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

[DavePelz4]

It doesn't happen often but I've played a shot from a cart path or stood on a cart path because the option of dropping doesn't guarantee a better ball position or stance.

[nsxguy]

You seem to have it all worked out but confuse yourself with (as in a previous post) "If you place the ball at the NPOR, but your stance is still on the path, I understand that is not considered complete relief". If your stance is still on the path you have NOT placed your ball at NOPR.

The diagrams in Post 20 are excellent. Just take a(nother) look at them and it's all pretty clear.

[Mr. Bean]

'If you place the ball at the NPOR, but your stance is still on the path,'

In that case you have not yet found the NPOCR. Very simple.

I have a hard time to understand what is it so hard to understand in this rather simple Rule. You find a place for your BALL that is closest to the spot of your original ball AND is not closer to hole AND gives you complete relief, and that relief includes STANCE.

[molecularman]

It is made easier with the new knee drop. One only has to make a good faith attempt to drop at the location of NPOR, it cannot be expected to land on that exact spot. You mark the NPOR with a tee, set up for the knee length drop, reach down to pick up the tee, then drop the ball in that spot.

[molecularman]

"You seem to have it all worked out, but confuse yourself" Ain't that the truth! :D

 

The point of what I said was to establish that under that scenario, the ball would have to be dropped farther away in order to gain complete relief of the stance. If you are only measuring NPOR via the ball position, then clearly going to the left side would be the nearer point of relief. But my point, again, is that you should be able to consider the stance as the point of relief in this case, not the ball.

[molecularman]

That's why I said " I understand that is not considered complete relief, so one would be required to drop on the other side" It was meant to reference the scenario in which the ball is the reference point of measurement for where the NPOR would be. Going to the right side, in order to have the stance in relief, the ball would require being farther away than dropping on the left side.

[SNIPERBBB]

Your proposal would be better stated as you can choose to get relief for the lie, or the stance, or both. It's much simpler that way.

 

Most players these days will only take stance relief to get a better lie unless they were standing on a fire ant hill or ankle deep water in these days of soft spikes. Unless the path was so funny that it made it hard to swing from.

[2bGood]

There still is an issue I can see. The location of NPOR is an exact and precise spot (not an area). Ie. 1" off is not the NPOR. So you would have to write the rule to allow people to play from an area near the NPOR as they can not be expect to measure out the precise spot. So how much room for error do you give them. (right now we give people up to 1 club length)

Also if there is any slope involved, how far can the ball bounce or roll after the drop under your rule? Again the current rules give some allowance for this, including a procedure to place the ball if drops are unsuccessful.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

I understand the protocol given for NPOR from a cart path in the above examples, and, in fact, have used it numerous times.

There are three other situations that I need clarification on:

The NPOR happens to be on another immovable obstruction, (e.g., a sprinkler head). My understanding is that I'm entitled to again take NPOR from the sprinkler head.The NPOR happens to be under a bush or behind a tree. My understanding is that's unfortunate, but the rules don't guarantee that the NPOR will result in an unobstructed lie or line of play ( i.e., the situation is no different than if my original shot landed under the bush or behind the tree).The NPOR would be in a penalty area or out of bounds; for example, as in diagram #3 of post #20, except that a penalty area line is immediately adjacent to the right side of the cart path. My understanding is that I would be able to drop at point C, even though point B is the NPOR but is inside the penalty area.

[2bGood]

My read is Mole..Man understands the current rule, but is engaging us in a hypothetical conversation of how to write a better rule.

I don't think he has come up with a better rule yet, and in fact the debate has made more and more and impressed at how well the current rule is written.

[molecularman]

That's true, and I fully see your point.

I think it'd be easy enough to just say 1 standard grip length, rather than 1 club. The player has the duty to attempt his or her best effort to drop at the spot of NPOR, but is given a 1 standard grip length (even towards the hole) in which the ball can come to rest. The argument from me is that 1 full club can result in nearly 4 feet, from the NPOR, which to me, defeats the purpose of determining NPOR.

[nsxguy]

LOL. For us "normal"(?) folks, yes, the rules can be very confusing. The "Rulies" would have you believe they're actually not that hard and, in fact, they certainly have gotten easier.

But just as in any sport the players don't WANT to learn the rules, they just want to PLAY. For every other sport though they are NOT their own game official so they don't NEED to know (all) the rules. In golf though,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, different story. O e needs to be knowledgeable about at least the most common situations - this being one of them.

I'm too lazy to go back and look but wasn't it you that said "stance AND swing".

In the original example given, ball on the right side of the path (for a righty of course), that is often about the only situation you'd actually have to measure.

If the ball's to the left side of the path there's seldom a reason to measure as your stance will be nowhere near the path so only the ball needs to be clear of it. Same thing goes for the center of the path.

To the right side of the path though, as you clearly know, one simply takes their stance OFF the path, estimates where the ball would be for the shot IF the ball was dropped right there, and put down a tee. Then measure the 2 spots from where the ball was on the path to where the (relief) ball would be on either side of the path. Closer one "wins" - ALWAYS.

It may all sound confusing when trying to explain but in practice it's really rather easy.

I've been nearby many times when someone has asked and many times have had to tell them, empathetically of course, "Nope, you don't get a choice".

 

[2bGood]

Yes I agree with that in concept. One club length does seems a bit generous and I tend to believe it was only chosen out of utility rather than the best margin of error.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Bizarre is the word? It sounds like you acted correctly?

Interpretation is generally based upon how much are the stakes you are playing on any given hole. Haha!

[molecularman]

I agree. I like it.

 

In certain cases, a player might only seek relief from the stance, lie, or both. In cases where the player is seeking relief via stance, the NPOR should be considered based on stance. When a player is seeking relief based on ball, the NPOR should be based on position of the ball. And if a player needs to seek relief due to stance and ball, the player should be allowed the option to determine which to base the NPOR on - so long as that relief is complete (both stance and ball).

[Mr. Bean]

I confess my limitations in understanding as I just cannot understand what you are after. The current Rule is simple, easy to understand, easy to invoke and impartial.

What I feel you are looking for is an option for a player to remedy his bad shot by choosing the best available place to continue his play. That, my friend, is not golf.

I am done with this as I have nothing more to say and I certainly do not understand the arguments presented otherwise.

 

[molecularman]

I am trying to take something fairly simple, and make it way more convoluted. I'm shocked I haven't gotten a call for a govt. job yet.

 

I am, in a sense, doing what you are suggesting - which is allowing a player to choose a better location to continue his play. But only in select circumstances. To put it as simply as I can.... Only in a situation where both a player's stance and ball are in need of relief, and the player could potentially utilize either side, the player should be allowed to choose which side.

[SNIPERBBB]

He can already do that, but it costs one stroke.

[rogolf]

the player should be allowed to choose which side.

Nope, the Rules have laid out the procedure to find the nearest point of complete relief - it's simple and straightforward. Everyone understands that except you.

[molecularman]

I understand the rule. I am arguing that it should be changed.

[sui generis]

And that's a good thing to do, I think. I know when I go out on a limb here, ultimately I usually am convinced that what we already have is pretty good. (Though, I've got a big one hanging out there.)

[rogolf]

Argue away, but I won't be participating. And to the best of my knowledge, nobody here has the authority to change the Rule to your satisfaction. Try the USGA.

I'm very happy with the simplicity and clarity of the current Rule.

[davep043]

To me, there are more than enough choices involved with this rule. You can play it as it lies, or you can drop it in the nearest location that gives complete relief. You are allowed relief if either your stance or swing is impacted by the Obstruction, so it makes sense to me that the relief should require complete relief for both stance and swing. I wouldn't like to give a player too many options for finding the most advantageous location. I like one choice, either play it as it lies, or play it from "here". This is the simplest and cleanest solution.

[Shilgy]

Edited to add...the post I had quoted was approving this”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”

 

So you two want the drop area to be how big? Your suggestion of anywhere “no nearer the hole” leaves a huge circle around the green. Do they get any angle in that they want? How far is ok? One club length? A couple yards? Ten? 100? How do you play a game of golf dropping wherever you please?

 

 

[Nels55]

Yes, very good. My intention was that the rule would remain as written with the exception of having to choose the nearest point. In other words you could take point A or point B. And if while walking up to the ball it was obvious that you wanted point A then find it and take one club length and take your drop exactly as you would do now if A were the nearest point of relief.

This would solve a number of problems with no cost to anyone. If the majority of golfers don't know a rule and don't use then make the rule so that it is common sense and closer to what most golfers do on their own. The ruling bodies have specialized in making rules that are arbitrary and difficult for the average person to understand.

For my own game I don't care and I am fine with the rule, I am simply sick of explaining it over and over and I am also sick of being the bad guy rules official.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Never go changing rules because people dont know them. They wont know the new rule changes either. Its not the Ruling Bodies problem that people cant be bothered to download the app on their phones to read the rules.

[davep043]

"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."

Yes, this legalizes the procedure that is used commonly by people who are ignorant of the actual rule, but its not better. Just because you accidentally hit a ball onto a cart path, you don't deserve to be able to CHOOSE a better position to hit your next shot from. If you hit it behind a tree, you don't get a choice, or on the side of a slope, or in a patch of really tall rough, you don't get a choice. Similarly, if you expect a FREE drop, you shouldn't also expect to get a couple of choices on where to drop. So what if your relief area is behind a tree, or on the side of a steep slope, or in a patch of really tall rough, you could have ended up there in the first place.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Good thing “shooting the lowest possible score” is not actually a rule. It seems like a good way to pad one’s handicap. Haha!

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Right, the new rules are quite forgiving.

[TerpFangolfer]

yeah, had that exact issue a couple years ago in a tournament. I ended up playing the ball of the path because my NPoR was not a good place. Lucky it was just a chip and not a full swing - did get a scrape on my wedge.

My FC told me I should drop on the other side into a nice grassy lie "that's what I would do" and when I told him he would be in violation of the rules he just walked away shaking his head.