If I hit left (opposite handed) and my stance would be on cart path do I get relief?

[jurassic_lawyer]

Last week during a league match a friends opponent tried to make the argument that his best shot at a ball would be left handed. If he were to hit left handed then his stance would be impeded by the cart path. 

 

The ball was located in between a hazard and the cart path. To swing right handed he would have to stand in the swampy tall grass. His opponents let him have free relief, and he dropped it at the point of nearest relief and then hit the ball right handed.

 

We got to arguing this one on the 19th hole, and google really wasn't all that helpful.

1. One guy said fine if he gets free relief then he has to hit it left handed, and he has to have a left handed club in the bag. We all agreed this guy was very very wrong and I'm sure you all will too.

 

2. The second guy argued that you only get free relief from a cart path if it affects your normal swing, and to swing left handed then it isn't his normal swing and he doesn't get relief.

 

3. I argued that you get free relief from a cart path if it affects a normal swing on this particular shot. So in this instance his normal swing, being the only one that was really available was a left handed swing so he does get free relief. And once he drops at the nearest point of relief its a new shot and he can choose to swing right handed if he wants.

 

So who was right?  I still am pretty sure that I am. But like I said google wasn't too informative on this.

[jbil8802]

Here's what I found in the rules book:

 

24-2b/17

Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances

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 making 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 use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is reasonable 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).

 

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction makes the stroke clearly impracticable or ( interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

 

 

Now that I read it again, I'm pretty sure you were correct. If a left handed shot was the most reasonable shot, then he gets relief from the cart path. He's then definitely allowed to hit the shot right handed if he chooses to.

 

Still, it's a bit confusing.

[Undershooter]

I just confused myself reading that Jbil8802 lol. I think you are correct though, he does get relief and can hit it whichever handed he wants. 

 

 

If I hadn't read that I would've thought that the player would get relief but must hit the shot lefty after the drop. Seeing as that is why he wanted relief in the first place. That's obviously not the case though. 

[jurassic_lawyer]

Here's what I found in the rules book:

 

24-2b/17

Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances

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 making 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 use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is reasonable 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).

 

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction makes the stroke clearly impracticable or ( interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

 

 

Now that I read it again, I'm pretty sure you were correct. If a left handed shot was the most reasonable shot, then he gets relief from the cart path. He's then definitely allowed to hit the shot right handed if he chooses to.

 

Still, it's a bit confusing.

 

 

That makes sense. In this instance hitting left handed would not be an abnormal stance. It happens to be one of two options and perhaps the best option for a punch out.

 

 

 

I just confused myself reading that Jbil8802 lol. I think you are correct though, he does get relief and can hit it whichever handed he wants. 

 

 

If I hadn't read that I would've thought that the player would get relief but must hit the shot lefty after the drop. Seeing as that is why he wanted relief in the first place. That's obviously not the case though. 

 

He wasn't just trying to get out of hitting left handed. He was using the rules to get himself out of having to stand on the cart path while swinging. It just so happened in this instance he would've been standing left handed. 

 

Once the ball is dropped at the point of nearest relief it's treated like a new shot. Which means you can use whichever club you want and whatever stance you want.

[jbil8802]

As long as you guys (the guys playing with him) considered it to be a reasonable shot then it's fair game. Theoretically, if it was possible and reasonable for him to chip out backwards and someone wanted to make a big deal out of it then I think that's where things become a bit more vague.

 

Not sure how that would go down.

[jurassic_lawyer]

The whole reason it was made a big deal of was after it was all said and done. The guys team lost the hole anyways one of his opponents while playing in the Minnesota Mid Am a couple years back had a guy try and claim that he was going to hit a shot left handed and wanted free relief. The rules officials told him that he didn't get free relief.

 

That said his story was anectdotal and for all we know the guy could reasonably shoot right handed.

[Undershooter]

He wasn't just trying to get out of hitting left handed. He was using the rules to get himself out of having to stand on the cart path while swinging. It just so happened in this instance he would've been standing left handed. 

 

Once the ball is dropped at the point of nearest relief it's treated like a new shot. Which means you can use whichever club you want and whatever stance you want.

Correct, I understood the context. It is basically figuring out whether the abnormal stroke was under reasonable circumstances to allow relief. Which would be a call for everyone at the time. 

 

I'm gonna have to remember this one. Interesting rule. 

[PlaidJacket]

I'd like to see this submitted to BarryRhodes.com. It's interesting and confusing at the same time. I get it I think but I'd still like to hear from an expert.

[Kor.A.Door]

As I read the rules that JBil posted, it said in the exception it said you cannot get relief for anything other than an immovable object, so if I read that correctly he would not get relief just because he was in the weeds, but if he was to get relief then that was the correct relief accordin to that part of the rule. Interesting to say the least

[Sproutland]

This is like the Jordan Speith ruling a month or so ago. He took relief from a cart path using one club, then took a shorter club after the relief and was standing on the cart path a little.

 

He ultimately wanted to move away from a bush that impeded his backswing and move to a better angle to the green. The rules official said it was fine because it was reasonable to expect that shot before the drop and after the drop he is allowed to play whichever way he deems necessary.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Undershooter]

As I read the rules that JBil posted, it said in the exception it said you cannot get relief for anything other than an immovable object, so if I read that correctly he would not get relief just because he was in the weeds, but if he was to get relief then that was the correct relief accordin to that part of the rule. Interesting to say the least

Isn't the cart path an immovable object?

[Kor.A.Door]

Isn't the cart path an immovable object?

Yes, but the original issue was that a RH stance he was in long grass, and it sounds like that is what he was trying to get relief, so he tirned around and stood in a LH position, which then put his feet on the cart path, and in that case the correct ruling was applied, I am questioning the original stance I guess. Why couldn't he hit he ball from he RH side of the ball.

[EthanSterlingPrice]

Technically he didn't break any rules, he may have used them to get out of a cruddy shot but he didn't break any. The question comes down to a judgement call of if the cart path wasn't there then would he have still attempted the left handed shot. If so then he's in the clear. As far as the relief then right handed stance, as frustrating as it is at that point he is allowed to address the ball however he wants.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Undershooter]

Yes, but the original issue was that a RH stance he was in long grass, and it sounds like that is what he was trying to get relief, so he tirned around and stood in a LH position, which then put his feet on the cart path, and in that case the correct ruling was applied, I am questioning the original stance I guess. Why couldn't he hit he ball from he RH side of the ball.

Ah I see what you are saying. "Swampy tall grass" was how it was described, so maybe he was worried his feet would slip? Or he would get dirty haha

[jurassic_lawyer]

I took a look at this particular spot on the course today. If the ball is where he described it was. He would almost have to hit left handed or take an unplayable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Kor.A.Door]

I took a look at this particular spot on the course today. If the ball is where he described it was. He would almost have to hit left handed or take an unplayable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

That's kinda what I was looking at, but it seems he used the rules to his advantage, if his choices were unplayable, or swing LH the he used the rules, since the LH swing would put his feet on the path, he would get relief, it's a sucky way to take advantage, but good on him for using the rules to his advantage.