Rule I swear I saw implemented on TV

[gobears19]

The other day, a friend and I were playing and I drove my ball into the left rough near the cart path. The ball came to rest about 6 inches to the right of a tree, such that I couldn't hit it right handed without snapping the shaft of my iron on follow through.

So, I turned my club over, and addressed the ball from a left-handed position with the intention of simply punching out into the fairway. However, when I addressed the ball left handed, I was standing on the cart path. I think I saw the same thing happen on TV, and the golfer was aloud to take relief from the cart path, and then address the ball right handed again since the tree was no longer in the way after taking relief from the cart path.

Is this correct? I can see both sides of it.

[zeg]

Yes, that's correct.

There are two parts to the reasoning. First, are you entitled to relief? The only requirement for the stance you take when determining whether you are entitled to relief is that it be in a reasonable line of play given your position. So you wouldn't be able to, e.g., aim off into OB to take relief from a cart path behind the ball that otherwise didn't interfere. In your case, playing left-handed is a completely reasonable stance to take as people do this often, and you're playing in an obviously reasonable direction. So you are entitled to relief, and you must take complete and proper relief given the stance you've chosen.

The next question is whether you must maintain that line of play and stance, and the answer is no. Once you've obtained relief, you are free to start over and determine the best line of play and stance for the shot without regard for the previous lie, stance, etc. If the new position allows you to play right-handed, then play right-handed. Furthermore, if playing right-handed now leads the cart path to obstruct your stance, you are again entitled to relief. Of course, that relief may put you back at your original position since the presence of the tree wouldn't affect the nearest point of relief from the cart path....

(see decisions 24-2b/3 and /4 for further info)

[mcfc_nick]

can you do this just for the sake of it. what i mean is say that you have a bad lie in the rough, no trees or anything just a bad lie but there is a cart path on the other side so you'd be standing on it if you played it left handed, even though there's no reason to play it left handed?

[CG031]

  mcfc_nick said:

can you do this just for the sake of it. what i mean is say that you have a bad lie in the rough, no trees or anything just a bad lie but there is a cart path on the other side so you'd be standing on it if you played it left handed, even though there's no reason to play it left handed?

That's interesting...actually...I do not know the answer to that, I would assume No, but it'd be a nice way out of a bad lie!

[iacas]

  mcfc_nick said:

can you do this just for the sake of it. what i mean is say that you have a bad lie in the rough, no trees or anything just a bad lie but there is a cart path on the other side so you'd be standing on it if you played it left handed, even though there's no reason to play it left handed?

No. You cannot.

[mcfc_nick]

  iacas said:

No. You cannot.

thankyou.

[RC]

Erik is right, you cannot take an opposite side stance for the purpose of gaining relief -- that only works if the shot your have to play would normally require you to swing from a different side. This rule was clarified years ago. There was a time one could elect to play a shot from either side, then take relief and play normally. Now it is not allowed (in the decisions somewhere) unless the normal shot you would play requires you to change sides.