Help with Nearest Point of Relief (cart path)

[Gary Hill]

He may then (reasonably) make an unusual stroke at the ball left handed

How did you rule that it is reasonable to make a left handed stroke after he has dropped the ball on the 6" strip?

Does the player have a full swing?
Does the player have a 3/4 swing?
Does the player have a 1/2 swing?
Does the player have 1/4 swing?

It the cart path were not there, would it be more reasonable for the player to chip right handed sideways towards the fairway?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

The one thing that I do know and posted 80 something posts ago:

"You CANNOT "choose" to play right-handed back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF."

[Kilroy]

Does the player have a full swing?
Does the player have a 3/4 swing?
Does the player have a 1/2 swing?
Does the player have 1/4 swing?

No to all. My feey are 10" long barefoot. I cannot get any kind of a swing on a ball that is between my feet. I do not think you'd have to be there to reach that conclusion from the given situation.

So the player has a ball between his feet, and back against an OB fence when trying to shoot right handed to the green. Therefore it would be reasonable to face the fence and shoot left handed toward the green (as described, not back towards the tee).

It the cart path were not there, would it be more reasonable for the player to chip right handed sideways towards the fairway?

I don't see how that fits with the original question, it's the FENCE that inhibits the right hand swing to the hole after the drop, not the path.
This stance is not taken to get relief from the path but to hit the ball towards the hole the only way possible.
However, as a result of the reasonable use of an unusual stroke, the player is standing on the path and entitled to relief from the path for a second time.
Under those circumstances is that not correct?

[Gary Hill]

as a result of the reasonable use of an unusual stroke

Where did you get the ruling that this would be a reasonable use of an unusual stroke?

[Kilroy]

Never mind. Just going in circles for some time now.

[AAA]

Where did you get the ruling that this would be a reasonable use of an unusual stroke?

Isn't this what the exception to 24-2b allows?

he is not making use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play (by playing lefthanded) and he has no interference from any anything other than an immovable obstruction (the path).

[Colby]

Doesn't the person at least have to have a reasonable chance to swing left handed? I doubt that I could hit the ball turning a club over and hitting it left-handed. Therefore, I would just be using the stance to get a drop from the cart path.

[Kilroy]

Didn't say the resulting shot would be pretty (unless you're a god like player in one of thiose nasty bunkers at StAndrews). It is reasonable. People do it all the time when the only other option is an unplayable.

[Colby]

I don't know. I would almost take the chance at an unplayable rather than try a really un-natural swing. If you miss, it's a stroke anyways. It's something that you might want to practice, just in case.

[Gary Hill]

Didn't say the resulting shot would be pretty (unless you're a god like player in one of thiose nasty bunkers at StAndrews). It is reasonable. People do it all the time when the only other option is an unplayable.

Now we are getting at the crux of the answer.

You say it IS reasonable. I am not so sure.

It may be reasonable for Tiger Woods.
It may not be reasonable for a 40 handicap.

The answer is:
You do not get to determine if it is reasonable.
I do.

And in this thread, it is impossible for me to do that using x's on a stick picture.

[AAA]

You do not get to determine if it is reasonable.
I do.

As an ex-professional tennis coach, playing 'a two-handed backhand' with any implement is not a problem. I can certainly hit with my putter backhanded 50 yards or more. I reckon that is reasonable.

However, does the 'I' in the quote mean 'I, Gary Hill' or 'I, a Rules Official' ?

[Kilroy]

I thought the rules were the same for all levels of players, 40+ or scratch.

OK. I don't get to make that call, only a rules official or commitee can. How can I proceed when there is no official or committee around to make that call? Does my fc, who thinks I could not make that shot (Colby) get to say "no way"?

[Colby]

I thought the rules were the same for all levels of players, 40+ or scratch.

OK. I don't get to make that call, only a rules official or commitee can. How can I proceed when there is no official or committee around to make that call? Does my fc, who thinks I could not make that shot (Colby) get to say "no way"?

Ahh, that's where you get to play two balls and let the committee decide!

[Colby]

As an ex-professional tennis coach, playing 'a two-handed backhand' with any implement is not a problem. I can certainly hit with my putter backhanded 50 yards or more. I reckon that is reasonable. However, if you determine that it is not, it's your ball - take it home and we'll play another game.

What's reasonable for you may not be for someone else. I play to a 10.x index, but if I tried to swing lefthanded, I would probably hurt myself. I can stand backwards next to the ball and hit it backwards using my right arm as a back and forth pendulum (I've used that when I've been next to trees) and I can comfortably use that swing to hit the ball. Just don't ask me to try and hit lefthanded.

So if I were to take a left handed stance to address the ball and I was on the cart path, it would be an abnormal stance for me. The backward stance, if I was on the cart path, would not be an abnormal stance given the shot.

[Kilroy]

I play to a 10.x index

I thought you had an RCGA hcp factor

[Colby]

I thought you had an RCGA hcp factor

Yes, according to the handicap manual, page 8 of the one I am holding, it is indeed handicap factor. The stupid software calls it an index, as GStat is US Based and the USGA calls it a Handicap Index, and I'm stuck calling it that.

And I'm not gonna let you play lefthanded

[Kilroy]

Hehehe

[Gary Hill]

However, does the 'I' in the quote mean 'I, Gary Hill' or 'I, a Rules Official' ?

I as in Rules Official

[Gary Hill]

I thought you had an RCGA hcp factor

The U.S.G.A. has chosen to copyright "Handicap Index".
The R.C.G.A. has chosen to copyright "Handicap Factor".

[Gary Hill]

Does my fc, who thinks I could not make that shot (Colby) get to say "no way"?

A fellow-competitor is an outside agency.

A fellow-competitor doesn't get determine ANYTHING about the way you play.

[el tigre]

Doesn't the person at least have to have a reasonable chance to swing left handed? I doubt that I could hit the ball turning a club over and hitting it left-handed. Therefore, I would just be using the stance to get a drop from the cart path.

Colby, if you were trying a left-handed swing with any other club except a blade or mallet-style putter then I would agree with you. But if you have the right kind of putter, you would be surprised at how well you could hit a left-handed recovery shot with it. I play this shot at least 2-3 times a year when my ball is on the wrong side of a tree or other obstruction. It is not pretty, but it works. Don't believe me - try it yourself.

[Colby]

Colby, if you were trying a left-handed swing with any other club except a blade or mallet-style putter then I would agree with you. But if you have the right kind of putter, you would be surprised at how well you could hit a left-handed recovery shot with it. I play this shot at least 2-3 times a year when my ball is on the wrong side of a tree or other obstruction. It is not pretty, but it works. Don't believe me - try it yourself.

I can't do it with my putter, but turning the club toe down and hitting it lefthanded works too. You just need some practice. I've always used the method I learned from the Pelz books, holding the club in your right hand and holding onto your right shoulder with the left hand, stand backwards to your target line and use your right arm and club in a pendulum stroke, straight forward and straight backwards. I've used this quite successfully.

[AAA]

I as in Rules Official

A two part extension to the question if I may.

1) If the RO judges the LH stroke to be reasonable and the NPR for that is a couple of inches to the right of the path, can the player then claim relief from the path again for his now preferred right handed stroke?

2) The RO judges the LH stroke to be unreasonable can the player play two balls under Rule 3-3
i) playing LH as it lies and ii) taking relief - then ask the committee to rule?

[spidey]

2) The RO judges the LH stroke to be unreasonable can the player play two balls under Rule 3-3
i) playing LH as it lies and ii) taking relief - then ask the committee to rule?

The RO is the final say. There is no appeal of a decision. A decision is final. The RO represents the committee on the course.

You can only play two balls if there is no RO to make a ruling.

[Hogeboom]

A two part extension to the question if I may.

1) If the RO judges the LH stroke to be reasonable and the NPR for that is a couple of inches to the right of the path, can the player then claim relief from the path again for his now preferred right handed stroke?

Yes, based on Decision 24-2b/9.5.

[Hogeboom]

The one thing that I do know and posted 80 something posts ago:

"You CANNOT "choose" to play right-handed back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF."

This is a matter of semantics, really. How would a Rules Official know if a player was playing a shot solely to get relief? For example, let's look at Decision 24-2b/9.5 more closely:



The player's ball lies at Point C. He decides that he can't play towards the green (due to the tree), so he CHOOSES to play a sideways shot -- and as a result, the cart path interferes with his stance. So, he gets a free drop at Point D.

So the question is: how could the Rules Official possibly know whether or not the player was choosing to play back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF?

Are Rules Officials mind readers? And, would the ruling be different depending on whether or not the Rules Official was easygoing or a stick-in-the-mud? That seems very un-golf-like to me.

(Personally, I'd rather try blasting a shot through the branches of the tree, but that's just me. )

[1dash1]

Are Rules Officials mind readers? And, would the ruling be different depending on whether or not the Rules Official was easygoing or a stick-in-the-mud? That seems very un-golf-like to me.

(Personally, I'd rather try blasting a shot through the branches of the tree, but that's just me. )

In my opinion, Rules Officials who set out trying to be mind readers are headed down the wrong path. Most rules do not require discerning the intent of the player.

In the case at hand, the Rules Official merely needs to ask the player what shot he intended to play. The shot either is or is not an unnecessarily abnormal direction of play under the circumstances.*

The player's motivation is irrelevant, unless the Rules Official chooses to make it an issue - with the aim of catching the player making false statements. I humbly suggest that such witch hunts do great harm by setting the Committee up as policemen of the game.

It is far better that scoundrels get by with a few violations, than to change the presumption that players play the game with integrity and that they are expected to police themselves!



* - Yes, there is some variability among different Rules Officials as to whether a shot is unnecessarily abnormal.

Whereas you find this "very un-golflike", I find it profoundly "golflike". Golf is not a game of perfect. It is a game that is extraordinarily flexible to meet the challenges of different people, doing remarkably dissimilar things, in a variety of venues. Inherent in the flexibility is some give and take.

Make the game rigid, make it absolutely the same, and you've got bowling.

================================================== =======

P.S.

And it is very "golflike" that the ruling bodies serve to temper the extremes of what Committees interpret as unnecessarily abnormal through:

• Consideration and publication of the compendium of guidance rulings called The Decisions on the Rules of Golf.
• Providing education programs for all golfers.
• Providing training programs for Committees and Rules Officials/Referees.
• Providing oversight over rulings through local, regional and national offices.
• Sponsoring national competitions which provide a model for how golf should be played.

The ruling bodies serve a vital function in assisting everyone to stay on the straight and narrow path.

[powerlefty]

Colby, if you were trying a left-handed swing with any other club except a blade or mallet-style putter then I would agree with you. But if you have the right kind of putter, you would be surprised at how well you could hit a left-handed recovery shot with it. I play this shot at least 2-3 times a year when my ball is on the wrong side of a tree or other obstruction. It is not pretty, but it works. Don't believe me - try it yourself.

I am a 11.x factor lefthanded player. I practice occasionally flipping my 7-iron on end and hitting right handed shots using the toe of the blade. I have been doing this for about 30 years since reading it in one of those Jack Nicklaus golf tips. I find I play this shot a few times per year (I have occasional adventures close to trees ). I can hit the ball 80 +/- 30 yards with probably a +/- 25 yard lateral dispersion.

I would say that playing righthanded in this manner for me is not an unusual stance if I am prohibited from a left handed swing due to some obstruction. It would be unusual for me if I could play the ball forward lefthanded and was taking the righthanded stance just to get relief.

I always thought the "unusual" bit was to prevent someone from pulling out a driver and taking a stance to hit a ball 100 yards out of 4" deep rough just so your feet end up on a path so you get relief. In that case it would be unusual because not even Tiger does that.

[Hogeboom]

In my opinion, Rules Officials who set out trying to be mind readers are headed down the wrong path. Most rules do not require discerning the intent of the player.

I guess that's kind of my point. The statement that "You CANNOT "choose" to play right-handed back towards the tee box IN ORDER TO GET RELIEF." practically requires a Rules Official to be a mind reader -- in some situations, at least. For example, there's no way a Rules Official could possibly know the true intentions of the player in Decision 24-2b/9.5.

That player could very well be playing that shot 'in order to get relief' -- but no one would ever know unless A] the player himself said so, or B] a Rules Official could magically read that player's mind.

What I find "un-golf-like" is the very notion that a Rules Official would have the gall to tell me that he knew my motivation better than I did.

Golf is a sport based on honor and self-regulation, where many of the rulings are determined by a player's own statements (e.g., was that a practice swing or not?). If a player honestly believes that a left-handed stroke is his best option, then he should be allowed to take it -- no matter if he is a novice or a professional.

[1dash1]

Hogeboom:

You misunderstand.

- Nowhere in this process does the Rules Official tell you what your motivation is.

- Instead, as you pointed out in your last paragraph, the player is bound by his own integrity NOT TO CHOOSE an abnormal shot solely for the purpose of manufacturing interference from an Immovable Obstruction. I believe this is what Gary alluded to earlier.

Please also note that what the person honestly believes is only important if the Committee is investigating whether he is cheating (DQ under Rule 33-7). Otherwise, the Committee will take in good faith that whatever the player says is what the player means - but that does not mean that he is entitled to relief.

The player is entitled to relief only if the player's shot is not unnecessarily abnormal under the circumstances and there is interference as defined by the rules. It does not require a mind reader to evaluate this.

:groupwave :multi :multi

[Hogeboom]

Hogeboom:
- Nowhere in this process does the Rules Official tell you what your motivation is.

- Instead, as you pointed out in your last paragraph, the player is bound by his own integrity NOT TO CHOOSE an abnormal shot solely for the purpose of manufacturing interference from an Immovable Obstruction. I believe this is what Gary alluded to earlier.

If so, then why mention it at all since it clearly did not apply to my situation? At no point did I say I was choosing an abnormal shot solely to manufacture interference. I chose that shot because I believed it gave me the greatest chance of advancing the ball forward.

Gary's posts (#13 and #9) seemingly make no distinction between abnormal shots which are chosen solely to create interference, and abnormal shots (e.g., like mine, or the one in Decision 24-2b/9.5) which are not. If so, this (seemingly) contradicts what the USGA has written in past decisions.

I would still like to see an explanation (from anyone) why my situation differs from the situations in Decisions 24-2b/17 and 24-2b/9.5.