ryder cup - abnormal ground condition?

[pm4610]

I had the Ryder Cup on (not really watching it), but there was something about either a drop or a place due to abnormal ground condition(s)? I never heard of that before. I just try to play it as it lies if it all possible. To me, ground is ground and it has the potential to be abnormal in nature. What determines an abnormal ground condition? It seems VERY subjective to me. A ball that lands in the fairway in a divot would seem like a abnormal ground condition to me, but there's no drop or place for that.

For example, I played yesterday and flew the green, my ball came to rest in a about a half inch depression on dead grass where there was ground in front of the ball (target side) and ground behind the ball. The lie sort of looked like this OoO or this )o(. When I tried to hit it out, the bottom of the club bounced off the ground behind it and pushed the ball further into the ground but more foward. It was deep, but it was more like it being in a divot. I was able to hit it out.

 

Any thoughts on the abnormal ground condition rule?

Thanks,

p

[KevCarter]

[b]Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]

An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

[Tupperwolf]

The abnormal ground condition was a local rule for the tournament due to the heavy rain. The trampled areas where the crowd has been standing may be considered abnormal ground and the player may take a drop after consulting a rules official. I believe I saw the same thing and it was Luke Donald taking a drop, which didn't appear to give him any better or worse lie than he had before. All the guys out there are playing the same conditions by the same set of rules. I don't have any problem with that.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='QWKDTSN' timestamp='1286049516' post='2724949']
The abnormal ground condition was a local rule for the tournament due to the heavy rain. The trampled areas where the crowd has been standing may be considered abnormal ground and the player may take a drop after consulting a rules official. I believe I saw the same thing and it was Luke Donald taking a drop, which didn't appear to give him any better or worse lie than he had before. All the guys out there are playing the same conditions by the same set of rules. I don't have any problem with that.
[/quote]

The committee must have deemed these areas "Ground Under Repair."

[b]Ground Under Repair[/b]

"[b]Ground under repair" is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative.[/b] All ground and any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing within the ground under repair are part of the ground under repair. Ground under repair includes material piled for removal and a hole made by a greenkeeper, even if not so marked. Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not ground under repair unless so marked.

When the margin of ground under repair is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the ground under repair, and the margin of the ground under repair is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. When both stakes and lines are used to indicate ground under repair, the stakes identify the ground under repair and the lines define the margin of the ground under repair. When the margin of ground under repair is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is in the ground under repair. The margin of ground under repair extends vertically downwards but not upwards.

A ball is in ground under repair when it lies in or any part of it touches the ground under repair.

Stakes used to define the margin of or identify ground under repair are obstructions.

Note: The Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting play from ground under repair or an environmentally-sensitive area defined as ground under repair.

[Newby]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286048666' post='2724926']
Any thoughts on the abnormal ground condition rule?
[/quote]

The Rule which gives relief from an Abnormal Ground Condition is 25-1

See link

[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-25/"]Rule 25-1[/url]

[pm4610]

It wasn't ground under repair as it wasn't marked by stakes. It did not fit the definition of abnormal ground condition. I believe QWKDTSN has it correct...a local/special rule made for this tournament due to the weather (and crowds).

I guess I keep playing it "as it lies".


Thanks,
p

[Newby]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286061614' post='2725156']
It wasn't ground under repair as it wasn't marked by stakes. It did not fit the definition of abnormal ground condition. I believe QWKDTSN has it correct...a local/special rule made for this tournament due to the weather (and crowds).

I guess I keep playing it "as it lies".


Thanks,
p
[/quote]

GUR does not need stakes. It simply has to be defined by the Committee. The players and officials will have had that information.
The Ryder Cup Committee cannot invent Rules

[HitEmTrue]

On the drops I saw today on TV, they said the ball was in an abnormal ground condition...specifically, casual water where the gallery had been standing.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286061614' post='2725156']
It wasn't ground under repair as it wasn't marked by stakes. It did not fit the definition of abnormal ground condition. I believe QWKDTSN has it correct...a local/special rule made for this tournament due to the weather (and crowds).

I guess I keep playing it "as it lies".


Thanks,
p
[/quote]

Read the bolded sentence in the post with the definition of ground under repair. It was posted for a reason..,

[pm4610]

[quote]
Read the bolded sentence in the post with the definition of ground under repair. It was posted for a reason..,
[/quote]
It's not Ground Under Repair", the announcers called it "Abnormal Ground Conditions". This is the situation with Fowler, but it started out with "abnormal ground conditions."

Fowler's rookie mistake proves costly
Saturday, October 2, 2010
NEWPORT, Wales - Call it a rookie mistake - and proof that a summer of rules blunders is running into fall.

[b]After Jim Furyk hit an errant drive into an extremely muddy area on the fourth hole at Celtic Manor in a foursomes match at the 38th Ryder Cup, his partner, Rickie Fowler, was entitled to free relief from the "abnormal ground conditions."[/b]

However, under the rules, Fowler was required to pick up the ball Furyk drove off the tee and continue to use the same ball on the team's next shot. Instead, Fowler had a ball in his pocket and substituted that one when he dropped. If he had realized his error after getting relief but before playing his next shot and then proceeded correctly, he could have avoided a penalty under Rule 20-6. However, he played it.

The penalty for violation of Rule 15-2 (Substituted ball) in match play is loss of hole, causing the American duo to go 2-down to Lee Westwood-Martin Kaymer of Europe. After the mistake became apparent, Westwood and Kaymer and Furyk all proceeded to the green to play out the hole, if only for practice. A frustrated Fowler, meanwhile, headed straight from the fairway to the next tee.

Read More [url="http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/index2.html#ixzz11JdR5was"]http://www.golfdiges...l#ixzz11JdR5was[/url]

[KevCarter]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286126002' post='2726044']

Read the bolded sentence in the post with the definition of ground under repair. It was posted for a reason..,
[/quote]
[quote]
It's not Ground Under Repair", the announcers called it "Abnormal Ground Conditions". This is the situation with Fowler, but it started out with "abnormal ground conditions."

Fowler's rookie mistake proves costly
Saturday, October 2, 2010
NEWPORT, Wales - Call it a rookie mistake - and proof that a summer of rules blunders is running into fall.

[b]After Jim Furyk hit an errant drive into an extremely muddy area on the fourth hole at Celtic Manor in a foursomes match at the 38th Ryder Cup, his partner, Rickie Fowler, was entitled to free relief from the "abnormal ground conditions."[/b]

However, under the rules, Fowler was required to pick up the ball Furyk drove off the tee and continue to use the same ball on the team's next shot. Instead, Fowler had a ball in his pocket and substituted that one when he dropped. If he had realized his error after getting relief but before playing his next shot and then proceeded correctly, he could have avoided a penalty under Rule 20-6. However, he played it.

The penalty for violation of Rule 15-2 (Substituted ball) in match play is loss of hole, causing the American duo to go 2-down to Lee Westwood-Martin Kaymer of Europe. After the mistake became apparent, Westwood and Kaymer and Furyk all proceeded to the green to play out the hole, if only for practice. A frustrated Fowler, meanwhile, headed straight from the fairway to the next tee.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/index2.html#ixzz11JdR5was
[/quote]

Back to post #2. What is ground under repair?

[b]Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]
An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, [b]ground under repair [/b]or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

[pm4610]

Back to post #2. What is ground under repair?

[b]Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]
An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, [b]ground under repair [/b]or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.
[/quote]

Casual water?
[attachment=664869:ball_480x288_21.jpg]

[KevCarter]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286131665' post='2726179']
Back to post #2. What is ground under repair?
[b]Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]
An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, [b]ground under repair [/b]or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

Casual water?
[attachment=664869:ball_480x288_21.jpg]
[/quote]

Yep, that is casual water. Don't need a special explanation from the committee for that.

Kevin

[KevCarter]

[b]Casual Water[/b]

"Casual water" is any temporary accumulation of water on the course that is not in a water hazard and is visible before or after the player takes his stance. Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either casual water or loose impediments, at the option of the player. Manufactured ice is an obstruction. Dew and frost are not casual water.

A ball is in casual water when it lies in or any part of it touches the casual water.

[petter7]

Back to post #2. What is ground under repair?

Abnormal Ground Conditions

An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

 

Casual water?

 

 

Yep, that is casual water. Don't need a special explanation from the committee for that.

 

Kevin

 

Paint a yellow circle around that and put some guppies in there

and you can call it a water hazard.

[pm4610]

You'd think there'd be an article stating what the committee decided. I found a number of articles calling it "abnormal ground conditions", but I didn't find any that took it a step further by calling it "ground under repair." Maybe they decalred anything not in fairway is "ground under repair." There's no way to know if the area your ball is in is GUR or not. Based on what I've read, none of it really mattered because no matter where they dropped it, the lie wasn't any better...but that's beside the point.

On a separate note, I never thought divots should be oonsidered "ground under repair", but if they can declare Eastlake "GUR" because of rain and trampling, then divots should be "GUR".

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286167438' post='2726976']
You'd think there'd be an article stating what the committee decided. I found a number of articles calling it "abnormal ground conditions", but I didn't find any that took it a step further by calling it "ground under repair." Maybe they decalred anything not in fairway is "ground under repair." There's no way to know if the area your ball is in is GUR or not. Based on what I've read, none of it really mattered because no matter where they dropped it, the lie wasn't any better...but that's beside the point.
[/quote]

As I understand it, there was no local rule, or any "special" rule made because of the weather and crowds. It wasn't ground under repair. In each case an official would have to rule it as casual water. And they did getter better lies by taking relief...even if it meant hitting off the cart path. :)

[Newby]

[quote name='pm4610' timestamp='1286167438' post='2726976']
You'd think there'd be an article stating what the committee decided. [/quote]

Why would there be an 'article'. The Committee would have given the teams details of all Local Rules. One would have almost certainly said the the muddy area that the crowds had churned up are GUR (and specifiee just where tode areas were)

[quote]
Maybe they decalred anything not in fairway is "ground under repair." [/quote]
They would not do that

[quote] There's no way to know if the area your ball is in is GUR or not. [/quote]
GUR is spelled out in the local rule issued bt the committee

[Newby]

[quote]It's not Ground Under Repair", the announcers called it "Abnormal Ground Conditions". This is the situation with Fowler, but it started out with "abnormal ground conditions."

[/quote]

Casual Water is an Abnormal Ground Condition.

[b]Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]
An "[i]abnormal ground condition[/i]" is any[color="#ff0000"][b] [/b][/color][i][color="#ff0000"][b]casual water, [/b][/color][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#GroundUnderRepair"]ground under repair[/url][/i] or hole, cast or runway on the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Course"][i]course[/i][/url] made by a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#BurrowingAnimal"]burrowing animal[/url][/i], a reptile or a bird.

Casual water does not have to be announced by the committee, the player can determine it for himself but may check with a rules official.

[Sawgrass]

I believe that there is an importand distiction between one type of abnormal ground condition and another. That is, if you take relief from ground under repair, you have the option of dropping first outside of that ground but in casual water it it happens to be there. And then you can decide if you'd benefit from relief from that independent condition of casual water as well -- rather than being forced to take complete relief from the entire area that has abnormal ground conditions.

It was kind of like Fowler's dropping from his soggy lie onto the immovable obstruction of a cart path. You get another chance to see if you like where you end up. (Assuming you have the presence of mind to drop the right ball.)

I would imagine that there were occasions this week where one didn't wish to take relief from casual water because there was so much of it that complete relief no closer to the hole could have been a mile away. Or at least a kilometer away!

[grabthepin]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286226659' post='2728223']
I believe that there is an importand distiction between one type of abnormal ground condition and another. That is, if you take relief from ground under repair, you have the option of dropping first outside of that ground but in casual water it it happens to be there. And then you can decide if you'd benefit from relief from that independent condition of casual water as well -- rather than being forced to take complete relief from the entire area that has abnormal ground conditions.
[/quote]

Well mentioned, however it's stricter than that. You are not allowed to take relief from both at once--you MUST do what you have suggested.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1286231834' post='2728369']
[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286226659' post='2728223']
I believe that there is an importand distiction between one type of abnormal ground condition and another. That is, if you take relief from ground under repair, you have the option of dropping first outside of that ground but in casual water it it happens to be there. And then you can decide if you'd benefit from relief from that independent condition of casual water as well -- rather than being forced to take complete relief from the entire area that has abnormal ground conditions.
[/quote]

Well mentioned, however it's stricter than that. You are not allowed to take relief from both at once--you MUST do what you have suggested.
[/quote]


I'm with you -- unless the casual water also covers the ground under repair you're in. Then the relief option changes based on whether you state that you're taking relief from the ground under repair or the casual water. If you state that it's the ground under repair, you may drop in the casual water outside the ground under repair. If you state that you're taking relief from the casual water, you have no choice but to find a dry place which in this case excludes both abnormal ground conditions.

I guess my main point was to say that the fact that ground under repair and casual water are both different subsets of abnormal ground conditions has importance in some unusual circumstances.

[grabthepin]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286241647' post='2728638']
If you state that you're taking relief from the casual water, you have no choice but to find a dry place which in this case excludes both abnormal ground conditions.
[/quote]

No, it's still a two step process if choosing relief from casual water first. Find the nearest dry place, drop even if it's still in GUR. Then choose to drop from the GUR or not.

[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-25/#25-1b/11"]Decision 25-1b/11.5[/url] covers this.

Also, stating is not required.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1286242229' post='2728647']
[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286241647' post='2728638']
If you state that you're taking relief from the casual water, you have no choice but to find a dry place which in this case excludes both abnormal ground conditions.
[/quote]

No, it's still a two step process if choosing relief from casual water first. Find the nearest dry place, drop even if it's still in GUR. Then choose to drop from the GUR or not.

[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-25/#25-1b/11"]Decision 25-1b/11.5[/url] covers this.

Also, stating is not required.
[/quote]

I acknowledge 25-1b/11.5, and agree with your interpretation as regards to the situation they are describing and the drawing they use where the casual water does not completely cover the ground under repair. I was speaking of a slightly different situation where casual water completely covers the ground under repair you're in. In that case I believe that you have the option of taking relief from either the ground under repair or the casual water based on your stated claim. If you take relief from the water you must take relief from the water-covered ground under repair (since the ground under repair is covered by the water). But if you take relief from the ground under repair, you have the option of dropping in the casual water outside of the ground under repair and then coming to a new decision on that condition.
,

[grabthepin]

Yes, it may be incidental that taking relief from the casual water also clears you of the GUR as well. Similarly in another scenario it may be incidental that taking relief from GUR also clears you of the casual water.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1286246558' post='2728806']
Yes, it may be incidental that taking relief from the casual water also clears you of the GUR as well. Similarly in another scenario it may be incidental that taking relief from GUR also clears you of the casual water.
[/quote]

I find it fascinating that the precision of all this provides different options if you put enough effort into contemplating them. And I similarly find it perplexing that so many of today's pros don't seem to put much effort at all into using this "side" of the game. Seemed to me that Nicklaus always had his rules hat on . . .

But hey, what do I know? If these pros I criticize watch me hit a ball, they'd have a laugh.

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='drgolfaholic' timestamp='1286247008' post='2728823']
[quote name='JD3' timestamp='1286227789' post='2728257']
[quote name='evanrfid' timestamp='1286227637' post='2728253']
Mahan has proven himself to be a solid Ryder Cupper. Scrambling is his weakness, and it bit him at a bad time. As for Pavin choosing him to anchor the team, I can't fault him in any way. Stricker is the only guy he could really count on and putting him up front to get a point on the board is better than putting him last where it might not count.
[/quote]
Monty made the right call: the most important spots in the singles were #1 and [b]#12[/b].
[/quote]

Based on what? The last time #12 match actually mattered was 1991. That's one out of last 10 Ryder Cups.
[/quote]


[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1286260804' post='2729040']
although the last day provided a lot of drama and excitement, this ryder cup was lost by the USA the day before....
[/quote]





[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286300251' post='2729692']
[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1286246558' post='2728806']
Yes, it may be incidental that taking relief from the casual water also clears you of the GUR as well. Similarly in another scenario it may be incidental that taking relief from GUR also clears you of the casual water.
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]I find it fascinating that the precision of all this provides different options if you put enough effort into contemplating them. And I similarly find it perplexing that so many of today's pros don't seem to put much effort at all into using this "side" of the game. Seemed to me that Nicklaus always had his rules hat on . . .[/color]

But hey, what do I know? If these pros I criticize watch me hit a ball, they'd have a laugh.
[/quote]



I don't know about the pro's..... but what is perplexing sometimes is that if you do happen to use the rules of golf, it seems that the loudest and most annoying people will claim that you are wrong and they know the "rules".

I played in a tournament this past weekend, on one of the holes, there was a creek, marked as a red hazard which was not far off of the cart path. One of the players put a ball into the hazard, and he asked the guy ridiing with him what he should/could do, that guy didn't seem to offer much, so he then asked my cart what his options were. I was telling him take his line of flight where his ball went into hazard, take a stance and he would get two club lenghts of relief. This as well as stance and one club lenght would put the drop on or actually to the other side of the cart path.

Now, the guy who at first didn't seem to know or want to offer advice to his cart parnter jumps in and starts to tell the group...." oh no, you can not take a drop and then a redrop over the cart path, that is not part of the rule" he then started to talk in a confrontational tone and tell the guy, you can drop it here or else you have to go back and replay your last shot, there is none of this stance and 2 club lenghts.

The guy who needed a drop then was standing there with the deer in headlights and again asked if he had any other options. I chimed in and said, if it were me, I would play two balls, i'd take the drop like I said, and then I'd play it like his cart partner is telling him to. Before the tournament started, it was announced that if there was any questions about rules or what not, to go ahead and play two balls and settle in when we got in. The guy did play two balls and when we got in, was told the red line/stakes did entitled him to stance and 2 club lenghts, and that yes that would put him over the cart path, with stance on cart path, therefore allowing another drop of stance and one club length.

What strikes me is that some golfers are not willing to say anything at all during a rules question. Like the guy riding with me, he stayed mute the whole time until he and I were driving away, then he said to me, you do get stance and two clubs from a penalty shot or hazard. But he was not willing to interject his thoughts/opinions when it was needed. Most golfers really do like to stay Swiss during golf rules questions.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1286303473' post='2729785']
[quote name='drgolfaholic' timestamp='1286247008' post='2728823']
[quote name='JD3' timestamp='1286227789' post='2728257']
[quote name='evanrfid' timestamp='1286227637' post='2728253']
Mahan has proven himself to be a solid Ryder Cupper. Scrambling is his weakness, and it bit him at a bad time. As for Pavin choosing him to anchor the team, I can't fault him in any way. Stricker is the only guy he could really count on and putting him up front to get a point on the board is better than putting him last where it might not count.
[/quote]
Monty made the right call: the most important spots in the singles were #1 and [b]#12[/b].
[/quote]

Based on what? The last time #12 match actually mattered was 1991. That's one out of last 10 Ryder Cups.
[/quote]


[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1286260804' post='2729040']
although the last day provided a lot of drama and excitement, this ryder cup was lost by the USA the day before....
[/quote]





[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286300251' post='2729692']
[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1286246558' post='2728806']
Yes, it may be incidental that taking relief from the casual water also clears you of the GUR as well. Similarly in another scenario it may be incidental that taking relief from GUR also clears you of the casual water.
[/quote]

[color="#ff0000"]I find it fascinating that the precision of all this provides different options if you put enough effort into contemplating them. And I similarly find it perplexing that so many of today's pros don't seem to put much effort at all into using this "side" of the game. Seemed to me that Nicklaus always had his rules hat on . . .[/color]

But hey, what do I know? If these pros I criticize watch me hit a ball, they'd have a laugh.
[/quote]



I don't know about the pro's..... but what is perplexing sometimes is that if you do happen to use the rules of golf, it seems that the loudest and most annoying people will claim that you are wrong and they know the "rules".

I played in a tournament this past weekend, on one of the holes, there was a creek, marked as a red hazard which was not far off of the cart path. One of the players put a ball into the hazard, and he asked the guy ridiing with him what he should/could do, that guy didn't seem to offer much, so he then asked my cart what his options were. I was telling him take his line of flight where his ball went into hazard, take a stance and he would get two club lenghts of relief. This as well as stance and one club lenght would put the drop on or actually to the other side of the cart path.

Now, the guy who at first didn't seem to know or want to offer advice to his cart parnter jumps in and starts to tell the group...." oh no, you can not take a drop and then a redrop over the cart path, that is not part of the rule" he then started to talk in a confrontational tone and tell the guy, you can drop it here or else you have to go back and replay your last shot, there is none of this stance and 2 club lenghts.

The guy who needed a drop then was standing there with the deer in headlights and again asked if he had any other options. I chimed in and said, if it were me, I would play two balls, i'd take the drop like I said, and then I'd play it like his cart partner is telling him to. Before the tournament started, it was announced that if there was any questions about rules or what not, to go ahead and play two balls and settle in when we got in. The guy did play two balls and when we got in, was told the red line/stakes did entitled him to stance and 2 club lenghts, and that yes that would put him over the cart path, with stance on cart path, therefore allowing another drop of stance and one club length.

What strikes me is that some golfers are not willing to say anything at all during a rules question. Like the guy riding with me, he stayed mute the whole time until he and I were driving away, then he said to me, you do get stance and two clubs from a penalty shot or hazard. But he was not willing to interject his thoughts/opinions when it was needed. Most golfers really do like to stay Swiss during golf rules questions.




[/quote]

Hi OneBowTie,

Since you don't want people to stay Swiss, let me point out that your stance is not relevant in a drop from a lateral water hazard. One option is to get two club lengths from the point on the red line/stakes where your ball last entered the hazard, not two club lengths from the point where both your stance and ball will be free from the hazard. You can drop the ball and have it bounce back near the edge of the hazard and have to hit it with your feet wet if it happens that way. (Though typically the two club lengths will coincidentally free your stance from the hazard.)

In contrast, when you get relief from an immovable obstruction like a cart path, you do get one club length from the point where both the ball and your feet are free of the path. A bit odd I suppose, but odd and true.

[grabthepin]

[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1286303473' post='2729785']
The guy did play two balls and when we got in, was told the red line/stakes did entitled him to stance and 2 club lengths
[/quote]

I'd really hope that wasn't the case, for the reason Sawgrass mentioned.

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286300251' post='2729692']
I find it fascinating that the precision of all this provides different options if you put enough effort into contemplating them. And I similarly find it perplexing that so many of today's pros don't seem to put much effort at all into using this "side" of the game. Seemed to me that Nicklaus always had his rules hat on [/quote]

It's not worth their time. You'd be aware of the time investment it takes to get a good grasp on the Rules and people like Newby have obviously been investing that time for years. Nor might they have the aptitude or fascination to tolerate putting in that time. It's better spent practicing.

[OneBowTie]

[/quote]

Hi OneBowTie,

Since you don't want people to stay Swiss, let me point out that your stance is not relevant in a drop from a lateral water hazard. One option is to get two club lengths from the point on the red line/stakes where your ball last entered the hazard, not two club lengths from the point where both your stance and ball will be free from the hazard. You can drop the ball and have it bounce back near the edge of the hazard and have to hit it with your feet wet if it happens that way. (Though typically the two club lengths will coincidentally free your stance from the hazard.)

In contrast, when you get relief from an immovable obstruction like a cart path, you do get one club length from the point where both the ball and your feet are free of the path. A bit odd I suppose, but odd and true.



[/quote]


Thanks Sawgrass for once again pointing out the actual rule, I appreciate it. As it was, stance didn't/wouldn't have mattered in this case, the creek ran about a club length alongside the cart path. So regardless of stance, two clubs would have put the drop across the path, which is what he did do. Then the ball came to rest close enough to the path that his feet were standing on the path, so he did take a stance and a club length and redropped it. Then played the ball without his feet touching the cart path.

On another note, if I understand this rule correctly, if he would have taken relief from the cart path, redropped the ball, and played it with his feet still touching the path, that would be cause for a penalty???? Is this correct??? Thanks in advance for the input.

He did play another ball like a lost ball, where he went back and re-tee'd and finished out both balls. As it was, the ruling in the club house gave him the drop across the path and that score was used.

[quote name='jontyc' timestamp='1286313213' post='2730054']
[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1286303473' post='2729785']
The guy did play two balls and when we got in, was told the red line/stakes did entitled him to stance and 2 club lengths
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]I'd really hope that wasn't the case, for the reason Sawgrass mentioned[/color].

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1286300251' post='2729692']
I find it fascinating that the precision of all this provides different options if you put enough effort into contemplating them. And I similarly find it perplexing that so many of today's pros don't seem to put much effort at all into using this "side" of the game. Seemed to me that Nicklaus always had his rules hat on [/quote]

It's not worth their time. You'd be aware of the time investment it takes to get a good grasp on the Rules and people like Newby have obviously been investing that time for years. Nor might they have the aptitude or fascination to tolerate putting in that time. It's better spent practicing.
[/quote]

Actually it was the case. I am not sure why you say you really hope its not the case????

I guess what I once again find, is that some club pro's who have the final say in rules, do not really understand or know them all the time. Which is basically what your saying about touring pro's. I guess the club pro's do the best they can to insure fair play and law and order.