Pathway

[marksman007]

In a recent pairs match a guy hit the grass next to a pathway. He could stand find as the path was on the other side of the ball but claimed because of the lie he was just going to pitch it back into the fairway. If he did this he would get a drop as he would have been standing on the path to play, therefor he would have got a drop onto the fairway meaning that he had clear shot to the green. The other partners were adamant this shouldn't happen and after the referee consulted with another group he agreed and it wasn't allowed.

What are your opinions on this? It is cheating in a way but on the other hand it could be seen as "using the rules" Thanks.

[True Blue]

Without looking at the rules and off the top of my head I would say that this IS allowed and that the person in question was using the rules to their advantage.

[JDH]

Can't be 100% sure but I think that's an example of using the rules to help you, and should have been allowed, though it is perhaps a touch against the spirit of the game. seve would have got a drop!

[The Lyth]

In a recent pairs match a guy hit the grass next to a pathway. He could stand find as the path was on the other side of the ball but claimed because of the lie he was just going to pitch it back into the fairway. If he did this he would get a drop as he would have been standing on the path to play, therefor he would have got a drop onto the fairway meaning that he had clear shot to the green. The other partners were adamant this shouldn't happen and after the referee consulted with another group he agreed and it wasn't allowed.

What are your opinions on this? It is cheating in a way but on the other hand it could be seen as "using the rules" Thanks.

He's been watching the Ryder Cup and saw John Paramor tell Sergio the Ruling.
Your guy is correct and got Free Relief by using the Rules to his advantage. That is unless a Local Rules states that "All Paths are integral parts of the course".

[ianbakerfinchrules]

100 percent allowed in the rules of golf and exactly what garcia did in the singles match against anthony kim

[marksman007]

So really I could say I was going to play a shot left hand and still get a free drop?

[True Blue]

So really I could say I was going to play a shot left hand and still get a free drop?

Yep, AFAIK.

[Nick Davis]

So really I could say I was going to play a shot left hand and still get a free drop?

No you couldnt.

Saying you are going to play a left handed shot when it is reasonable that a right handed shot can be played is against the rules. The left handed stroke is deemed "abnormal" and you cant get relief when you decide to play an abnormal stroke when it is feasible that a normal stroke could be played.

The situation in the original post is OK becasue there is no rule which disctates that the golfer must play in a particualr direction....i.e. the golfer doesnt have to hit the ball towards the hole if he doesnt want to! If playing in an unusual direction puts the player in a stance where he can get relief then that is fine and an example of the golfer using the rules to his advantage.

When I get to work i'll look up the appropriate pages in the decisions book for you.

[Nick Davis]

When I get to work i'll look up the appropriate pages in the decisions book for you.

OK....if it is reasonable that you play an abnormal stroke then you can get relief....

Decision 24-2b/17...

Q: A right-handed player's ball is so close to a boundary fence on the left of a hole that the player, in order to play towards the hole, must play left-handed. In playing a left-handed stroke, the player's backswing would be interfered with by an immovable obstruction. Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?

A: The player is entitled to relief since employment of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is necessary in the circumstances – see Exception under Rule 24-2b. The proper procedure is for the player to take relief for a left-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i). The player may then use a normal right-handed swing for his next stroke. If the obstruction interferes with the swing or stance for the right-handed stroke, the player may take relief for the right-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

Note that this does not mean that relief can be taken from the boundary fence itself....only from the obstruction that is encountered when playing left handed. The fence IS NOT an obstruction.

If however playing the left handed stroke is NOT reasonable then no relief can be taken...

Decision 24-2b/18

Q: A right-handed player's ball is in a poor lie. A nearby immovable obstruction would not interfere with a normal right-handed swing but it would interfere with a lefthanded swing. The player says he wishes to play his next stroke left-handed and, since the obstruction would interfere with such a stroke, he is entitled to proceed under Rule 24-2b. May the player invoke Rule 24-2b?

A:No. If the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke is to escape a poor lie, use of an abnormal (lefthanded) stroke is not justifiable and the player is not entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b – see Exception under Rule 24-2b.

and the exception referred to is...

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

[Nick Davis]

I think the circumstance in the OP is covered by decision 13-2/1.5

Q: Decision 13-2/1 clarifies what is meant by a player “fairly taking his stance” and states that a player is not entitled to a normal stance or swing and he must accommodate the situation in which the ball is found. Does the requirement to fairly take a stance restrict the player in the stroke or direction of play he adopts?

A: No. It is a matter for the player to decide on the stroke and direction of play he wishes to adopt and he is entitled to fairly take his stance for that stroke and direction of play.

I would interpret this answer as saying that a player can choose whichever direction we wishes to play his ball in and if he chooses to knock it out sideways and an obstruction interferes with his swing or stance then he can take relief from that obstruction.

In the instance described in the OP the player was perfectly entitled to take relief from the path. Once having taken relief from the path he was then entitled to play in any direction he wanted...i.e. he could happily then play towards the green.

[marksman007]

What if you hit the ball backwards? The stroke is still normal so I take it relief would be granted?

[Nick Davis]

No you would NOT get relief in this instance. I refer you back to the Exception that prevents taking relief under Rule 24 quoted earlier....

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

Now the area of doubt to me is how far you have to aim away from the green for you to be playing in an "un-necessarily abnormal direction".

Knocking out sideways could be deemed OK depending on circumstance but playing backwards without need is not OK.

Now...if youre up against the base of a tree in a position that dictates you can only play backwards and that this direction of play makes you stand on a path then the backwards direction of play is not abnormal and you could take relief from the path (and hence hopefully the tree depending on where the nearest point of relief is!!!).

It does seem to me though that there is some degree of greyness between the decision 13-2/1.5 which seems to indicate a player can play in any direction he wants and is entitled to take his stance to do so, and the exception quoted in Rule 24 which indicates that if the player chooses to play in an abnormal direction he cant take relief from the obstruction.

I'm no rules expert...I just decided to look in the rule and decisions book to see if I could shed light on your issue. You learn a lot by doing such things and its in circumstances like this that you have the ability to learn to use the rules to your advantage. I can allready think of one particular circumstance at my home course where I could use this situation now to my advantage!!!!

[Stu-Pid]

No you would NOT get relief in this instance. I Knocking out sideways could be deemed OK depending on circumstance but playing backwards without need is not OK.

Now...if youre up against the base of a tree in a position that dictates you can only play backwards and that this direction of play makes you stand on a path then the backwards direction of play is not abnormal and you could take relief from the path (and hence hopefully the tree depending on where the nearest point of relief is!!!).

It does seem to me though that there is some degree of greyness between the decision 13-2/1.5 which seems to indicate a player can play in any direction he wants and is entitled to take his stance to do so, and the exception quoted in Rule 24 which indicates that if the player chooses to play in an abnormal direction he cant take relief from the obstruction.

I'm no rules expert...I just decided to look in the rule and decisions book to see if I could shed light on your issue. You learn a lot by doing such things and its in circumstances like this that you have the ability to learn to use the rules to your advantage. I can allready think of one particular circumstance at my home course where I could use this situation now to my advantage!!!!

It's definitely a grey area, but I think that the call should be made based upon the best judgement of your playing partners (as happens with many other rules). If you want to play out 90° sideways but can't due to an immovable obstruction then you should be able to get relief. However, if you could play out 80° or 100° sideways (and still find the fairway) without the obstruction coming into play then I'd say that no relief should be granted, as a 'reasonable' shot is playable. But I wouldn't like to have that 'debate' with someone on the course...

[Foxholer]

No you would NOT get relief in this instance. I refer you back to the Exception that prevents taking relief under Rule 24 quoted earlier....

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

Now the area of doubt to me is how far you have to aim away from the green for you to be playing in an "un-necessarily abnormal direction".

Knocking out sideways could be deemed OK depending on circumstance but playing backwards without need is not OK.

Now...if youre up against the base of a tree in a position that dictates you can only play backwards and that this direction of play makes you stand on a path then the backwards direction of play is not abnormal and you could take relief from the path (and hence hopefully the tree depending on where the nearest point of relief is!!!).
It does seem to me though that there is some degree of greyness between the decision 13-2/1.5 which seems to indicate a player can play in any direction he wants and is entitled to take his stance to do so, and the exception quoted in Rule 24 which indicates that if the player chooses to play in an abnormal direction he cant take relief from the obstruction.

I'm no rules expert...I just decided to look in the rule and decisions book to see if I could shed light on your issue. You learn a lot by doing such things and its in circumstances like this that you have the ability to learn to use the rules to your advantage. I can allready think of one particular circumstance at my home course where I could use this situation now to my advantage!!!!

There's actually another clause - no time to look as I'm off to catch train to Manchester! - that exludes relief for this condition. Something like 'you don't get relief from a 'minor' condition' eg animal scrapings when you are behind a tree!

Ross