The USGA says, "An 'obstruction' is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths ..."

I haven't been able to find out precisely what they mean by "sides of roads and paths." For instance, if there is a large dirt rut at the side of a paved path, and my intended swing would be parallel to the paved area and with my ball well within the hardened dirt rut (with no interfearance from the paved material in the direction I'd be swinging) does that permit relief? Is that dirt, which probably wouldn't be there or bare dirt if not for the existance of the paved path and its run off water, what they mean by "side" of a road or path? Does anyone know if that technically qualifies for relief or where this might be found in the Decisions?

I don't know of any references in the Rules or Decisions to the "sides of roads and paths". I suspect it refers to the side of the path as in the vertical section of the path. In other words, the concrete/asphault that connects the ground to the top of the path. So if your ball was on the ground next to the path and was touching the side of the path, then the ball would be considered to be on the obstruction (I think. I need to consider this some more).

I do not think the rut next to the path would be an obstruction.

The "sides of roads and paths" statement is in the definition of an obstruction. I agree with jjj912, in that it is referring to the raised edge of the road or path (asphalt, concrete, etc.). This stipulation is made in the definition so that you can take relief if the edge (side) of the road/path interferes with your swing or if your ball is resting against it, but not on the road/path. No relief from the rut as you described it.

So what about paths that are just dirt made by cars going over the same spot thousands of times? do you get relief from those?

Generally, the answer is no. However, those areas can be marked as "ground under" or the rules committee may setup a local rule providing relief.

My original question comes from the fact that the USGA's quote says, "An 'obstruction' is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths ..." I find it a bit ambiguous in that it does not say, "An 'obstruction' is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and ARTIFICIAL sides of roads and paths ..." Clearly they could have meant it that way, but they also could have meant that the "natural" side of a path is not a normal condition. I also note that it seems odd to me that they would bother to add "sides of roads and paths" to the definition at all, since if they mean only the artificial material, it seems to me they probably wouldn't feel a need to say the side of that artificial material. For instance, if you tell someone they can't hit the flagstick with a putted ball, you wouldn't feel a need to say "you can't hit the flagstick or the side of the flagstick . . ."

I wish I had a precise reading on this. I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't seem to have come up in the USGA'a FAQ section of the rules given how prevalent cart paths are. I've emailed them, encountered a computer glitch and then called on the phone as suggested on their website, but have gotten no response yet. In the past I've had to wait several weeks for a response to a rules question, so I was hoping someone here might know the definitive answer. Waiting sucks. But so does lack of clarity.

I agree that this could be more clearly written. And, while I never read this definition in the manner you did, I see how confusion could arise. I think there is evidence that the USGA means the vertical sides of the artificial path and not the "natural" sides of the path.

First, the USGA tends to be precise in their language. If you interpret this definition to mean the vertical sides of the path, the application is pretty straight-forward. If you interpret the definition as the "natural" sides of the path, I'm not sure how you would apply that rule. Where would the "natural" side begin and end? So, in my mind if there is a choice to define a rule specifically vs. more open to interpretation, I would tend to apply the rule specifically.

Second, in the definition the first part of the sentance says that the obstruction has to be "artificial". They then go on to attempt to clarify with the "including surfaces, sides...". But, it doesn't read to me as being ambiguous that they would like to include a dirt strip along side the path or some other "natural" condition.

I always interpreted the "sides of the path" to mostly cover curbs. Because without that clarification, my ball could be lying near to a curb, but since it is not necessarily obstructed by the actual surface of the path itself, it could easily be interpreted that I would not get relief.

Obviously, this is just my opinion and not the definitive word, so take it for what it's worth.

I have now heard from the USGA on this, and as you all have expected, they've confirmed that what they mean by sides of roads and paths is "curbing and the like." So, no relief is granted.

I would have posted their entire email response to me, if not for the fact that the response itself states that they prohibit its posting on internet sites. That seems like an odd policy to me. What's the harm in getting the word out? But I suppose that if I'm interested in playing golf by their rules I might as well play internet by their rules too.

What qualifies something to be a man made obstruction? Would a rut that is obiviously the result of golfers on carts going off the path qualify? Does man made obstruction even apply to lies?

The topic got me wondering and I'm honestly just curious.

This area can get a little confusing. Ruts made by golf carts would not be considered an obstruction, although they may be marked as "ground under". Then you would get relief.

Also, earthen steps cut out of the side of a bank, would not be an obstruction. But, if they had wood chips or gravel on them, then you would get relief.

Or, a large rock lying in the rough, no relief (unless your Tiger and have a gallery of folks to move it for you). But, if that same rock is part of a retaining wall, then you would get releif.

What if the ruts are filled with gravel?

By "gravel" I assume that you are talking about stones that have been brought in to line the sides of the paths. The act of bringing them in for that purpose makes the gravel "aritficial" in that regard, and you gain free relief.

If there just happens to be a few indigenous stones in the rut, they are considered natural, and no relief would be granted.