Nearest Point of relief seems very hard for people to understand. Bizarre interaction

[LeoLeo99]

Really cool that the guy admitted his error and bought you beers. Not everyone is adult enough to do that.

[2bGood]

Yes, it was cool. I am sure I did not really give justice to our interaction in my original post. It was very cordial. I was nice he was nice and seemed to be trying to help. I left our interaction saying something like "I am pretty sure I am right, but if I am not I will grab you a beer bag back at the club house." (said with a smile). Now that was a little white lie, as I was confident I was correct.

 

 

[Guest]

I read in one post that the author can delete the reviews he does not like. Who can explain in detail how to do it? I tried to delete some comments but failed. Possibly, it is because of my IP address, I am from https://worldcams.tv/spain/benidorm/beach. But all users should have the same access, right? If you can provide more information concerning it, please let me know

[Mr. Bean]

Seems to me you were fishing for a beer...

[antip]

In that case, nicely caught!

[SNIPERBBB]

The ruling bodies don't seem to look favorably upon giving a player choices. At least not without paying for it with a penalty stroke.

[2bGood]

You sir are correct.

[DavePelz4]

Well stated but you now could make it a more intriguing situation. The player could decide to play the shot left handed (assuming they're right handed) and now be back standing on the cart path, again offering relief. The closest point of relief could be back on the right side of the cart path assuming there isn't enough room for full relief, and once the drop is taken, the player could again be standing on the path in their normal stance and now they can take relief from the cart path on the right side,take full relief from the path and be on the "nicer" side, to use your words.

[SNIPERBBB]

That relief would not be allowed as a reasonable relief.

[DavePelz4]

It's happened on the PGA Tour.

 

16.1a(3)/1 – Obstruction Interfering with Abnormal Stroke May Not Preclude Player From Taking ReliefIn some situations a player may have to adopt an abnormal swing, stance

 

 or direction of play in playing his or her 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.

For example, in the general area

 

, a right-handed player’s ball is so close to a boundary object

 

 on the left side of a hole that he or she must make a left-handed swing to play towards the hole. In making the left-handed swing, the player’s stance

 

 is interfered with by an immovable obstruction

 

.

The player is allowed relief from the immovable obstruction

 

 since use of a left-handed swing is not clearly unreasonable in the circumstances.

After the relief procedure for the left-handed swing is complete, the player may then use a normal right-handed swing for the next stroke

 

. If the obstruction

 

 interferes with the right-handed swing, the player may take relief for the right-handed swing under Rule 16.1b or play the ball as it li

 

[2bGood]

Can you help me out with this one and where this is in the rules? I know a player can decide to change their shot after they take their drop, but I am interest in how reasonable relief is defined.

I have legitimately dropped using a driver for my stance. I was thinking I could play one off the deck if I got a good lie, when I got a suspect lie I changed clubs to a 7 iron, but the driver stance was the difference that put me in much better position than the club I played would have.

[SNIPERBBB]

16.1a(3)/2 – Player May Not Use Clearly Unreasonable Stroke to Get Relief from ConditionA player may not use a clearly unreasonable stroke

 

 to get relief from an abnormal course condition

 

. If the player’s stroke

 

 is clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, relief under Rule 16.1 is not allowed, and he or she must either play the ball as it lies or take unplayable ball relief.

For example, in the general area

 

, a right-handed player’s ball is in a bad lie. A nearby immovable obstruction

 

 would not interfere with the player’s normal right-handed stroke

 

, but would interfere with a left-handed stroke

 

. The player states that he or she is going to make the next stroke

 

 left-handed and believes that, since the obstruction

 

 would interfere with such a stroke

 

, Rule 16.1b allows relief.

However, since the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke

 

 is to escape a bad lie by taking relief, use of the left-handed stroke

 

 is clearly unreasonable and the player is not allowed to take relief under Rule 16.1b (Rule 16.1a(3)).

The same principles would apply to the use of a clearly unreasonable stance

 

, direction of play or the choice of a 

 

[DavePelz4]

If the implication is that playing left handed is a unreasonable stroke, you might want to reconsider as it happens a few times a year on tour and I've seen it and done it this year as well.

[SNIPERBBB]

It's unreasonable if you have a clear line of play with a normal stroke and it's apparent that you're just trying to get a better lie. Now if there was the infamous bush causing you to change handedness of the shot, you could get the relief if it causes your stance to be on the path.

[KMeloney]

If I'm understanding your complaint about the rule, maybe you could look at it slightly differently and embrace the idea that it actually makes the rule/NPOR process CLEARER.

By starting with the ball (and not ball + stance) in determining the NPOR, It should be easy to determine, especially by measuring, which side of the cart path the ball's potential NPOR is. Then, visually (or by actually stepping into your intended stance along side each ball), one of those NPOR measurements should be quickly ruled out (if, say, you're still touching the path at the one spot). So, whereas you could look at taking your stance as being part of the NPOR-process, in my mind it's more of a secondary determining factor if it's not otherwise made perfectly clear once you found the NPOR of each ball on each side of the path.

[Golfer4Life]

Thanks for sharing. I miss the days when people minded their own business.

[molecularman]

 

If you place the ball at the NPOR, but your stance is still on the path, I understand that is not considered complete relief, so one would be required to drop on the other side. However, you are allowed 1 club length to drop. Even if your stance was on the path initially, after the 1 club drop, you'd be off the path. It negates the entire point of that rule in my mind. NPOR should be either stance or ball, so long as it is complete relief, and one should drop from that spot specific spot without the allotted club length.

 

[2bGood]

Sorry I am having trouble following what you are suggesting. To be clear, right now you get complete and relief AND up to one club length.

Are you suggesting that only the ball gets relief and not stance or swing?

The issue that I don't think has been mentioned is this rule applies not only to cart paths but other abnormal course conditions. In many instances you ball needs no relief (it is sitting nicely on grass) and it is only your stance and or swing that needs relief. How are you suggesting the drop should work in these cases?

[Nels55]

I genuinely hate this rule. I explained it to a player in a tournament a few weeks ago who's ball was in a drainage ditch that relief is allowed from. It was like pulling teeth to get him to put a tee down on the 'bad' side of the ditch as he said that he did not want to hit from over there. I knew the relief would be on the good side but I wanted to show him the process. After finally getting the ball dropped correctly he said 'That is a weird rule'. This is a guy who has won tournaments and played in them for years!

I believe that simply allowing a player to take complete relief no nearer the hole choosing whichever position is desired would be a much better rule. Then relief would be quick and simple with not need to argue about which side is the correct side and no need to explain to anyone where the nearest point of relief is. Also no need to discuss hitting opposite handed and generally no need to scuff up a club hitting off the cart path.

For those of you who think that I am so wrong in this I would ask you if you are simply defending the status quo? The way we have always done it? What if you had grown up with the rule as I suggest it should be and now I was suggesting that we change to the current nearest point of relief rule? Would you think that such a rule would be better then what you were used to?

[molecularman]

My suggestion is that in cases where the ball and the stance must be considered for total relief, the player should have the option of using his or her stance as the determining factor in NPOR, rather than the ball. AND there would no longer be one club length beyond the point of total relief for the drop. If you are allowing one club length beyond the nearest point of total relief, it (in my mind) defeats the point of being exact in finding the actual nearest point of relief.

 

 

 

[SNIPERBBB]

No free lunch. if you want to drop elsewhere in a more favorable lie, you can take an unplayable lie and drop where you want to drop.

[2bGood]

I could see lots of instance where this would create an advantage to the player beyond what they are entitled to and would be inconstant with the philosophical underpinning of the rules. So put me in the camp of protecting the status quo (ie play it as it lies, and not having multiple options)

[2bGood]

So this is where I get confused. The rules already require they use their stance for the NPOR? What is different about what you are suggesting.

If you got rid of the club length, players would be constantly playing from the wrong place as the measurement would have to be too precise - you would need some allowance in the rules to not be in the precise location. You also would not be able to drop the ball, it would have to be placed. But sure maybe a club length is too long and it should be 2 feet? (you need room from the drop to roll). I suspect it is a club length in the rules as it is convent unit of measurement that everyone has with them.

[molecularman]

Yeah!!

 

And to add - for amateur players, you could put them in a situation where you are requiring them to either damage a club, or essentially take a stroke penalty (if the drop would be in a worse position).

[Halebopp]

Not really, the basic premise is to play the ball as it lies. Allowing relief from obstructions that "shouldn't be there" shouldn't give the player the right to choose a more favourable position to play from. Either they can play the ball as it lies or take relief within one club length of the Nearest Point of Complete Relief (not closer to the hole) to mimic playing the ball as it lies as opposed to playing the ball from where the player would like to play it. A player should need to live with the consequences of his/her previous stroke. After all, golf is about playing the ball from the starting point to point B to point C and so forth until it's holed and competing about who can do that with as few strokes as possible.

[molecularman]

Complete relief includes the ball and stance, but in measuring where that complete relief is (to determine the nearest point) the only reference is where the ball would be. My argument is that a player should be able to reference the stance as the point of relief measurement.

 

Examples (assuming a right handed player)

 

Ball is on the left edge of the cart path. In this case, the stance is not impacted and the clear nearest point of relief is left. The spot of nearest relief is determined and the ball dropped to that area. No extra club length given from that spot.

 

Ball is in the middle of the cart path so that both the stance and the ball are impacted. The player has the option to determine nearest point by stance or ball. In this case, the player would either drop to the right of the cart path at a spot where the stance is no longer on the cart path, or to the left of the cart path, where the ball is no longer on said path. The player should be allowed the option to choose which side.

 

Stance is on the cart path, but ball is right of it. In this case, again it is clear that moving to the right so the stance is no longer on the path is the appropriate action.

 

 

[2bGood]

I think I follow what you are suggesting. I don't think it would be a good change as it provides options and this would be inconsistent with the concept of playing the ball as it lies. But I am a purist.

[SNIPERBBB]

No club length? So you're now eliminating the dropping requirement and allowing you to place the ball. How generous of you

[molecularman]

No worries. I am stuck at home and got this in my head. I think it's an interesting discussion and topic. I really never thought about NPOR or how you might actually have to drop in a worse spot.

 

 

[2bGood]

How about your club length idea? As I mentioned I don't believe it is in the rules to allow the game to be easier but instead it serves 3 purpose:

Gives a margin of error for 'placement'. Other wise technically no one would be playing from the precise NPOR.Allows the ball to be dropped rather than placed as it would be impossible to drop at the exact NPORClub length is the most convent unit of measurement every golfer has with them.Item 2 is key for me as placing the ball is often a big advantage.