Golf Rules Discussion

I was totally unaware of the fact that this rule is from 2000, or if it´s only the definition of NPR that i new - anybody has the writings of the rule before that? I should be wery happy if I could see that.

Patrik

try these links on a rainy day

http://www.ruleshistory.com/
http://www.usgamuseum.com/researchers/usga_segl/

Kind regards quincy

quincy wrote:Patrik

try these links on a rainy day

http://www.ruleshistory.com/
http://www.usgamuseum.com/researchers/usga_segl/

Kind regards quincy

Great, Thanks a lot! You know, since last Saturday, its snow in Stockholm again. I´ll have at least a week before my golfcourse opens again.

quincy wrote:Doug's diagram explains the situation before , in 2000, the condition was added that the ball must be dropped not nearer the hole than the NPR.

quincy

Thanks again for the old rules link, quincy. But when reading the old rule, I don´t know if I can see the difference in the rule from 1996;
25-1b.(i) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies shall be determined which (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference by the condition, and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player shall lift the ball and drop it without penalty within one club-length of the point thus determined on a part of the course which fulfils (a), (b) and (c) above.

Is there any difference from todays rule?

Patrik

1996 ...which (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference by the condition, and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player shall lift the ball and drop it without penalty within one club-length of the point thus determined on a part of the course which fulfils (a), (b) and (c) above.

2000-today The player shall lift the ball and drop it without penalty within one club-length of and NOT NEARER THE HOLE than the nearest point of relief

...not nearer the hole... refers today to the NPR, whereas before it referred to the original lie of the ball. In the diagram in D. 25-1b/11.5 the round point next to Y is nearer the hole than the NPR but not nearer the hole than the original lie. QED.

quincy

Quincy
Are you sure of your interpretation of the old words? Or did the RBs issue an explanation for the change at the time?

If the ball lies through the green, the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies shall be determined which (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference by the condition, and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green.

The player shall lift the ball and drop it without penalty within one club-length of the point thus determined
on a part of the course which fulfils (a), (b) and (c) above.

If that were so, the words in red would be redundant.
My reading is that having identified the npr (first para in bold) and referenced it (second para in bold), the ball drop must satisfy the words in red.

I can see the possible ambiguity and suggest that was the reason for the rewrite.

Doug

during the R&A Referees School (as it was then called) 1999 the point was brought up and Ian Pattinson - then chairman of the R&A Rules Committee - told us that they were aware of a certain gray zone. If my memory serves me right there had been a Ruling on the Tour about whether or not to re-drop when a ball had come to rest nearer the hole than the NPR but not nearer than the original lie of the ball.

You may notice that Rule 20-2c vii b) has been added at the same time, obviously for the same reasons.

quincy

Yesterday I was about to say that I rest my case, that I´m probably the only person in this forum stupid enough to think that this rule are complicated. I am a bit sorry that no other than John really tried to answer my question from the first post of this thread, or understand my doubts and just said “This is the way you shall understand the rule!"

But yesterday I also received a copy of the book "Quick Reference to the Rules of Golf", from what I can se a well respected book spread in more than 50 countries. (says something about me - I have read the decisions from front to back twice, but I still wanted a copy of this one...)

Have a look at this drawing from the book - anyone can find an error? There are more pictures like this taking relief from different kinds of interference. The author is said to be a referee and a lawyer, he should know how to understand words.

So I would like to end my contribution to this thread by asking for the straight answer to my question starting this thread, witch statement are correct?;

A) You have the right to, or shall, stay equidistant to the hole, from were the ball originally lie, when finding the nearest point of relief when taking relief by the rules 24-2b or 25-1b.

B) You shall always find the nearest way out of the interference to the course when finding your nearest point of relief when taking relief by the rules 24-2b or 25-1b. Then you may also agree with me that decision 25-1b may be a bit misleading for some of us, thinking that we should always go left or right, also by saying that there can be two equidistant points. From a square there can be three, from a differently shaped object they can be countless.

The NPR under Rule 24-2b and 25-1b is a straight line from A (position of the ball) to B (the spot where interference ceases to exist) not nearer the hole, and nowhere in those two Rules does it say that spot B must be equidistant from the hole. It could well be many meters further away from the hole.

The sketch above is not correct. The nearest spot should be a straight line from the ball to where interference from stance and stroke ceases to exist.

Hi Pat,
I agree with Johanna. Below is my attempt to explain.

My sketch is for a RH player only.
The correct NPR is at a point(A) directly across from where the ball lay on the cart path (just below the top of the A in your picture). The NPR is not at (B) on the arc struck from the centre of the hole as this point is further than A from where the ball lay on the cartpath.
Note. The arc on your picture is way out of scale.

However, If the hole was directly across the cartpath i.e. on the players' side, indicated by the hole and flag only, the NPR will be a tangent to to the arc struck from the centre of the hole.
Hopefully that helps.

Regards,
Ron.

I agree with Johanna and Ron (as should everyone else). The sketch posted by patkin is incorrect as A is not the nearest point of relief - see Ron's diagram.
The application of this relief rule is simple - proceed as the words in the Rules tell us to do.

Just one last post then, I just have to thank you all for your straight answers, Johanna and RJM, and especially to you Ron, I can se you made a lot of work clarifying this with your drawing. And then I´m finally sure that I can understand this rule, just by the words, and in my view, it´s clearer without decision 25-1b/2. Maybe the decision should be completed with a drawing showing other ballpositions, other directions of play, and without that word "two"? I do think I have proved to you that more people than I can missunderstand this rule.

Best regards,

Patrik

patkin99 wrote:Just one last post then...

I hope that's a promise

Andrew

And just to bug Andrew then, and to get the last word, Point Y in the diagram of decision 25-1b/11.5 are and will alway be irrelevant, when taking relief as though they were one big interference;

Hi Pat,
Correct. The NPR will be taken as indicated by your red horiziontal line and NOT on the arc, indicated as point Y, in the original drawing in the Decision.

Regards,
Ron.

Hi Ron and Patrick,

Point Y in Dec. 25-1b/11.5 IS relevant (albeit in a straight rather than a curved line) if the player first wishes to take relief from the casual water i.e. from X to A and then relief from GUR from A to Y.

Regards, Johanna

Johanna wrote:Hi Ron and Patrick,

Point Y in Dec. 25-1b/11.5 IS relevant (albeit in a straight rather than a curved line) if the player first wishes to take relief from the casual water i.e. from X to A and then relief from GUR from A to Y.

Regards, Johanna

Hi Johanna, no, Y is not relevant, you have to go straight out from A. A is on the arc just because the nearest point out from the casual water is closer to the hole, A is adjusted to (i) not nearer the hole. Going from A to Y would be as incorrect as all my other examples.

Best regards,

Patrik

patkin99 wrote:And just to bug Andrew then, and to get the last word, Point Y in the diagram of decision 25-1b/11.5 are and will alway be irrelevant, when taking relief as though they were one big interference;

Not for the first time in this thread, I am mystified. D25-1b/11.5 quite specifically prohibits taking relief from both AGCs at the same time and explains how to proceed either by taking relief from the water first or from the GUR first. If he starts with relief from the water he arrives at Point A as his NPR and then, from there arrives at a very relevant Point Y as the NPR from the GUR.

Just to be anecdotal, my partner in a foursomes competition last week put his tee shot in a bunker marked GUR. My turn to play so I carefully picked out the NPR (behind the bunker) and could see that the ball when dropped was simply going to roll down the slope back into the bunker. Ah well, it just has to be done, so a drop and a scramble into the bunker to retrieve the ball, a re-drop and a scramble into the bunker to retrieve the ball later, I placed the ball and set about the skilful flop shot that was to arc over the bunker and land with Mickelson-like gentleness beside the hole. Caught it thin of course on the downslope and planted it straight back into the bunker This time the NPR was to the side of the bunker but on a slope and it was obvious the dropped ball was going to roll back into the bunker. Ah well, it just to be done etc etc ..........
Finally, after a drop, a re-drop, a placing, a duff shot, a drop, a re-drop, a placing and a total of 6 scrambles into the bunker to retrieve the ball, my partner clipped the ball neatly on to the green. It was such a palaver that it felt as if we had run up a whole load of strokes, rather than just 3.

The guys waiting on the tee behind us were totally bemused.

Colin

patkin is correct as can be seen if the area is made larger.

The decision diagram is showing Y as on the same arc as A but (making allowance for my drawing skills) the distance from the left hand black line to Y or V is the same.
So as A to Y is greater than A to V. V is the correct npr.

I can see now why patkin is having a problem with the concept of 'equidistant'.
However, as I have said - just stick to the words. I have never felt the need to refer to the diagrams but I have sometimes suggested others do. I will have to be careful in future.

I see the point made about the difference between Y and V on these diagrams, but as a learner I have taken these drawings in the Decisions to be stylised illustrative sketches rather than precise scale drawings. How many of you guys with officiating experience and how many of us in our playing experience have ever come across GUR that is exactly rectangular in shape and set at exactly right angles to the line of play? As RD says, you judge by eye on the ground, don't you, without the benefit (or distraction) of diagrams?

But I was mainly bothered by Pat's saying that "Point Y in the diagram of decision 25-1b/11.5 are and will alway be irrelevant, when taking relief as though they were one big interference" because my understanding was and this seems to be confirmed by that Decision, you must take relief sequentially for each AGC. I'd appreciate help with this.

Yes. Officials and players (if they are aware of them) out on the course use the words.
If a player is not aware of them, a referee will tell him and probably talk him through them.
If a referee is not available the player will do what he thinks he is allowed to do.

Oops.
X in my diagram should have be labelled A
But the same principle applies to X also

Colin L wrote:But I was mainly bothered by Pat's saying that "Point Y in the diagram of decision 25-1b/11.5 are and will alway be irrelevant, when taking relief as though they were one big interference" because my understanding was and this seems to be confirmed by that Decision, you must take relief sequentially for each AGC. I'd appreciate help with this.

Hi Colin, it may be my english language that give you som confusion now and then, I haven´t written this much in english words in my entire life, but I ceep on practise, as you can see.

This is what I ment; I think the decision 25-1b/11.5 is there to clarify, if someone would think that they are entitled to take relief from both conditions in one single act, as if they together were one single big "GUR/Casual water-AGR", they can´t - they have to do that in separate steps, one GUR-relief and one casual water-relief, or the other way around if they prefer. And as I understand your words - thats the way you understand it too.

The author of the decision have put point Y in the original diagram to visualize how that missinformed player would find his NPR when thinking he could treat the two conditions as one big. How could he? The NPR is the straightest way out to the course - it would be my editet ball horizontal to the point X. Did the author of the decision know the words of the rule/definition?

Best regards,

Patrik

Colin L wrote: but as a learner I have taken these drawings in the Decisions to be stylised illustrative sketches rather than precise scale drawings. How many of you guys with officiating experience and how many of us in our playing experience have ever come across GUR that is exactly rectangular in shape and set at exactly right angles to the line of play? As RD says, you judge by eye on the ground, don't you, without the benefit (or distraction) of diagrams?

Hey, where did you get that "Pat" from? No one calls me "Pat" in Sweden! But it is OK if that´s the way you treat "Patriks" in your country

Of course these small distances in these diagrams aren´t big errors, but as you say, they should be "stylised illustrative sketches". They are there to illustrate the rule and the definitions, to unite the understanding of them, or to take away some possible missinterpretations. And to do that, and not introduce new missunderstandings, the should be simple, illustrative and give us all a good understanding of the essence of the rule. If they aren´t correct in the small format, or do give us more possible interpretations, how can we understand them and get it correct in the true, "IRL", format? And as I said in an older post, I also think that the drawings in decision 25-1b/2 is to trivial to let us understand all possible outcomes of the rule.

Best regards,

Patrik

Thanks Patrik or patkin - but not Pat I think I meant to type Patkin but didn't quite make it to the end.
It must be very difficult for those of you for whom English is a second language to discuss the Rules and I am full of admiration. My only other language is French and I doubt if could manage such a discussion in it.

I am relieved that I had not misunderstood the Decision and that it was just a language thing.

Cheers

Colin

I can confirm that the R&A were aware of the error in the 25-1b/11.5 diagram and it will be sorted in any reprint.