or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Can a player ever get relief from the opposite hand than he normally plays with?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can a player ever get relief from the opposite hand than he normally plays with? - Page 2

post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

 

No.  Actually quoting the OP's actual question that you were responding to, would make it more clear for folks like myself, that are looking for a clear and concise answer.  This ensures clarity.  Again, the OP asked multiple questions.

 

Question #1: Can a player ever get relief from the opposite hand than he normally plays with? (this is the thread title)

Question #2: If they take relief under this scenario and drop in the fairway to the left of the cart path (like all right handers do) another question that came up was whether they could then change their minds and go ahead and hit the ball from their normal left hand side. (This was the OP's second question)

 

Fourputt, you provided a response.  But it wasn't clear which question you were answering.  The first (the thread tile), the second, or...?

 

Then later on, Rulesman pops on and adds...

 

Which again, doesn't provide clarity.  Because he just makes a statement, but doesn't take into consideration the scenario outlined by the OP.  So there is confusion on what would be the outcome using the scenario outlined by the OP.

 

I'm assuming that Rulesman is answering question #2.  And stating that the LH player could play the ball away from the green.  But using the scenario setup by the OP, the LH would be standing on the path - if he was hitting away from the green.  So the LH would get relief from the cart path.  But he didn't add that.  He just made a statement and ran from the thread.  

 

In my opinion, a half-assed response.

 

The rest of us understood Fourputt and Rulesman. Are you just complaining to complain?

post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville View Post

 

The rest of us understood Fourputt and Rulesman. Are you just complaining to complain?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

Why don't you troll elsewhere?  

I also thought Fourputt and Rulesman answered the OP, did I miss something?

post #21 of 29

OK, I need to jump in to ask a question. I think I understand that in the OP scenario, a LH player can elect to play away from the hole as is his right, and thus get relief from standing on the cart path. He can drop on the fairway side of the path. He now has a stance to play towards the hole, but he is now standing on the cart path. Does he gat another free drop so he is not on the path, or is one drop all he gets?

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfect Slicer View Post

OK, I need to jump in to ask a question. I think I understand that in the OP scenario, a LH player can elect to play away from the hole as is his right, and thus get relief from standing on the cart path. He can drop on the fairway side of the path. He now has a stance to play towards the hole, but he is now standing on the cart path. Does he gat another free drop so he is not on the path, or is one drop all he gets?

Good question Perfect Slicer.  And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about on the first page of this thread, with my frustration of people popping on, adding comments about a ruling, but not walking through the entire process that the player must follow - to be compliant within the rules of the game.

 

So to answer your question, the LH player must take full relief from the cart path.  So he would have to take a 2nd drop, and ensure he took full relief from the path in order to take his normal stance, if in taking his normal stance, he was still standing on the cart path.

 

Again, this is why people need to give better responses... The half ass responses do not give readers, that barely know the rules, the step by step answer.

post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

Since mine was the first reply, quoting would have been redundant and just cluttered the response.  

 

No.  Actually quoting the OP's actual question that you were responding to, would make it more clear for folks like myself, that are looking for a clear and concise answer.  This ensures clarity.  Again, the OP asked multiple questions.

 

Question #1: Can a player ever get relief from the opposite hand than he normally plays with? (this is the thread title)

Question #2: If they take relief under this scenario and drop in the fairway to the left of the cart path (like all right handers do) another question that came up was whether they could then change their minds and go ahead and hit the ball from their normal left hand side. (This was the OP's second question)

 

Fourputt, you provided a response.  But it wasn't clear which question you were answering.  The first (the thread tile), the second, or...?

 

Then later on, Rulesman pops on and adds...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

It may well be that it is reasonable in the circumstances to play LH away from the green.

 

Which again, doesn't provide clarity.  Because he just makes a statement, but doesn't take into consideration the scenario outlined by the OP.  So there is confusion on what would be the outcome using the scenario outlined by the OP.

 

I'm assuming that Rulesman is answering question #2.  And stating that the LH player could play the ball away from the green.  But using the scenario setup by the OP, the LH would be standing on the path - if he was hitting away from the green.  So the LH would get relief from the cart path.  But he didn't add that.  He just made a statement and ran from the thread.  

 

In my opinion, a half-assed response.

 

I answered both questions briefly and concisely - apparently you can't understand plain English.  I said "YES he can take relief if the shot warrants playing from his off hand, and YES that if that results in being able to play normally that's okay too.  What don't you get about that????  Here it is straight from the gospel:

 

 

Quote:

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 Rule24-2b(i). (Revised)

 

Is that better?  Got it now?  And yes, you pissed me off.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfect Slicer View Post

OK, I need to jump in to ask a question. I think I understand that in the OP scenario, a LH player can elect to play away from the hole as is his right, and thus get relief from standing on the cart path. He can drop on the fairway side of the path. He now has a stance to play towards the hole, but he is now standing on the cart path. Does he gat another free drop so he is not on the path, or is one drop all he gets?

 

Yes, He still has the opportunity of taking relief again under the new situation if he so chooses.  He should first take relief for the opposite handed stroke, then if he wished to return to his normal stroke and once again experiences interference, he can then take relief for that.  I hope that's enough for Beachcomber.

post #24 of 29

lol you crazy kids

post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post


P.S. I remember seeing Sergio fudge on the "unusual stance" part one time to try to get relief, and got the rules official to go along with him. I can't remember who he was playing with that day but I remember they were not a happy camper with the ruling.

 

You may be thinking about a Ryder Cup match a few years ago when Sergio was playing Anthony Kim.  But in that instance, Sergio did not get away with it. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102395.html

post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

You may be thinking about a Ryder Cup match a few years ago when Sergio was playing Anthony Kim.  But in that instance, Sergio did not get away with it. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102395.html

I believe that's it. Thanks for correcting me on the ruling that was made.

post #27 of 29

I'd just like to apologize to the OP for slightly derailing his thread.  He asked a legitimate question, received his answers, then I took offense at a later post by a late entrant who, for some reason, was only interested in creating friction.  I don't appreciate being scolded like a misbehaving 5 year old, especially when it's completely unwarranted.  I reacted as most probably would when unjustly accused, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.  

 

I hope that the OP's issue, and the later question from Perfect Slicer have been resolved to their satisfaction.  I am more than happy to offer any further assistance as needed.

post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

I'm assuming that Rulesman is answering question #2.  

You should be more careful in making assumptions.

I wasn't answering any questions, others were doing that already. If I had been, I would have indicated which question. 

 

I was simply making an observation the the player could have chosen to play left handed away from the hole. No more, no less.

 

If I was then asked how that might help I would have explained but neither the OP nor anyone else responded so it would seem everyone understood.  But as it probably relates more to #1 than #2, perhaps not all. 

post #29 of 29

This is what helps me.  Whatever the "thing" (obstruction, GUR, etc.) is the player wants relief from........pretend it's not there.  Block it out of you mind. Then just look at what the player is doing.  Look at his stance, swing, direction of play.  Is he doing something that would be reasonable for that player to do for his next shot.  Whether it's swinging left handed, aiming away from the green, whatever.  Does it make sense what he's doing.  If so, then bring the "thing" back into the picture.  Is it interfering under the applicable rule?  If so the player may take relief.

 

If relief is granted and the  the ball is dropped it's a NEW situation.  Start all over doing the above.  The direction, which hand he uses, etc. may be different now but that's fine.  Again, pretend the "thing" is not there.  Is what he's doing seem reasonable for his next stroke.

 

I was there with the Sergio incident.  He was taking a wide stance and bracing his foot against the steps.  Might have been reasonable to do that with the steps there but that's not how it works.  Pretend the steps aren't there.  Sergio would not have had his foot stuck out that far.  It was the correct call.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Can a player ever get relief from the opposite hand than he normally plays with?