Another Boundary Fence Question

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Why? Because he pointed out that OP was in breach of a Rule?

Just what rule was the pro saying the player breached?

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Now let's say the OPs question was that he took a right handed stance to move the ball back towards the tee box (pretend there are trees in front blocking a forward advancement). Since he is on the path he then follows the procedure for relief and the result is what the OP posted.  Right? He is taking relief for a right handed stroke. Will he take his relief for a shot being played back towards the teeing ground or is he now able to face the hole as relief would give him that opportunity (I believe he takes normal relief) ?

I never thought that in the original post he would have to take relief for how he was planning a shot, but how he intended to hit the relief shot, but it makes sense. In any way, this situation shows how knowing the rules can benefit you even to your partner's chagrin.

The starting point should always be, 'what stroke is reasonable if the obstruction was not there?' If it is reasonable and there is interference the player is permitted to take relief (subject to the Exception in Rule 25 (& 25))

If the LH stroke towards the green was blocked, it would be reasonable for the player to play RH towards the tee if this would get him into a better position.

As there is interference from the path then he may take relief but it must be full relief (for the LH stroke). As there is no room between the path and the OOB for the npr with full relief, then the npr will be on the other side of the path. Probably about 6" from it. The player must drop the ball within 1 cl of the npr. Having dropped the ball in a legal position for the RH stroke, the ball is in play and he is now in a new situation.

This means he can now consider his reasonable options.

1) play LH towards the tee, assuming he is still blocked out or

2) play L or RH towards the fairway or

3) play RH towards the green

If however playing RH towards the green means he has to stand on the path he may now choose whether or not to take new relief from this new interference. If he has a perfect lie he may choose not to.

[ghalfaire]

Just to answer the NPR question: the temporary fence ran for about 275-300 yards down the left side beginning just a few yards forward of tee and was pretty straight, and the cart path paralleled the fence a few feet to the right.  It was clear that regardless of left hand/right hand the NPR was to the right of the cart path, not back toward the tee.  But I guess I should have been more detailed about the lay out.

To answer the question of could I have hit a right handed shot back toward the tee:  I believe the answer is probably but I didn't ever really consider it.  I am not required by the rules to attempt a shot right or left handed, I have the choice.  In this case my choice was to hit left handed toward the green and that was an entirely reasonable choice.  So I wasn't gaming the system, just using the rules (and my left hand abilities) to my advantage which is certainly allowed.

Was the Pro Correct?  Well I'd have to say probably not as he said what I did was per the rules.   But I now know my first relief point, NPR, should have been selected as a left handed golfer which would have been different than the point I selected as NPR since my plan was to hit the second shot right handed after taking relief.

As to my buddy I think he has been reading this dialog and I'll probably hear "I told you so" at our normal Monday round tomorrow (I'm hoping he buys the beer tomorrow).   Problem was we couldn't find an answer on the course from the rules book.  I suppose if this had been a tournament and not just a beer bet I would have played two balls to complete the hole to ensure one was scored within what my friend thought the rule was and one the way I played it (I believe that is allowed by the rules when there is not a referee around).  The irony is neither of us was correct as I was not required to play a second shot left handed as my friend said.  While ignorance isn't an excuse this wasn't a situation I (or my friend) had ever had to deal with before or even thought about. The discussion here would indicate that probably most golfers would not have known without research just what the proper procedure was.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Why? Because he pointed out that OP was in breach of a Rule?

Please ignore my earlier reply to this post.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Now let's say the OPs question was that he took a right handed stance to move the ball back towards the tee box (pretend there are trees in front blocking a forward advancement)...

The starting point should always be, 'what stroke is reasonable if the obstruction was not there?' If it is reasonable and there is interference the player is permitted to take relief (subject to the Exception in Rule 25 (& 25))

If the LH stroke towards the green was blocked, it would be reasonable for the player to play RH towards the tee if this would get him into a better position...

Seems to me that a RH shot back towards the tee is reasonable whether a LH shot is blocked or not, simply because of the degree of difficulty of a LH shot.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Seems to me that a RH shot back towards the tee is reasonable whether a LH shot is blocked or not, simply because of the degree of difficulty of a LH shot.

No doubt.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Seems to me that a RH shot back towards the tee is reasonable whether a LH shot is blocked or not, simply because of the degree of difficulty of a LH shot.

But the LH shot isn't blocked, right? So why are we talking about hitting the ball towards the tee?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Seems to me that a RH shot back towards the tee is reasonable whether a LH shot is blocked or not, simply because of the degree of difficulty of a LH shot.

But the LH shot isn't blocked, right? So why are we talking about hitting the ball towards the tee?

Because, as TourSpoon pointed out, the OP doesn't have to rake relief for a LH shot at all. Since hitting a RH shot (back towards the tee) is a valid option, and since the stance is on the cart path for that shot too, he gets relief and can drop on the other side of the cart path that way. I.e., the LH shot is kind of a red herring in this problem.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Because, as TourSpoon pointed out, the OP doesn't have to rake relief for a LH shot at all. Since hitting a RH shot (back towards the tee) is a valid option, and since the stance is on the cart path for that shot too, he gets relief and can drop on the other side of the cart path that way. I.e., the LH shot is kind of a red herring in this problem.

I agree with posts #20 and #21 and completely disagree that the RH shot is reasonable (or at least "more reasonable" than the LH shot). All he'd have to do with the LH shot is to nudge the ball across the cart path and towards the fairway a little. That's not a difficult shot to pull off and it's perfectly reasonable for the player to play such a shot. It'd put him, what, 30+ yards closer to the green for his third than hitting the ball backwards righty.

I don't think the LH shot is a red herring. I think that it's the most reasonable shot, and the procedure for taking relief should be granted. And then if from the new position a RH shot towards the green was valid, a second drop might be in order.

[Rulesman]

One stroke doesn't have to be more or less unreasonable than another. As long as it is not unnecessarily abnormal he is entitled to play it.

But certainly a LH sidewaysish may be better/easier than a RH backwards. It depends on how much backswing he can get if the OB is a fence or wall and just where the block out trees are.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Because, as TourSpoon pointed out, the OP doesn't have to rake relief for a LH shot at all. Since hitting a RH shot (back towards the tee) is a valid option, and since the stance is on the cart path for that shot too, he gets relief and can drop on the other side of the cart path that way. I.e., the LH shot is kind of a red herring in this problem.

I agree with posts #20 and #21 and completely disagree that the RH shot is reasonable (or at least "more reasonable" than the LH shot). All he'd have to do with the LH shot is to nudge the ball across the cart path and towards the fairway a little. That's not a difficult shot to pull off and it's perfectly reasonable for the player to play such a shot. It'd put him, what, 30+ yards closer to the green for his third than hitting the ball backwards righty.

I don't think the LH shot is a red herring. I think that it's the most reasonable shot, and the procedure for taking relief should be granted. And then if from the new position a RH shot towards the green was valid, a second drop might be in order.

Well, some of us high handicappers need to be a little more conservative with our shot selections, I've whiffed and shanked enough left-handed shots to know better.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Now let's say the OPs question was that he took a right handed stance to move the ball back towards the tee box (pretend there are trees in front blocking a forward advancement). Since he is on the path he then follows the procedure for relief and the result is what the OP posted.  Right? He is taking relief for a right handed stroke. Will he take his relief for a shot being played back towards the teeing ground or is he now able to face the hole as relief would give him that opportunity (I believe he takes normal relief) ?

I never thought that in the original post he would have to take relief for how he was planning a shot, but how he intended to hit the relief shot, but it makes sense. In any way, this situation shows how knowing the rules can benefit you even to your partner's chagrin.

My post had the hypothetical situation of being blocked out for the left hand shot making the backwards punch out a reasonable play.  I was wondering how this example would be interpreted.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

My post had the hypothetical situation of being blocked out for the left hand shot making the backwards punch out a reasonable play.  I was wondering how this example would be interpreted.

If right-handed is a reasonable play you'd get relief for that too.

Whether a shot is blocked can affect the "reasonable-ness" of an attempted stroke, but it doesn't really affect the drop. If the stroke is reasonable, and there's interference, you get a drop. KISS.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by iacas

If right-handed is a reasonable play you'd get relief for that too.

Whether a shot is blocked can affect the "reasonable-ness" of an attempted stroke, but it doesn't really affect the drop. If the stroke is reasonable, and there's interference, you get a drop. KISS.

I totally got that @ post 20 and 21.  I was trying to clear up how the hitting back towards the tee even became an option based on my question in post 19.  I'm all for KISS philosophy.

[DougM]

Not sure why everyone is so concerned about switching? Determine the NPR and base that on standing as a lefty(# 1 below).  Make a legal drop.  NOW FORGET ABOUT BEING LEFT OR RIGHT HANDED as this is a new situation. Play the shot as you choose.

The issue should be :

#1. Is playing the original shot left-handed a reasonable situation, governed by the ability or inability to play it right-handed?  If it was impractical or impossible to play it right-handed then left-handed is 'reasonable'.

#2. If the cart path interferes with your left-handed stance and entitles you to relief, then take your relief.  If you happen to get relief that provides you with sufficient room to play the shot right-handed, then welcome to the 'rub of the green'.

They are rules - not just punishment as sometimes they actually help you.

[golfingal]

Interesting question - it sounds like it's LEGAL but the answer isn't clear for sure to me...

Can't play a RH shot

Set up for a LH shot and get cart path relief

Drop and play it right handed.  (forgetting the 2nd relief complication)

(This is about as marginal as Schwartzel taking cart path relief with an arms stretched out driver because he didn't like the lie - then hitting with a sand wedge after the drop.)

[ghalfaire]

Amen!

Originally Posted by DougM

They are rules - not just punishment as sometimes they actually help you.

[rustyredcab]

IF the play was right handed back toward the tee, would NPR need to be figured as if playing back toward the tee?

I understand once dropped, one can change one's mind about what kind of shot will now be played. My question is, if NPR is based on a shot back toward the tee, it will be close to the path. In this case it might not matter because you are likely to get a second drop. But if the obstruction was such that it did matter, would you need that first drop to be for a back to the tee shot?