Mickelson Cart Path Relief

Another day, another rules question.

So Mickelson, with water on the right blows the tee ball left onto a cart path.

The ball ends up just on the left edge of the cart path. Cart path appear to be fairly wide, 4-5 feet or so.

To the left of the cart path, where his (obvious) nearest relief would be, is another abnormal course condition, formerly known as ground under repair.

Official comes on the scene.

Phil paces off the distance to the left to clear the GUR, takes a stance and looks where the ball would be dropped. He determines that the RIGHT side of the path is nearer relief than the distance to clear the GUR left of the path and proceeds to drop to the right of the path. Official concurs.

I thought a player would have to take his relief from the first ACC even if it's in another ACC and then take an appropriate 2nd relief from the 2nd ACC. If I'm reading Interpretation 16.1/2 correctly it appears as though that's what the player is supposed to do.

Or am I reading that wrong ?

The official said that when the GUR hits the path, the path becomes part of the GUR.

so he didn’t take relief from the path at all. Just GUR.

I didn’t see it, but are you sure the official didn’t state it the other way around? My Association provides a local rule stating that white lines contiguous with paved cart paths are played as an extension of the immovable obstruction, they don’t turn the cart path into GUR. ( Same relief either way though. )

People should note that this amalgamation of GUR and IO is only valid if there’s a local rule saying so.

Well originally Mickelson wanted to take relief from the GUR, not the path and drop on the path.

I thought the official said it the way I relayed it, but he may well have said it the way you did.

given the level of attention I was giving the broadcast and you’re level of expertise, let’s go with your conclusion.

It is extremely common in higher level tournament golf for contiguous relief conditions (eg cart path + gur alongside or cart path + garden beds) to be tied together via the Hard Card / Local Rules sheet /Notice to Players for the particular event. See the following example:Immovable Obstructions Adjacent to, Within or Abutting Each Other, such as artificially surfaced paths, curbing, walls, steps, drains,permanent structures, etc., are considered a single obstruction. Consult a referee with questions.

This approach simplifies tournament play and helps avoid complicated, time consuming dropping situations and will likely be behind the Mickelson example noted in the OP. In my experience, this kind of approach is being increasingly adopted at club level also, but it is still not all that common.

I happened to be watching. The referee ruled as our experts, Sawgrass and antip explained it.

Yep, the ACC was part of the CP as Slugger explained it.

What a great resource this place it.

Thank you very much gentlemen.

I had never heard of that local rule/contiguous ACC condition and in that case the drop was certainly correct.

Appreciate it.