Kevin Na drop on number 18 at the TCP Sunday

[ajbrown]

As the television coverage showed Matt Kutchar eating trail mix, I could not understand why Kevin Na was allowed to drop his ball on the cart path for his second shot on 18 today?

He must have been taking relief from something besides the path, but I wondered what? Anyone know? Seems like a good teaching moment about rules completely missed by the coverage and I was curious if anyone knew what happened.

[gmcneill]

aj: he was taking relief from the curb which affected his stance when he tried to play his second shot. A bit lucky for him that the curb wad there because his original lie was horrible, in the chewed up grass next to a flower bed.

[ajbrown]

Interesting...... I assumed the curb was part of the path. I would not have known that. It was really quite a smart move.

I will have to look that one up in case I ever need it is a big $2 auto press against a buddy :)

Thanks

[Russ_Boston]

Interesting that the curb was not considered part of the path itself.

In other words if he took relief from the curb (being part of the path) then he'd have to take complete relief. As it is he only took relief from the curb and dropped onto the path. The grass behind the path was awful since it was a complete downhill lie and would have been an impossible shot. And the grass on the other side would have been closer to the pin.

Not sure why the curb was not part of the path. Anyone?

[ajbrown]

I could find nothing that states a cart path curb is not part of the path, IMO it is an extension of the path.

A friend emailed me that he heard on The Golf Channel that Na was given relief from an abnormal ground condition caused by the gallery, NOT the path (I have not heard or read this anywhere personally). Relief from that GUR put him on the path with a better lie.

Once the ball was 'in play' on the path, he could have taken a second relief; this time from the path. Looked to me like NPOR (nearest) would have been to the left of the path (looking at green); but Na felt the lie would have been worse.

[Russ_Boston]

Once the ball was 'in play' on the path, he could have taken a second relief; this time from the path. Looked to me like NPOR (nearest) would have been to the left of the path (looking at green); but Na felt the lie would have been worse.

Agree. I wasn't sure, not being there, if left was closer to the pin than the right side (which was too steep).

[PennBF]

For those who follow the rules. Originally, when golf was first played there were only 3 rules. (1) Play the ball as it lies, (2) Play the course as it is and
(3) If you can't do either, do what is fair.
We now have rules books 5 -6 inches thick trying to define these 3 basic
rules. :popcorn:

[billjay23]

As I understand the situation, the curb and the cart path were two different, distinct immoveable obstructions. When he took relief from the first (the curb) he could also have taken relief from the second (the path). He chose to do the former and then chose not to do the latter because the lie on the path was better than what relief from the path would have provided. A claasic example of using knowledge of the rules to your advantage. In these situations, relief is available but the palyer can choose to take or not take relief.

[ajbrown]

As I understand the situation, the curb and the cart path were two different, distinct immoveable obstructions. When he took relief from the first (the curb) he could also have taken relief from the second (the path). He chose to do the former and then chose not to do the latter because the lie on the path was better than what relief from the path would have provided. A claasic example of using knowledge of the rules to your advantage. In these situations, relief is available but the palyer can choose to take or not take relief.

I have bolded the text above which I am not sure is correct. Believe me when I say I am not being argumentative, but would love to see a link or verification that a path and its curb are two seperate obstructions.

In the end it does not mean a hill of beans, but I enjoy chatting about rules and more important the interpretation. Never know when you may be able to get out from behind a tree knowing a rule like this.

[billjay23]

I have bolded the text above which I am not sure is correct. Believe me when I say I am not being argumentative, but would love to see a link or verification that a path and its curb are two seperate obstructions.

In the end it does not mean a hill of beans, but I enjoy chatting about rules and more important the interpretation. Never know when you may be able to get out from behind a tree knowing a rule like this.
I don't know that there is a rule saying that in all cases the curb and path are two separate obsturctions. In this case, I understand that the rules official ruled that they were considered as two obstructions. I don't know whether this was the subject of an existing local rule, something that was in place for this competition or was a rules decision made on the spot.

[Russ_Boston]

For those who follow the rules. Originally, when golf was first played there were only 3 rules. (1) Play the ball as it lies, (2) Play the course as it is and
(3) If you can't do either, do what is fair.
We now have rules books 5 -6 inches thick trying to define these 3 basic
rules. :popcorn:

Hmmm, The rules book I'm holding in my tanned fingers is less than 1/4 inch thick. But I get your point:)

[Mikeod]

Hmmm, The rules book I'm holding in my tanned fingers is less than 1/4 inch thick. But I get your point:)
It is kind of ridiculous that the rule book itself is so small, but the Decisions book is massive.

[MrMark]

As the television coverage showed Matt Kutchar eating trail mix, I could not understand why Kevin Na was allowed to drop his ball on the cart path for his second shot on 18 today?

He must have been taking relief from something besides the path, but I wondered what? Anyone know? Seems like a good teaching moment about rules completely missed by the coverage and I was curious if anyone knew what happened.

No need to be concerned and ask for uninformed opinions on TOTV. That's why the PGA tour has officials who make these decisions. Do you think you or any other responders know the rules better than they do? I doubt it!

[Pturner]

No need to be concerned and ask for uninformed opinions on TOTV. That's why the PGA tour has officials who make these decisions. Do you think you or any other responders know the rules better than they do? I doubt it!

Hi MrMark,
I hear you but the question wasn't whether the PGA tour official made the right decision but from what did Na obtain relief. I saw the play, but didn't hear an explanation of the ruling, nor have I seen one reported. So I wondered the same thing.

BTW, was anyone besides me surprised that when he dropped the ball, from shoulder height as required, that it stayed on the cart path and didn't bounce off?

[Mikeod]

I saw a report that the ground condition where his ball landed had been declared ground under repair by an official prior to his group arriving. So he was getting relief from an unusual ground condition caused by the gallery walking on wet, soft ground.

And yes, PTurner, it was amazing he was able to drop and have the ball stay on the path. Although, if it had rolled off the path, it would have rolled into the rough with a good line through the trees to the green.

[AlbertC]

Since I have waaaaay too much time on my hands some days, I did some research on Na's situation. According to the Rules of Golf, there are nine situations when a dropped ball must be re-dropped.
Included on the list is a ruling that a dropped ball must be re-dropped if it "rolls and comes to rest more than two club-lengths from where it first struck a part of the course." In this situation, the ball "must be placed as near as possible to the spot where it first struck a part of the course when re-dropped."
Most likely, Na, after stepping away several times, eventually dropped and re-dropped the ball, which probably bounced and rolled more than two club-lengths from the point it initially struck the path. He then would have had to place the ball on that spot on the cart path.

[Pturner]

Hi AlbertC,
I understand where you're coming from. When I saw him drop on the cart path, my thought was that it might have been his third drop (the camera wasn't on him at first), and that he had hoped it would roll too far so he could place it. Or that it was his first drop, but that he planned to keep dropping it on the path and let it roll too far. If that was his intent though, you would never know it by his reaction. He seemed not at all surprised that it stayed on the path and seemed perfectly happy to hit it from there.

[Russ_Boston]

Hi AlbertC,
I understand where you're coming from. When I saw him drop on the cart path, my thought was that it might have been his third drop (the camera wasn't on him at first), and that he had hoped it would roll too far so he could place it. Or that it was his first drop, but that he planned to keep dropping it on the path and let it roll too far. If that was his intent though, you would never know it by his reaction. He seemed not at all surprised that it stayed on the path and seemed perfectly happy to hit it from there.

NO - If he was taking relief from the path he wouldn't be dropping on the path. He would need to take complete relief. The re drop thing and then again and then spot it applies to the relief being taken. He was not taking relief from the cart path or he would not have been able to place it on the path.

That is what we were discussing earlier. He had to be taking relief from something OTHER than the path.

[jimbo2012]

How does this sound, an official can define something during the round that was not marked as GUR at the beginning of the round.

Well the ground was tore up by the bystanders, which i believe he can get free relief from because the PGA allows it because its not the original condition of the course or caused by other players (divots), it was damaged by outside forces.

If he were taking relief from the cart path, he must take full relief. If however, he had two conditions, the cart path (which is an obstruction) and GUR, which is an Abnormal Ground Condition, he is not required to take relief from both. He may take relief from one and not the other.

I do not know what actually was talked about with the rules official, but taking relief from an Abnormal Ground Condition (GUR) does allow your Nearest Point of Relief to be on an Obstruction (Cart Path).

It's up to the player whether or not he wants to take relief from the Cart Path after taking relief from the GUR.

The reverse would also be true allowing a player to take relief from a cart path and drop in an Abnormal Ground Condition.


.

[Russ_Boston]

How does this sound, an official can define something during the round that was not marked as GUR at the beginning of the round.

Well the ground was tore up by the bystanders, which i believe he can get free relief from because the PGA allows it because its not the original condition of the course or caused by other players (divots), it was damaged by outside forces.

If he were taking relief from the cart path, he must take full relief. If however, he had two conditions, the cart path (which is an obstruction) and GUR, which is an Abnormal Ground Condition, he is not required to take relief from both. He may take relief from one and not the other.

I do not know what actually was talked about with the rules official, but taking relief from an Abnormal Ground Condition (GUR) does allow your Nearest Point of Relief to be on an Obstruction (Cart Path).

It's up to the player whether or not he wants to take relief from the Cart Path after taking relief from the GUR.

The reverse would also be true allowing a player to take relief from a cart path and drop in an Abnormal Ground Condition.


.

I think you are correct. I have seen this happen a few times.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

For those who follow the rules. Originally, when golf was first played there were only 3 rules. (1) Play the ball as it lies, (2) Play the course as it is and
(3) If you can't do either, do what is fair.
We now have rules books 5 -6 inches thick trying to define these 3 basic
rules. :popcorn:

Well, that's not exactly the way it was. What you have quoted is the basic premise upon which the rules are founded.
An original rule book was found at St Andrews and it contains 13 rules. One of which was that if you felt that your ball was unplayable you could take relief, except that if your opponent felt that you were trying to take the easy way out, he was allowed to try to play your ball and if he was successful in extricating your ball from it's position, any stokes that he took would be added to your score.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Under the rules, an official may declare any part of the course to be GUR or an abnormal ground condition at any time.