is not the world that I live in. If the rule said something like: 'if the cart path interferes with swing or stance then take relief within two club lengths of the path on either side of the path no nearer the hole' then those who know the rules would not be getting inadvertently cheated quite so often. In addition golfers would not have to spend time trying to determine the nearest point of relief. I see this is similar to the new local rule where one can drop 2 club lengths in the fairway the same distance from the hole as the ball is lost or went ob adding two strokes. That is how many golfers were playing it anyway so why not give in and do the same for this rule and quit penalizing golfers for actually knowing the rule?

That is how many golfers were playing it anyway so why not give in and do the same for this rule and quit penalizing golfers for actually knowing the rule?

That logic doesn't work for me. Some golfers use a foot wedge to improve their lie. Do we legitimize that? Some golfers do gimmes, breakfast balls, fail to count all their strokes etc, etc, etc.

The logic works for me because in the case of the cart path rule it is unnecessarily complicated to figure out where to take relief and many players have no idea that they are doing it incorrectly. Everyone who uses a foot wedge or takes gimmes or fails to count their strokes is cheating on purpose. There is a difference imho.

There is nothing complicated with the relief. What stroke were you going to play if that cart path did not exist? Where is the nearest point not nearer the hole where you could play that same stroke without any interference with the cart path? That is NPCR. Your free relief area drop option is within 1CL of there not nearer the hole. The need to understand this applies far more broadly than simply cart paths.

If someone can't make the effort to learn the process then I don't think they should be playing competition golf.

Edit: to add, whenever I find anyone I'm playing with not understanding this, I take them through it and, for sure, that is simpler to understand than reading the book.

I am sorry but that is complicated and it does not have to be that way! LOL I play in tournaments all the time with people sometimes even lower handicappers who don't know this rule and will never learn it and I am tired of explaining it! In the end you win because the USGA and R&A are not going to change the rule so it does not really matter how much I rant about it. I would guess that most folks here probably agree with you. So I am wrong in that way and happily so!

Anyway you will never convince me and I will never convince you though I do understand and appreciate your viewpoint!

LOL, this rule is too complicated for many but the golf swing is not?

You have suggested it does not need to be as complicated as it is but I don't see any 'simple' rule for cart paths that do not come with considerable downsides or inconsistencies with arrangements for other obstructions.

I am, though, very sympathetic to a comment you made earlier about cart path NPCRs being very nasty on courses you play. If that is happening on anything other than unusual/rare circumstances, it smells to me like very poor course planning. Cart paths should not be routinely bordering significant hazardous areas - they need to be located with a view to keeping players moving without ugly consequences for player difficulty/playing complications. If specific geographic limitations make that a challenge, there are a range of other sensible solutions can avoid the problem you identify. The Rules of Golf cannot compensate for idiocy in course set up that some Committees perpetrate.

There is much in what you say that is puzzling. In what circumstances have you found it impossible to determine the nearest point of complete relief? Perhaps if you specified how you see that coming about, we could help you resolve the problem.

It's not correct to say that where the NPCR is in a bad place to play from that the player has to choose between that and risking damaging a club: he has the choice of taking unplayable ball relief [Rule 19] which gives him 3 further options.

It's unreasonable to blame the rule for someone who is daft enough to try to determine his NPCR by taking up a stance facing the tee rather than the green.

The concept of the NPCR is a general one devised to fit relief from interference by different abnormal ground conditions and immovable obstructions and it works for all. A specific rule for cart paths would in turn necessitate specific rules for other situations.

Good teachers when faced with a blank look of incomprehension or a bizarre outcome like the guy facing the tee, firstly need to be sure that their own understanding is sound, then question their explanation and seek different ways of explaining and demonstrating. Sometimes, of course, we have our failures no matter how much we try different approaches. Perhaps your two friends will just never grasp this one.

In the 'both points are exactly 64 inches' case, it is very simple, player can choose either. Edit: and best not to bring TIOs into the discussion - they can be really messy - the local rule for this goes on for pages and pages. This is why TIOs are virtually never in place outside the pro tours.

In my years of refereeing, I have never known a player being confused about 'the nearest point of complete relief' when demonstrated. They may have complained that they didn't like the outcome but agreed the words were clear.

Although I can think of situations where more than one npcr can be determined, I have never encountered one in the field.

I suspect the incidents you have seen are more to do with the player trying to convince the referee that his proposed "outrageous" line of play or stroke deserves free relief.

I have seen a number of instances where the nearest point of relief is not determinable based on where the ball sits on the pathAs for the point of relief not being obvious it depends on where on the path the ball is located.

I have a distinct feeling that the ground has shifted beneath my feet. Not determinable quietly morphs into not obvious. Are you a politician by any chance?

Appreciate the responses, thanks guys. This came up in my round yesterday and in a discussion after the round I was amazed by how many good tournament players including two ex-college players and two assistant pros did not understand the rule correctly.

The confusion had to do with the definition of "complete relief." Most thought "nearest point" was the shorter distance from the ball's original position on the path. They then wanted to allow for stance, then a club length no nearer the hole. BTW, It was more favorable for the player to drop on the right side of the path than the left in this instance.

I correctly stated that NPCR must include a stance clear of the cart path. (The ball had come to rest slightly right of the center of the path) In this case, to accommodate stance, the ball would have to be moved a greater distance (right handed player on right side of path) than a drop on the opposite side of the path. The NPCR was in fact to the left of the path, that in this particular instance, was hard pan and an uneven lie. Most seemed to side with "nicest" point of relief...lol!?

Reffing at a junior tournament last spring, 13 year old Zach called me over for help with his ball on the cart path. NPCR was in an unappetizing spot.

"Okay, but no thanks, " says Zach. He pulls out a wedge and sticks it to two feet from off the cart path.

I didn't think I was all this smart. But the cart path relief rule is not confusing at all. I don't see where anyone could have a problem knowing the rule. You can drop here or there at complete relief which ever is closer and not nearer the hole. Done. What's the big deal

Very pleased to hear young Zach doesn't have the entitlement mentality of some of his compatriots.

And I'm very pleased that Zach didn't first pick up his ball and then ask Sui for help dropping it.

I emailed the USGA a few years ago bringing up the point that imho this rule is not fair because the ball rolling down a cart path and ending up by lottery on one side or the other can determine if the ball is dropped in the cabbage or in the fairway. Their response was that the rule is meant to be equitable and 'fair' is not a concern.

"when demonstrated" is the problem that I have with the rule. Why do I have to be the bad guy rules official all the time? I just want to play golf and not have to police this. Just make this arbitrary and complicated rule simple so that any moron can apply it without having to have it explained to them. Give up and change the rule to the way that is applied in most cases every day all across the world. Seriously you all need to come down from your ivory towers!

You don't have to be a "bad guy" rules official, nor do you have to explain anything to other competitors/opponents. If in match, either ignore their infraction or make a claim for the hole. If in stroke, simply say, "I don't think you are allowed to drop there" and walk away. Report it to the officials if you're in a formal tournament, or if you're in some private competition -- find smarter friends.

Making the changes you advocate will end up at times giving people better outcomes than they deserve. Those of us truly interested in equity don't want to make such a change in exchange for what may seem simpler or better to those who can't bother to learn a fairly simple, completely logical process.

And store your silly "ivory tower" comment. You've given no one a legitimate reason to care about your frustrated opinion.

Well, if you cannot be convinced, then just stop whining. You seem to lack some brain cells normal persons have as you cannot understand a simple Rule. So be it.

'It's unreasonable to blame the rule for someone who is daft enough to try to determine his NPCR by taking up a stance facing the tee rather than the green.'

Now THAT was hilarious!! Well done, Colin!

'Appreciate the responses, thanks guys. This came up in my round yesterday and in a discussion after the round I was amazed by how many good tournament players including two ex-college players and two assistant pros did not understand the rule correctly.'

That is not astonishing at all. I used to help to run small monthly Rules tests at my club for some years by drafting the questions, and even the most simple things were not correctly understood. People just do not pay attention to the Rules, and even worse, never check the responses they get from their friends or from the know-it-all terrace parliament. Sure, there are complicated things in the Rules of Golf but why not learn the basic Rules properly? Oh, I cannot remember how many times I have explained the concept of 'the point where the ball last crossed the margin of a penalty area'. How difficult is that to understand and memorize?? Even 10-year old kids are taught things more difficult that that! Well, at least in my country...

Based on your posts describing the “problem” as you see it. If they changed it to your suggestion that it be within two club lengths of the path on either side....players you describe would still be going further and/or whining if there was a bush on both sides and no nice place to drop.

Some folks are going to try to stretch relief no matter what the rule is.

I suspect that many violators claim a lack of understanding when the actual fact is a lack of appreciation.