Free Relief (cart path) -- what if I'm okay with a stance on cart path because ball would be in area I don't want to play from?

[betarhoalphadelta]

Okay... Been noodling on this one. There are a number of holes at my local where the cart path runs up the right side of holes, and on the opposite side of the cart path is the start of a mulchy hillside, some trees, bushes, etc. Due to the design of the cart path, and a concrete drainage trough to the right of the cart path it's not uncommon for a right miss to end up on the right edge of the path or in the trough where it exists. 

 

These are both areas of free relief, and the nearest point of complete relief would be to the right of the path, such as shown here from rule 16:

 

 

Imagine that instead of being off the path at B2, that the ball is resting on the right edge of the path. 

 

I desire relief from the ball resting on the cart path or in the concrete trench (because I'd rather hit off something that won't damage my club), but moving the ball so far to the right as to not have my stance impacted by the path likely puts me into bushes, trees, obstructs my intended line of play, etc. Ideal relief for me would be the ball 6" off the path but with my stance still on the path. 

 

So here's the question...

 

Do I have to define the relief area as the nearest point of *complete* relief, i.e. where my stance is fully off the cart path as well? Or can I, if my stance remaining on the path is acceptable but I desire relief from the ball, can I define the relief area as beginning as close to the path as necessary to not interfere with my club path? I.e. can I drop a ball into a relief area starting 6" right of the cart path, even if I'll still be standing on it? 

 

The rule says:

 

 

Quote

 

(1) Meaning of Interference by Abnormal Course Condition. Interference exists when any one of these is true:

• The player’s ball touches or is in or on an abnormal course condition,

• An abnormal course condition physically interferes with the player’s area of intended stance or area of intended swing, or

• Only when the ball is on the putting green, an abnormal course condition on or off the putting green intervenes on the line of play.

 

•  

 

I read this is an "or" condition, such that I can declare that because my ball touches or is in or on an ACC, I can treat *that* as interference. However, because I don't consider the ACC (cart path) to be physically interfering with my stance, I don't have to take relief from the stance remaining on the cart path. Thus, I can take relief ONLY for the ball and not be forced to an area farther right where my stance is off the path.

 

Correct?

[david.c.w]

I will take stab.

 

The answer is no.  It does not matter if you take relief from path for the ball or your stance.  Neither of them can be on the path after you drop.  Hence the word complete.

 

I do believe the path and the trough are 2 separate ACC's (unless it is one cohesive unit).  This means you could take relief from the trough and drop such that you stance is on the path and the ball is on the mulch.  

 

Question for the guru's.  If the path is asphalt and the ditch is concrete, and they are touching, is it 1 or 2 ACC?

 

[Augster]

Stance has to be fully off the path, yes. The quoted part is only telling the player if they are entitled to relief. Not the relief procedure. 
 

From 16.1b

 

There must be complete relief from all interference by the abnormal course condition.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Damn. Thanks. Not what I'd love to hear, but so be it. 

 

1 hour ago, david.c.w said:

 

I do believe the path and the trough are 2 separate ACC's (unless it is one cohesive unit).  This means you could take relief from the trough and drop such that you stance is on the path and the ball is on the mulch.  

 

Question for the guru's.  If the path is asphalt and the ditch is concrete, and they are touching, is it 1 or 2 ACC?

 

 

In this case they're both concrete, and they're touching. However it is clear that one is a cart path and another is a drainage feature, and the purposes are obviously different. 

[Krt22]

7 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

In this case they're both concrete, and they're touching. However it is clear that one is a cart path and another is a drainage feature, and the purposes are obviously different. 

If they are touching I am guessing it would be viewed on a singular ACC

[Newby]

There should be a local rule specifying if they are one ACC or two separate ones. In my experience two tied ACCs are normally treated as one unit. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

If I get a chance I might ask the pro if it's considered a single ACC since I play there very frequently. It would be good to know.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Damn. Thanks. Not what I'd love to hear, but so be it. 

 

 

In this case they're both concrete, and they're touching. However it is clear that one is a cart path and another is a drainage feature, and the purposes are obviously different. 

Isn't the drain's function to take surplus water away from the concrete path?

[betarhoalphadelta]

7 minutes ago, Newby said:

Isn't the drain's function to take surplus water away from the concrete path?

 

IMHO it's to control water runoff from the slope heading up the hill to the right, so it doesn't run straight over the cart path and onto the course. There are a couple areas as well where a concrete drain crosses fairways from these areas to channel this runoff down to a creek as well. 

 

 

[Mizunoid]

The rules of golf are seemingly arbitrary and often completely stupid imo.

[nsxguy]

Cue @sui generis

 

We got anudder one.........

[Newby]

50 minutes ago, Mizunoid said:

The rules of golf are seemingly arbitrary and often completely stupid imo.

A couple of examples please - and your reasoning.

[davep043]

2 hours ago, Mizunoid said:

The rules of golf are seemingly arbitrary and often completely stupid imo.

This seems completely clear to me.  If you choose to take relief, you MUST take complete relief.  There's even an interpretation that tells you that your nearest point of complete relief might be in a better situation, might be in a worse situation.  How is that stupid?

[Mizunoid]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

A couple of examples please - and your reasoning.

In this very thread - you can take relief from the path because nobody wants to hit their ball from it but you can't then stand on the path and hit your ball from the grass. No advantage to be gained, pointless rule.

 

Can't drop nearer the hole. Gaining 2 yards from 160 out makes zero difference and in some cases dropping closer would actually make a shot harder ie around greens depending on pin position.

 

Dropping from knee height allowed, shoulder height now not allowed. Self explanatory.

 

Accidentally hitting or touching the ball counts as a stroke. Completely stupid. Unless you're on the green then it's no penalty and replace approximately where the ball was.

 

The other day two little ****s picked up my ball and left with it from 260 yards away. I was putting a card in so was forced to take a drop so my par became a bogey.

 

Not being able to ground your club in a hazard was a stupid rule. Not being able to play with the pin in was too. No relief from sprinkler heads in your line. No relief from a divot. Having to re-tee if you go OB with tee shot. Pro's having to sign cards when the whole TV industry and millions on TV saw what you shot. Them not being able to wear shorts.

 

Also i think rules should be tailored to amateurs vs pro tournaments. If Rory hits one into the weeds a whole gallery plus TV crew knows where it went and helps him find it, often placing little flags in the ground where the ball is. If i see one land in the rough and know where abouts it is but can't find it, as can happen, i have to take a drop. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Mizunoid

[Mizunoid]

5 minutes ago, davep043 said:

This seems completely clear to me.  If you choose to take relief, you MUST take complete relief.  There's even an interpretation that tells you that your nearest point of complete relief might be in a better situation, might be in a worse situation.  How is that stupid?

Yes the rule is clear, nobody is saying it isn't. I'm arguing it's stupid. It makes no difference where your feet are so there is no reason not to allow a stance on the cart path.

 

It's a rule for the sake of a rule. Surely you can't argue that golf isn't riddled with such rules?

Edited July 29, 2022 by Mizunoid

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Cue @sui generis

 

We got anudder one.........

 

So it seems. Let's let Mr Bean deal with this one. 😜

[Mizunoid]

6 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Keep diggin'. 🙄

Ok got it, so flag-out-penalty-if-hit was a glorious rule because the Rules are a 'thing of beauty' but now they've been changed so flag can stay in that wasn't a stupid rule because the current Rules are a 'thing of beauty'. Makes total sense thanks for coming.

[Pastit]

20 minutes ago, Mizunoid said:

Yes the rule is clear, nobody is saying it isn't. I'm arguing it's stupid. It makes no difference where your feet are so there is no reason not to allow a stance on the cart path.

 

It's a rule for the sake of a rule. Surely you can't argue that golf isn't riddled with such rules?

The “ complete relief “ necessity might originate from a possibility that the spirit of the rule might be abused by selecting a drop point giving an inequitable advantage against the field. 
 

An example might be casual water when a piece of high ground attracts the golfer to drop at that point but where his feet may still be in water. I’ve seen this abuse on a course I played on which was prone to flooding. The rule makers are trying to be equitable. Whether they can succeed or not is open to question. 

[Mizunoid]

2 minutes ago, Pastit said:

The “ complete relief “ necessity might originate from a possibility that the spirit of the rule might be abused by selecting a drop point giving an inequitable advantage against the field. 
 

An example might be casual water when a piece of high ground attracts the golfer to drop at that point but where his feet may still be in water. I’ve seen this abuse on a course I played on which was prone to flooding. The rule makers are trying to be equitable. Whether they can succeed or not is open to question. 

I'd argue from a strokes gained perspective a move like that gives zero advantage against the field, just as playing from path + grass gives zero advantage compared to standing just off path on grass hitting from grass.

[Pastit]

1 minute ago, Mizunoid said:

I'd argue from a strokes gained perspective a move like that gives zero advantage against the field, just as playing from path + grass gives zero advantage compared to standing just off path on grass hitting from grass.

No, because in the case of water, the player is arbitrarily taking advantage of a hitting point he was not “ entitled to “ as his ball was elsewhere. 
 

Thus the rule, in this case is fair, because the decision for the player is to play the ball as it lies or take full relief. 

[Mizunoid]

5 minutes ago, Pastit said:

No, because in the case of water, the player is arbitrarily taking advantage of a hitting point he was not “ entitled to “ as his ball was elsewhere. 
 

Thus the rule, in this case is fair, because the decision for the player is to play the ball as it lies or take full relief. 

The question is is this really an 'advantage' in terms of score - does it make scores lower? I'd argue no.

 

I don't really get your water analogy - let's stick to the scenario from the thread's OP - i don't think anyone can prove strokes are gained from hitting just off path with feet on path to hitting just off path with feet on grass. If it doesn't give an actual quantifiable advantage then a rule preventing it is just a pointless rule, in my opinion of course.

 

Like how someone nicked my ball. I could see where my ball was. I gain no advantage from being able to place it right where it was and hit it. But i had to take a drop. Stupid rule.

[sui generis]

20 minutes ago, Mizunoid said:

The question is is this really an 'advantage' in terms of score - does it make scores lower? I'd argue no.

 

I don't really get your water analogy - let's stick to the scenario from the thread's OP - i don't think anyone can prove strokes are gained from hitting just off path with feet on path to hitting just off path with feet on grass. If it doesn't give an actual quantifiable advantage then a rule preventing it is just a pointless rule, in my opinion of course.

 

Like how someone nicked my ball. I could see where my ball was. I gain no advantage from being able to place it right where it was and hit it. But i had to take a drop. Stupid rule.

 

You continue to demonstrate through your posts that you don't know much about the Rules. What's "stoopid" are your flaccid attempts to categorize the Rules as unreasonable.

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Mizunoid said:

The question is is this really an 'advantage' in terms of score - does it make scores lower? I'd argue no.

 

I don't really get your water analogy - let's stick to the scenario from the thread's OP - i don't think anyone can prove strokes are gained from hitting just off path with feet on path to hitting just off path with feet on grass. If it doesn't give an actual quantifiable advantage then a rule preventing it is just a pointless rule, in my opinion of course.

 

Like how someone nicked my ball. I could see where my ball was. I gain no advantage from being able to place it right where it was and hit it. But i had to take a drop. Stupid rule.

The rules don't always have to do with score or gaining an advantage. Relief from an ACC is very clear,  you are entitled relief if you so choose (no one is forcing you to take it), but if you deem that the ACC is interfering with your stroke, then you must take full relief, since the rule views your stance and the through stroke as one thing. The way it's written allows a single rule to cover when you are standing on an ACC or if the ball is at rest on one.

 

If you don't like the rules, don't follow them, easy.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Krt22

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Mizunoid said:

Like how someone nicked my ball. I could see where my ball was. I gain no advantage from being able to place it right where it was and hit it. But i had to take a drop. Stupid rule.

 

9.6 Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence (including another player in stroke play or another ball) lifted or moved a player’s ball:

• There is no penalty, and

• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated)

 

Just curious - is the rule still stupid ?

 

 

Oh, and btw, this same rule covers those 2 little ***whatevers*** that you SAW pick up your ball and run away and shouldn't have cost you a stroke.

 

(Nice drive btw 👍)

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by nsxguy

[antip]

9 hours ago, Mizunoid said:

 

 

12 hours ago, david.c.w said:

I will take stab.

 

The answer is no.  It does not matter if you take relief from path for the ball or your stance.  Neither of them can be on the path after you drop.  Hence the word complete.

 

I do believe the path and the trough are 2 separate ACC's (unless it is one cohesive unit).  This means you could take relief from the trough and drop such that you stance is on the path and the ball is on the mulch.  

 

Question for the guru's.  If the path is asphalt and the ditch is concrete, and they are touching, is it 1 or 2 ACC?

 

The Committee is responsible for the answer to this question. If they are one cohesive unit, it would by default be treated as one  ACC, but if they appear to be independent in design/build, IMO they default to 2 ACCs unless a Committee has tied them together as one via an appropriate local rule.

 

PS That garbage from Mizunoid was not an intended inclusion, the laptop threw it in without consulting me.

Edited July 30, 2022 by antip

[Newby]

8 hours ago, Mizunoid said:

Can't drop nearer the hole. Gaining 2 yards from 160 out makes zero difference and in some cases dropping closer would actually make a shot harder ie around greens depending on pin position.

 

Does gaining 2 yards from 16 out make a difference?

Does gaining 1 yards from 6 out make a difference?

Where do you draw the line?

[Mizunoid]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Does gaining 2 yards from 16 out make a difference?

Does gaining 1 yards from 6 out make a difference?

Where do you draw the line?

The 'line' should be 'within one club length' no matter where it is. No closer the hole is an arbitrary rule that gives no provable advantage.

 

Again, if i'm talking nonsense y'all can feel free to provide me with quantifiable strokes gained data that proves advantages which rule prevent. If they don't prevent such advantages then they're rules for the sake of rules.

[Mizunoid]

8 hours ago, Krt22 said:

The rules don't always have to do with score or gaining an advantage. Relief from an ACC is very clear,  you are entitled relief if you so choose (no one is forcing you to take it), but if you deem that the ACC is interfering with your stroke, then you must take full relief, since the rule views your stance and the through stroke as one thing. The way it's written allows a single rule to cover when you are standing on an ACC or if the ball is at rest on one.

 

If you don't like the rules, don't follow them, easy.

I just keep hearing 'the rules are clear' - i never argued they weren't. I'm arguing that unless breaking them provides an advantage then they're pointless. 

 

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why knee height drops are fine but shoulder height no longer are. Nobody can make out that rule is anything but arbitrary, surely.

[Pastit]

23 minutes ago, Mizunoid said:

I just keep hearing 'the rules are clear' - i never argued they weren't. I'm arguing that unless breaking them provides an advantage then they're pointless. 

 

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why knee height drops are fine but shoulder height no longer are. Nobody can make out that rule is anything but arbitrary, surely.

On knee drops, I can think of 2 things:

 

I’ve seen multiple abuse by pros of the “ shoulder drop “ by their dropping right on the “ imaginary line “ limiting the drop they’re entitled too on a gradient so guaranteeing the ball will roll “ nearer the hole “ on dropping each time the ball is dropped. Thus enabling them to place the ball on a good lie. Dropping from a reduced height might solve this problem.

 

Dropping in sand leads to plugged or dodgy lies using the old method. 
 

A general point: the rules’ bodies have to establish rules for multiple jurisdictions, they are trying for unification throughout the game. It’s not always possible to find ideal rules for all circumstances we meet. The “ Decisions on the Rules “ are used to modify rules when there’s a need, hence regular changes. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Pastit

[antip]

10 hours ago, Mizunoid said:

The question is is this really an 'advantage' in terms of score - does it make scores lower? I'd argue no.

 

I don't really get your water analogy - let's stick to the scenario from the thread's OP - i don't think anyone can prove strokes are gained from hitting just off path with feet on path to hitting just off path with feet on grass. If it doesn't give an actual quantifiable advantage then a rule preventing it is just a pointless rule, in my opinion of course.

 

Like how someone nicked my ball. I could see where my ball was. I gain no advantage from being able to place it right where it was and hit it. But i had to take a drop. Stupid rule.

There is no penalty if you saw your ball come to rest, you get to "place it right where it was and hit it". And changing this rule would absolutely produce significant advantage that would distort the correct result far more than the occasional unfair outcome. But, clearly, on this issue, I'm on the side of the angels.🙂