Golf Rules Discussion

Once and for all, can someone please explain to me where the reference point of nearest point of relief is situated?
Before I started to take an deeper interest in the rules of golf a few weeks ago, I always thought that when I should take relief I had the right to stay the same distance from the hole, I should stay on the radius from the hole and then pick the nearest point on the course that took me away from the obstruction/abnormal ground condition. When reading the decisions I can find some rules that prove this point; when taking relief on a putting green, 25-1b/10.5, from something intervening on the line of putt, it´s obviously the right procedure. Decision 25-1b/11.5 also indicates with Point Y, that if you could take relief from both conditions in a single procedure, you should have done it on the radius from the hole. And then decision 25-1b/2, trying to strictly interpret the nearest point of relief, says that there can be two equidistant reference points…
But;
The definition of Nearest Point of Relief says that 1) “It is the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies:” – for me, strictly interpreted, that can only be just that, the nearest point, even if it´s backwards to the direction of play. Decision 25-1b/11.5 supports that interpretation with point B. But then, if the ball in the diagrams in decision 25-1b/2 where positioned near the “bottom” of the GUR – wouldn´t the nearest point of relief be backwards in the direction of play? And then there could be three equidistant reference points! The only restriction (i) is that it’s not nearer the hole and of course, (ii), takes the interference away. So if the abnormal ground condition had some other shape like more round, maybe a green, or a hole from a burrowing animal, there could be a lot of equidistant points! But then, there is still some doubt, once again, in decision 25-1b/10.5 diagram X Point 2 and in decision 25-1b/11.5 Point Y, the reference points are on the radius from the hole and not in the nearest point from where the ball lies…
So please help me, is there some praxis on this? What is the right interpretation, which rule isn’t consistent?
//Patrik

I believe the arcs in the diagrams are there just to show the distance line where anything closer to the hole than that line would be an incorrect point. You still have to find the point on arc that is closest to where the ball originally lay and complies with the definition of the NPR. The decisions are still only showing one spot. On rare occasions there can be two equidistant spots, but I don't think that happens that often when strictly applying the definition of NPR.

Am I making sense?

Thanks for the reply, John. Do you say that my first "thesis" is still right, then? You shall find the reference point on the arc closest to where the ball originally lay. And I agree that the arc shows the distance line that does restrict Point A in diagram 25-1b/11.5, and even Point 3 in decision 25-1b/10.5. But then again, point B in decision 25-1b/11.5 is then irrelevant, and you actually should use Point Y as your reference point, taking relief from just the GUR. So my doubt is still there...

Regards, Patrik

Hi Patrik,

Referencing 25-1b/11.5 position B is relevant if the player wished to take relief from the GUR. B is closer to X than Y. Depending on where the ball lays, and the shape of the GUR, the closest point of relief could very well be at a point behind where the ball lay and not on an arc which is referencing distance to a pin. There is only one NPR in 11.5 for the GUR and that is B.

This decision is covering a situation where your ball lays in more than one condition in which the player may take relief from. THe player may take relief from either condition, and then decide if they want relief from the second condition. In our example the player took relief from the GUR first identifying B as the NPR. Once the ball is dropped referencing position B, the player has a new condition which is Casual water. If the player wanted relief he would then determine the NPR from position B. Looking at the diagram it looks like the new position would be directly behind position B.

Now it the player chose to take relief from the casual water first, the NPR would be position A. The player could play after the drop referencing position A or now take relief from the second condition, the GUR. If the player were right handed......actually it looks like even if he were left handed the new NPR would in fact be very close to position Y.

The point of the decision is that if you have multiple interference issues, (I.E GUR and Casual water). You are required to treat them separately. Doesn't matter what order, or even if you take relief from both or not but regardless you have to determine the NPR for the condition you are wanting relief for. If you look at my example you'll see that we found a specific NPR for each interference. The NPR may or may not be on an arc defining the distance from the pin to the ball.

There is an exception to all this see decision 1-4/8.5

Also, decisions 24-2b/3.7 and 24-2b/9.5 have helped me. If you understand those two decisions that should help in understanding where NPR's should be.

Let me know if it's still clear as mud.

Hi again,

Yes, I agree with your first two sections, and i do know that decision 25-1b/11.5 tries to explain handling two conditions. But then you actually agrees with my second "thesis" from my first post - the nearest point of relief is always exactly that, nearest, restricted with that (i),it can´t be nearer the hole. The reference point is only on the arc when that restriction applies.

But if the nearest point of relief is nearest, the nearest point to position A would be straight out from the GUR. Maybe close to position Y in the drawing in decision 25-1b/11.5, but we are talking about the principle here - and my big point with the error in this diagram - Y is not the correct reference point from Point A, and it wouldn´t either be the correct reference point if it was admissible to take relief in one single procedure, as 25-1b/11.5 tries to explain - it should be straight out from Point X, well behind Y. The arc only applies to point A, since the nearest point out from the casual water is closer to the hole.

And if we agree thar the nearest point of relief always is nearest, and not on the arc, if the ball is in the exact center of an perfect circle - there will be a infinitely number of referense points!

best regards,

Patrik

Did you attach an example? That would be great, but I cant find it.

John A – I just would like to add that recently I established my NPR about 30 meters away from where my ball was lying on an IO (path); however not nearer the hole, not on a green and not in a hazard, and nobody said anything. Possibly I played from a wrong place? JMC

Patrik

you are correct and the diagram lacks of precision. The NPR from GUR for point X is not the round point next to Y but rather the exact Position of Y.

quincy

BTW there is a similar error in the diagram in D. 26-1/14

patkin99 wrote:
But if the nearest point of relief is nearest, the nearest point to position A would be straight out from the GUR.

Precisely. Forget all about arcs, in 99,99% cases there is only one Nearest Point of Relief, only one.

patkin99 wrote:
And if we agree thar the nearest point of relief always is nearest, and not on the arc, if the ball is in the exact center of an perfect circle - there will be a infinitely number of referense points!

This would be one of the rarest cases ever

JMC wrote:John A – I just would like to add that recently I established my NPR about 30 meters away from where my ball was lying on an IO (path); however not nearer the hole, not on a green and not in a hazard, and nobody said anything. Possibly I played from a wrong place? JMC

Was you ball on an airport runaway? If not, you may have determined your NPOR incorrectly.

Thank for the replys, I´m getting some confidence back, I´ll use the nearest point from here on. And Mr. Bean, think of a round back of a wrong green or a birds nest, they can make it very difficult to establish the nearest point.

Anyway, I think that if the decision 25-1b/2 is there to take away all doubts about the nearest point of relief, it should be a little less trivial and also clearify 1) if the ball was in the back of the GUR (and ther actually can be three equidistant points) and 2) if the direction of play wasn´t straight ahead, and then would show this thing with nearest point.

I think a lot of golfers, including me until this discussion, always does as stipulated by decision 25-1b/10.5, drop on the arc.

One question. If it says nearest point, why be concerned with an arc?

Apart from the usual problem of players simply trying to tale 1cl relief, I have never encountered a player querying the concept of a point ( or may be another on the far side of a small obstruction or rabbit hole).

patkin99 wrote:Hi again,

But if the nearest point of relief is nearest, the nearest point to position A would be straight out from the GUR. Maybe close to position Y in the drawing in decision 25-1b/11.5, but we are talking about the principle here - and my big point with the error in this diagram - Y is not the correct
best regards,

I think a lot of golfers, including me until this discussion, always does as stipulated by decision 25-1b/10.5, drop on the arc.

Patrik

I see what you're getting at. You are correct and understand the rule. The diagrams are not perfect. 26-1/14 has even a bigger mistake in the new decisions book that makes the associated text confusing.

Actually, I've found that most golfers do not have any idea on how to corrctly determine the NPR........at least here in the states. You are in the 1%

quincy wrote:....
BTW there is a similar error in the diagram in D. 26-1/14

The RB's are aware of it and will change in the next edition - but you may know that already

quincy wrote:
....
BTW there is a similar error in the diagram in D. 26-1/14

The RB's are aware of it and will change in the next edition - but you may know that already

the online version at USGA are updatet

patkin99 - when I say "edition", it's the printed version, of course.

The USGA also has an updated diagram on a peel off sticker if it's a concern and you want to fix your first addition.

Doug wrote:One question. If it says nearest point, why be concerned with an arc?

Apart from the usual problem of players simply trying to tale 1cl relief, I have never encountered a player querying the concept of a point ( or may be another on the far side of a small obstruction or rabbit hole).

The nearest point of relief shall always be a point on the arc equidistant from the hole when you take relief from AGC on a putting green, and when the nearest point on the course from where the ball lies is closer to the hole, the nearest point of relief shall also be a point on the arc.

1 cl relief is from the nearest point of relief. That rule is wery clear explained by decision 25-1b/2. And the cl i actually on the arc and 1 cl backwards...

Patrik

patkin99 wrote:Thank for the replys, I´m getting some confidence back, I´ll use the nearest point from here on. And Mr. Bean, think of a round back of a wrong green or a birds nest, they can make it very difficult to establish the nearest point.

I do not understand what you mean. Why a wrong green or a bird's nest should be any different from the rest of the cases?

I think you are overcomplilcating a simple thing. Remember, shortest distance between two points is a straight line, not an arc nor circle.

patkin99 wrote:

Doug wrote:One question. If it says nearest point, why be concerned with an arc?

Apart from the usual problem of players simply trying to tale 1cl relief, I have never encountered a player querying the concept of a point ( or may be another on the far side of a small obstruction or rabbit hole).

The nearest point of relief shall always be a point on the arc equidistant from the hole when you take relief from AGC on a putting green, and when the nearest point on the course from where the ball lies is closer to the hole, the nearest point of relief shall also be a point on the arc.

At this point you should forget the damn arc, it seems to be a distracting factor.

Your ball is now on point A in a GUR, for example. All you need to do is to measure the shortest distance where you get a complete relief that is not closer to the hole (and not in a hazard, etc.). That point is B. As I wrote before in 99,99% of all cases there is only one point B and no arcs are needed. Furthermore, NPOR is NOT necessarily equidistant from the hole.

You simply cannot choose your NPOR as there normally is only one. So any arc is just misleading you, forget them NOW! They have only been drawn in the Dec pictures to remind people that NPOR cannot be closer to hole than the original place of the ball. Arcs are NOT used to determine NPOR, straight lines are. Always.

patkin99 wrote:The nearest point of relief shall always be a point on the arc equidistant from the hole when you take relief from AGC on a putting green, and when the nearest point on the course from where the ball lies is closer to the hole, the nearest point of relief shall also be a point on the arc.
Patrik

You're clouding the issue with your arc. You cannot ignore the requirement of taking full relief. This constraint will (except in very rare situations) eliminate every point on the arc except the one you must use.

Thank you Patrik and John, there is obviously still a lot one can learn on this board.

quincy

I think I may have inadvertently added to the confusion by using the term NPR on the ARC in the second post in order to make the diagram work. If I'm going to contribute I need to be more careful.

Thank you Mr Bean and Doug for your concern about my doubts - I am now convinced that my first "theses" about finding the NPR on the arc was and always will be wrong, the NPR is, as you say, the shortest distance where you get a complete relief. But I newer said that you can choose a spot on the arc, I say the arc restricts were your NPR should be. The arc is the constrain in the definition, (i) not nearer the hole.

But how can you forget about the arc? The arc equidistant from where the ball originally lies is wery relevant, as I answered Doug earlier today, when you take relief on the green you has no option to find the nearest point of relief that is on that arc. It has to, it can´t be anywere else, thats where you have to place your ball, so it´s a wery specific spot, and you will play from a wrong place if you don´t place it on the arc!

And through the green, almost 50% of your "shortest distance where you get a complete relief", will be closer to the hole, and then you will have to find the NPR on the arc, and you will have to drop the ball in one clublenght from there, otherwise you will also play from the wrong place. And then again, despite you first found the shortest distance, if it was nearer the hole, when you have to adjust getting back to the arc, not closer to the hole, then there can be an other spot that now is closer to were your ball originally lies, and then is your actually NPR.

But get me right, we are talking principles here, I thing I have been in AGC on a green two or three times in my entire golfing life. And through the green? What about 20. But I am that kind of person that likes to be 100% confident that I am right, and thats also why I mention this cirkular green or AGC - isn´t it true that there is a possible (but maybe not that realistic...) spot that can have a endless number of equidistante reference points?

Best regards,

Patrik

As others have said, you need to forget about the arc in determining the nearest point of relief, other than to decide if the potential npr is nearer the hole or not. The nearest point of relief can be further from the hole - Rules 24 and 25 do not specify equidistant from the hole; they do specify not nearer the hole. In other words, the npr is not required to be on the equidistant arc.

dormie1360 wrote:

patkin99 wrote:Hi again,

But if the nearest point of relief is nearest, the nearest point to position A would be straight out from the GUR. Maybe close to position Y in the drawing in decision 25-1b/11.5, but we are talking about the principle here - and my big point with the error in this diagram - Y is not the correct
best regards,

I think a lot of golfers, including me until this discussion, always does as stipulated by decision 25-1b/10.5, drop on the arc.

Patrik

I see what you're getting at. You are correct and understand the rule. The diagrams are not perfect. 26-1/14 has even a bigger mistake in the new decisions book that makes the associated text confusing.

Actually, I've found that most golfers do not have any idea on how to corrctly determine the NPR........at least here in the states. You are in the 1%

Thanks John, and I don´t think we are more enlightened in my contry. Actually I started to get this doubts when I saw a picture of a golfer taking relief in the study material in my first rules course a few weeks ago - the golfer marked a clublenght on the arc from the hole equidistant from where the ball lay on a cart path - not the straight way out. The golfer is a former pro, a pro tournament referee, a member of, and former chairman of, our national rules committe! Guess why I started to get doubts...

Best regards

Patrik

Everybody makes mistakes, but shouldn't make them in determining the npr. It is simple and straightforward.

Hi Patrik,

There are instances where the NPR can coincide with an ARC. 25--1b/10.5 is on an ARC and it's a place the ball. Using that diagram, however, you could, (everyone please don't yell for me for saying this), draw and ARC based on point 1, going thru point 3 and place on that ARC and be slightly behind where point 3 is depicted, and still comply with the rule. Depending on angles it may only be a foot difference, but I dont think anyone would have any heartburn with the place. Your not closer to the hole, you are at the nearest point from your original position, and you no longer have interference from the casual water.

Again, I think you understand the rule. I think most everyone is just saying, for the vast majority of the time, you don't need to visualize an ARC for finding the NPR. It doesn't require a lot of geometry......if it did I'd be in trouble. As long as you understand the NPR needs to be the closest point to the original position that offers relief, which I think you do, your good.

Hi again, everyone, it´s a new day i Stockholm, and it´s just a matter of hours before we can start playing golf again for this season, and the I won´t have time to botter you with this a.. word again - and OK, i drop it from here

I think I understand wat you say, John, about not having to be that exact under rule 25-1b/10.5. Of course you aren´t obliged to measure the NPR, and if anyone would dispute that you played from the right place, they anyway would have to prove where your ball originally were on the green. I think you then should have the benefit of the doubt. But if the player don´t understand the concept of equidistant from the hole, as in 10.5, there would just be a coincidense if he played from the right place, and he wouldn´t be able to proof that he playd from the right place.

I made an attachement with a few diagrams from the decisions that visualise some of the "points" we have discussed in this thread, and in all of them, except the original 25-1b/2, the therm equidistant is vital. I started this thread by asking, if you look at my edited diagram 25-1b/2, if the NPR P3 is correct from B3. Maybe it would be a good wrap up of this thread if all agree that it is. (and then there can be three equidistant reference points from a perfect square AGC... )

Best regards,

Patrik

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

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.