Golf Rules Discussion

Doug wrote:Patrik

I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement in the post before last.

The npr has to be taken by reference to where the ball lies not from the area of GUR itself. So taking the ball B2, there is only one npr. It is at P2.
P1 and P3 are not nprs for B2.

Hi Doug,

The drawing shows three different ballpositions in a GUR. None of them has an equidistant NPR. Do you agree that P1 is the NPR for B1 and that P3 is the NPR for B3?

Then at last I just banter some with the theses that it actually is one possible ballposition in the GUR that has three equidistant NPRs, despite that decision 25-1b/2 only mentions "two equidistant "nearest points of relief""

Best regards,

Patrik

patkin99 wrote:
Then at last I just banter some with the theses that it actually is one possible ballposition in the GUR that has three equidistant NPRs, despite that decision 25-1b/2 only mentions "two equidistant "nearest points of relief""

Best regards,

Patrik

Yeah yeah, and if the GUR would be a perfect circle with the ball in the centre there might be even more than three

I believe you have got the point by now, do not get tangled with situations that occur once in a 100 years.

Mr Bean – I want to thank you for having taken the time to reply to my message. The reason I mentioned the distance involved from the location of the ball and the NPR is because of the question relating to an arc.
If I were gifted to make a drawing, I would do so because it would be easier to explain; unfortunately it is not the case (not yet, but I am planning to take a course!).
So if you try to image a river making at one point a turn of about 90°. Parallel to this river there is a path which is also turning but a bit more than 90°. Now if a ball comes to rest on the path after the turn and (at least in my case) in order to establish the NPR (in order not to come nearer to the hole) you have to come before the turn of the path you may well end up with a distance of 30 m.
Anyhow it is not very important but I just wanted to emphasize that IMO there is no limit in the distance to establish the NPR.
I hope I am not too wrong – regards.

Hi JMC, I think your scenario can be right, since you will not find the NPR in the hazard. And if you are far away from the hole, the nearest point of relief that is not nearer the hole can be very far from where the ball is on the path. (I´m struggling with not using the a.. word now ) But your NPR can be on the "hole" side of the path, if thats the nearest place where you get full relief not nearer the hole.

Did that make sense?

Best regards,

Patrik

Patrik – yes, of course. Thanks and regards.

As I cant find my own or anyone others attached dokuments, and I were refering to them in one of my older posts, I post them here as imbedded images instead;


John refered to 25-1b/11.5 about the relief from casual water from point B, and from what I understand, we aggre that point Y is irrelevant.



24-2b/9.5 shows that in several steps the "not nearer the hole" restriction applies

patkin99 wrote:Hi again again. I read your post again, John, and I would like to add this about taking relief on the green under 25-1b/10.5; I think that rule 25-1b (iii) is very specific that you shall place the ball on an exact equidistant spot from the hole. Of course you would have to estimate the NPR, but from that spot you can´t choose to place it the slightest way back, maybe because you would get a better lie, then you don´t comply with the rule. But of course, that would be up to every players own ethics.

By the way, John, I understand you are a pilot, right? And you would have problems with geometry? I wouldn´t think so.

Best regards,

Patrik

Hi Patrik,

Ok, now I am confused. Where does it say the ball must be placed on an equidistant spot from the hole? It just say's "nearest point of relief". The definition of NPR does not mention that this spot must be the same distance from the hole as the original position of the ball. As mentioned, as I tried to show in my last post, there could be a chance where more than one NPR could exist.....which is on an arc. But in my example the ARC was in reference to the distance from the ball not the hole. You still must choose the closest spot of relief, regardless of the distance from the hole. The only requirement is that it must not be closer the the hole.

Hi John, I will try to explain how I understand decision 25-1b/10.5, I do think I´m right.

When you take relief on the green, your full relief is including the interference from the line of putt, there is no option to that, and that is a big difference from relief through the green. Your nearest point of relief is then on the outpost of the AGC, not nearer the hole. That can only be one specific point - in the diagrams point 3. If there would be a point, as you say, equidistant from the ball further from the hole where you get full relief for the line to the hole, point 3 wouldn´t be on the outpost. You get me? This maybe is geometry?

And one more thing - if I dare mention it , the NPR under rule 25-1b (iii) can then actually, in rare ocations, only be in two equidistant points, never more. I have mentioned that in an earlier post, maybe that is an source for missunderstanding?

Best regards,

Patrik

A rather simplistic example of when there will be more than one npr I think.
Red ball on a 6" diam blue distance marker (IO) set 2" below fairway level.

The player can make an interference free stroke from anywhere on the black arc.

What, you give us the evil eye?

Thank you Doug, nice painting, and I agree, an infinite number of NPRs.

And one good thing to learn - when the NPR is backwards from the hole, you can drop in one cl in both directions, "one cl from the NPR". Could give you a bigger chance of finding a good lie!

By the way, did anyone see how Leftys ball where lying in the sprinkler near 14:th green last sunday? Could it really have been to the side of the green, when everything else sloped down to the WH? Or, of course, it could have been in that perfect center!

I have seen a player (RH) in the situation above where the blue was a concrete distance post socket (post removed) but the ball was slightly to the left of centre (ie down in the diagram).
He placed his mark correctly (1 npr only) towards the left side side and dropped within the 1cl but on the fairway side (ie up) and could still make a good stroke by reaching over the post socket. This now took a nearby tree out of his line of play.

Yes, why couldn´t he? That is not against the rules, what I can see. And I don´t think that Lefty in any way dropped in a wrong place last sunday, he was by no way further than one cl from a NPR on the "down", left side, of the sprinkler. But if he was at the left side - why bother marking the NPR on the right side and the cl, well short and only on the foregreen? Why bother measuring at all, no NPR would be more than one driver CL to the green anyway. But we all se those pros, they are very careful never to be accused of cheating.

patkin99 wrote:Hi John, I will try to explain how I understand decision 25-1b/10.5, I do think I´m right.

When you take relief on the green, your full relief is including the interference from the line of putt, there is no option to that, and that is a big difference from relief through the green. Your nearest point of relief is then on the outpost of the AGC, not nearer the hole. That can only be one specific point - in the diagrams point 3. If there would be a point, as you say, equidistant from the ball further from the hole where you get full relief for the line to the hole, point 3 wouldn´t be on the outpost. You get me? This maybe is geometry?

And one more thing - if I dare mention it , the NPR under rule 25-1b (iii) can then actually, in rare ocations, only be in two equidistant points, never more. I have mentioned that in an earlier post, maybe that is an source for missunderstanding?

Best regards,

Patrik

Hi Patrik,

Well I agree with the second part, as others are trying to show, there can be two NPRs, but again this means they are equidistant to the original position of the ball, not the pin.

To your first point, there are two differences pertaining to taking relief from a AGC on the green vs. thru the green. One, relief must include line of play, and two once relief is found you place on the NPR instead of dropping within one club length. The decision is trying to illustrate these two points, mainly the former. You must obtain full relief, meaning the point of relief may be off the green when getting line of play relief. At no point are we considering the distance to the pin other than to make sure we never place closer than the balls original position.

For those reading, is my understanding correct?

See what you mean, John, you are right, decision 25-1b/10.5 is there to, as you say, make clear that the NPR must take complete relief also from the line of play. Decision 25-1b/10 makes clear that the NPR can be in the rough (though it´s already made clear in 25-1b (iii)). Rule 25-1b (iii) also makes clear that we shall place the ball - even if we are off green (one of few exempts).

My other conclusion, that you have to be on the point nearest to the ball, not nearer the hole, witch is on the arc from the hole (equsistante from) isn´t made clear anywhere! Excuse me for refering to 10.5 for that, it´s just that I have looked at the diagrams there to understand the consequenses.

The defenition of NPR still regulate the NPR, even when we take relief from AGC on a green. The point on the course where there is no interference from the condition we take relief from must be on a straight line from the hole to the outside of the outpost of the AGC, not nearer the hole. That line will somewhere cross the ARC (oops), a point equidistante the ball to the hole and cross to the hole, else we would be (definition (i)) nearer the hole. That cross is the single point where we would find the NPR, and then it will always be on the arc - from the hole. We absolutely can find points nearer the ball that is not in the AGC, but they are either nearer the hole or not giving us complete relief,

OMG! Never thought of this one before you got me started, John - the line of play is on the green the line of putt - by the definition and decision 16-1e/1 it is adjusted with the break! Why can´t we just "play the ball as it lies, play the course as you find it"...

See if I can get the consequense... thinking out loud... this is really 10 times worse than "arc-ing" and counting equidistane NPRs ...//edited after a Famous Grouse that lets me see clear - there are no consequenses, there will always be a NPR in that direction from the AGC//
Best regards,

Patrik

That line will somewhere cross the ARC (oops), a point equidistante the ball to the hole and cross to the hole, else we would be (definition (i)) nearer the hole.

NB
A point equidistant to the hole is not the same as a ball that is not nearer than the hole.
The npr may not necessarily be on the arc through the ball.
The blue area is GUR

Hi again Doug, if you read again I was refering to the 25-1b (iii), on the green. Then your X isn´t the NPR, you must take relief also to the line of play

I took the freedom to paint som more on your drawing, Doug, showing the NPR when taking relief for line of play on the green

Thanks, I missed that.

And this is my conclusion after 2 FG, though wise enough not posting in that condition...

John is right, since the line of play on the green is the line of putt, decision 16-1e/1, my statement that the NPR under rule 25-1a (green)/25-1b (iii) always are on a equidistant point from the hole, as I say, on the arc of equidistant points from the hole, is not valid. You always has to, though the green as on the green, do as the definition say; find the nearest point on the cource from where the ball lies, where you get total relief, and not is nearer the hole. (//edit new drawing showing different ballpositions)

With respect to all contributors and readers of this thread i think a summary of waht I have learned would be propriate;

When taking relief from an obstruction, abnormal ground condition (AGC) or wrong green;

1) Find out what kind of shot you would have done if the interference from the obstruction, AGC or wrong green wouldn´t have been there.
2) Find the point that is the nearest way out from the interference, the nearest way out includes your stance, where you can make that shot from point 1) without interference, and when you take relief on the green, you also take relief for the line of play, which on the green can be the line of putt. If you take relief in a bunker, you have to find that point in the bunker. If you take relief through the green or on the green, the point shall not be in a hazard, and if it´s through the green, not on a green. And, I should add, that point can absolutely be backwards in the line of play.
3) If that point is nearer the hole than where your ball originally was, find the point nearest from there which is equidistant to the hole from where the ball originally was.
4) Find out if this still is the nearest point out from the interference, there can be an other new point since you had to adjust the point to "not nearer the hole".
5) There can be several equidistant points from where the ball original was that is the nearest point out from the interference - good news - you can choose anyone.
6) You have now found your "nearest point of relief", NPR, the point on the course nearest to where the ball lied, not nearer the hole and, where you can make the stroke you should have done if the shot wouldn´t have been interfeared.
7) If your ball was on the green, place the ball on that point, even if that point are off the green. Your ball is then in play again.
If your ball was through the green (also wrong green) or in a bunker, you shall drop the ball in one clublength from that point, also backwards, as long as it isn´t taking you back to the first interference, but not nearer the hole. And some good news; if your NPR is backwards, and also in some other small object interference, you can drop the ball in one clublength in both directions. Then your ball is in play again.
9) When your ball is in play again, you don´t have to make that shot from point 1). Your new place can offer a new kind of shot.
10) If you then, choosing to make an other shot, are in some other interference, even from the same obstruction or AGC, play the ball as it lies or feel free to start ower again from point 1)

That´s the procedure, anyone wants to argue with Johns and my belief that 99% of all golfers get this wrong from time to time? I had an ambition to make a drawing of this, but when realising all different possibilities of shapes of interference objects, i quit. There is a lot of geometry involved.

So that leads me to an other conclusion - if 99% of all golfers are wrong, which referee would be confident enough to penalize a golfer for playing from the wrong place? Would you?

Best regards from Patrik, now leaving this subject and instead working on, before the soon upcoming golfing season of 2012, getting his shots out from interference.

Surfing the web and came across this video from R&A which was one that earlier made me unsure about the NPR - it´s a educational video about how to take relief. Shona McRae, R&A’s Manager – Rules of Golf, shows Anja Monke, European Ladies Tour Professional, how to take relief from casual water. Why doesn´t they measure backwards? I actually believe the NPR could be there. Are we still sure about this rule?

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amate ... bRuleNum=1

Now I found this great video of Grant Moir, also director Rules of Golf, showing Ladies European Tour professional Jo Mundy how to take relief from a road. They finally does it absolutely correct, but she is about to find a point that is on the same distance from the hole, he has to correct her and show that you has to find the nearest point out from the obstruction. This video actually is the ultimate answer to my doubts that started this thread. Thanks Grant!

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amate ... bRuleNum=2

patkin

With respect, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Your summary is confusing as you have introduced too many concepts at the same time and have included words that do not appear in the rules or decisions. 24-2 and 25-1b say it all and in considerably fewer words than your summary.

I agree that many players get it wrong but that is not because it is difficult but because they haven't actually bothered to read the words or seen the procedure demonstrated. I would suggest that 50% of your 99% (where did that figure come from?) accidentally get it right because they simply drop a ball and it finishes in a legitimate position. Remember, it is not necessary to use the procedure.

When I have demonstrated the procedure in classes or explained to a player on the course, they have easily understood.

Incidentally, in my experience, it is not npr that is the problem for players in general but remembering which club may/must be used when.



"if 99% of all golfers are wrong, which referee would be confident enough to penalize a golfer for playing from the wrong place? Would you?"

A big 'if' but my answer is Yes.
But if I, as a referee saw a player play or about to play from a wrong place and had seen him taking relief, I wouldn't have been doing my job properly.

patkin99 wrote:So that leads me to an other conclusion - if 99% of all golfers are wrong, which referee would be confident enough to penalize a golfer for playing from the wrong place? Would you?

Like Doug, I don't know where the percentage comes from and that's not my experience when I officiate.
If a player has made a wrong judgement and has played the ball and I didn't have the opportunity to stop him, I and hopefully any other Referee will tell the player that they have incurred a penalty under Rule 20-7/the applicable Rule for playing from a wrong place. Any other reaction to a breach of the Rules is wrong.

Noone can disregard Rule 6-1 - not the player, not the Referee.

Will you tell a player, a fellow competitor or even an opponent that playing from a wrong place is OK because the procedure can be tricky?

You know, I didn't realise I had any difficulty working out the NPR when taking relief or when advising another player who wasn't sure of what to do ..... until I read through this thread Have I been missing something in what I thought was a pretty straightforward and commonplace procedure? Probably not. Despite all the diagrams and mathematics of arcs etc., I still reckon it is pretty straightforward. Perhaps what happens in these discussions is that they get fascinatingly academic and theoretical in their own way but in effect mask the essential simplicity of the practical matter on the ground?

So, on the ground, Colin's few steps in establishing NPR for himself or a playing companion are:

1. Leave the ball where it is (unless relief is mandatory) just in case I decide in the end to play the ball as it lies because the "relief" would leave me worse off.
2. Eye up the situation and decide what looks the most likely NPR. Take up stance with the club that would be used and put in a tee where the ball would be (reminding myself that if I am on a wrong putting green I don't get relief for my stance).
3. Stand back and eye up the whole situation again to check whether there is another point or points that might be nearer the ball than where I have just marked.
4. If there is another possibility or other possibilities, repeat the process of taking up my stance with the right club for each one and mark where the ball would be, then step back and choose which one is nearer the ball. That could be measured if need be.
5. Make a final check that my NPR is not nearer the hole, drop a ball (with or without measuring the club length) and check that it does not need to be re-dropped.
6. Play a perfect shot into the heart of the green.

Is it really any more complicated than that? (Apart from achieving the bit about the "perfect shot" )

Hi again,

and Doug, I know I am overdoing this, I shall quit and try to concentrate on all the other rules instead, I think a understand this rule by now. But I don´t think that the pros and rules officials I have refered to earlier in this thread haven´t bothered to read the words. Not even Barry Rhodes, sometimes contribution in this forum, who I hold as a great inspiration on the rules, and in my opinion are one of the most competent on the rules of golf, actually the one who started me thinking about this with his great blog about this nearets point of relief, get this without errors nor in his blog ore in his book "999 questions on the rules of golf".

I do appreciate someone managed to write those rules 24-2, 25-1 and the definition of Nearest Point of Relief in few words, and I agree they say it all, the decisions doesn´t add to the rule, they just clarify the rule, or sometimes, in my opinion, unintentionally bewilder the rule. But I think you have to think a lot about the rule and the consequences in different lies before you understand the rule, and thats why I think that my approach in the summary will help me find the correct NPR easier. But my real conclusion is that I think we deserve an easier rule, if we shall be able to do "what is fair" - it can´t be fair if, as Doug say, 50% get it right just by accident. I say it´s a big chance that thoose who know the rule will have a disadvantage. And I am tired of watching pros waiting for referees everytime they shall take relief, they should know the rule by themselves, or are they just hoping that the referee shall get them a better deal?

I´m glad to hear that you two who are officialls will apply rule 20-7, I hope all players and referees will, but I´m just not confident that there isn´t a lot of playing from wrong places that arent penalized. I´m glad to hear that your experience are different.

You are right, Colin, it´s not more complicated than that, thank you. Maybe just that you problably should check that your NPR isn´t nearer the hole before you take the others away, somone else can then be your nearets point when you adjust to not nearer. The discussion really just started because I, looking at some decisions and examples from my rules course study material and videos of officials at R&A, got insecure about if you had the right not getting further from the hole when taking relief. Now I know you don´t have that right.

patkin99 wrote:it can´t be fair if, as Doug say, 50% get it right just by accident. I say it´s a big chance that those who know the rule will have a disadvantage.

This rule is no different to any other, the player who knows any rule is often likely to be at a disadvantage in relation to a player who doesn't. The player who knows a/the rule will either play correctly or take the penalty if he inadvertently breaches it. Unless a referee is present, the player who does not know the rule may breach it and not record a penalty because he didn't know he had done wrong. The action itself may also give him an advantage (eg pressing down the ground behind the ball).

And I am tired of watching pros waiting for referees everytime they shall take relief, they should know the rule by themselves, or are they just hoping that the referee shall get them a better deal?

No, they ask for the referee to confirm that they get it right. If they get it wrong, it can cost them $$$$s

I´m glad to hear that you two who are officialls will apply rule 20-7, I hope all players and referees will, but I´m just not confident that there isn´t a lot of playing from wrong places that arent penalized. I´m glad to hear that your experience are different.

There are other referees who contribute here and I am sure they will never turn a blind eye to a penalty nor not act to prevent a breach.

The 99% probably started from me and was a little flippant. Point was that the vast majority of golfers that I've witnessed just don't know the procedure, not that 99% don't get a legal drop. I'm exposed mainly to non tournament golf. Dropping one/two club lengths from the inteferece without first determining the NPR is the most common, followed by the assumption that the area to drop can't be by a bush, and is always on the fairway side of the cart path because once you get relief, the term relief becomes all encompassing.

It is true that many golfers wind up with a ball dropped in a correct place by accident. I think that shows that the NPR rule is not so restrictive that it makes it difficult to find a correct place to drop. I will admit, however, that when I first started going to rules class I was surprised by the nuances of this rule. Not difficult to understand but things I never knew.

I've been readinging a lot of the threads and find the discussions although sometimes overly academic.....like this one, can be quite informative. I still can't make my mind up on "the ball on the leaf".