[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]

Originally Posted by ajbrown

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ajbrown

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MrMark

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.