Taking left handed stance to get relief

[Dave2512]

Way overthinking it, seriously. It was a series of events that allowed the outcome to be changed. I sense you view it as tantamount to cheating. As mentioned the rules are more than a means to penalize. I see no reason to get hung up on the left hand part.

[Golfingdad]

Nevermind mind the fact that even playing it like Kuchar is playing it in the Instagram picture would also give relief from the drain.

[Asheville]

Many threads in this folder meander along nicely as all of us benefit from the thoughts and insights of others.

Other threads turn sour. Those fail often because of malintent, citing "stupid rules" and cheating players.

[iacas]

"maybe if I knew the rules better Id get more drops." Yea because this scituation where a right handed golfer wants to hit left handed, but his left handed stance enables him to get a drop so he can hit right handed always happens, and isn't worthy of discussion. I'm just an idiot, and I apologize if I thought his intention was to never hit it left handed, but get a free drop because it's the left handed shot was reasonable. Well what's not a reasonable shot, and who decides. Shit,I can talk myself into a lot of shots that seem reasonable that really freaking aren't. But I get it, he had a terrible shot that gets rewarded by a stupid rule, and he doesn't have to play it as it lies. That's golf

You're reading a whole lot into posts that I don't think is there. I think that if people posted with [i]any[/i] sort of tone it may have only been because you seemed to refuse to accept the answers provided. Most rules threads as @Asheville said meander along just fine. People might even disagree but they remain respectful. Let's try that route.

[Ernest Jones]

This is hardly the first time someone has assumed their off-hand stance to obtain relief from an object. If it was a loophole in the eyes of the ROG it would have been closed long ago. It is perfectly acceptable to use the rules to your advantage.

[Fourputt]

This is hardly the first time someone has assumed their off-hand stance to obtain relief from an object. If it was a loophole in the eyes of the ROG it would have been closed long ago. It is perfectly acceptable to use the rules to your advantage.

There are times when playing a shot away from the hole is the most reasonable way to proceed.  If the player's stance then creates an interference situation, and if after taking relief his play can be toward the hole, there is no logical reason to force him to still play away just because that was his best option before taking relief.  There is no difference between this and the OP's case of lefty/righty.

To the OP, the rules are not intended to punish the player.  They exist to define how the game is played, and when the player doesn't play as per the rule, then the rule may penalize him to cancel out any advantage he might have gained by his breach.  At times, a thorough knowledge of the rules can actually put the player in a better situation than his stroke gave him, but only in certain very specific scenarios.  The same good luck/bad luck scenario can result from the stroke itself.  A player may hit a great shot that lands on a sprinkler and bounds through he fairway into the rough and lodges behind a bush.  The next hole he may hit a terrible shot that strikes a tree and deflects back into the fairway.

Luck is all part of the game, and sometimes the rules favor the player by turning a bad break into a better situation.  Most of the time the player is not so fortunate.  This thread shows that.  While the player in the OP got lucky to be close to that obstruction, Matt Kucher was not so fortunate, and the shot he was forced to take put him in position to make a bogey, which ultimately resulted in his missing the cut.  That is just golf, not fair or unfair, just how it works sometimes.

[turtleback]

"maybe if I knew the rules better Id get more drops." Yea because this scituation where a right handed golfer wants to hit left handed, but his left handed stance enables him to get a drop so he can hit right handed always happens, and isn't worthy of discussion. I'm just an idiot, and I apologize if I thought his intention was to never hit it left handed, but get a free drop because it's the left handed shot was reasonable. Well what's not a reasonable shot, and who decides. Shit,I can talk myself into a lot of shots that seem reasonable that really freaking aren't. But I get it, he had a terrible shot that gets rewarded by a stupid rule, and he doesn't have to play it as it lies. That's golf

I said it and it is a true statement.  You did not know the rule in this case.  You are still arguing against it.  Your insistence that intent matters is further evidence.  What would it take to convince you?  Do you need a decision that is exactly on point?

Oh wait, there is one:

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).

People disagreeing with you is not a pissing contest.  Continuing to argue your point after it has been thoroughly contradicted might be, though.  Whining about all the the free drops people get under the rules that you don't seem to get implies that either you are phenomenally unlucky to never get a situation where a free drop might work to your advantage or you are passing up opportunities for free drops through either ignorance of the rules or some kind of purer that pure mindset where you do not take the relief afforded you in the rules.

Your continuing to ridicule the rule, the ruling, and golf itself is why this thread turned ugly.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bird E3

"maybe if I knew the rules better Id get more drops." Yea because this scituation where a right handed golfer wants to hit left handed, but his left handed stance enables him to get a drop so he can hit right handed always happens, and isn't worthy of discussion. I'm just an idiot, and I apologize if I thought his intention was to never hit it left handed, but get a free drop because it's the left handed shot was reasonable. Well what's not a reasonable shot, and who decides. Shit,I can talk myself into a lot of shots that seem reasonable that really freaking aren't. But I get it, he had a terrible shot that gets rewarded by a stupid rule, and he doesn't have to play it as it lies. That's golf

I said it and it is a true statement.  You did not know the rule in this case.  You are still arguing against it.  Your insistence that intent matters is further evidence.  What would it take to convince you?  Do you need a decision that is exactly on point?

Oh wait, there is one:

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 Rule 24-2b(i).

People disagreeing with you is not a pissing contest.  Continuing to argue your point after it has been thoroughly contradicted might be, though.  Whining about all the the free drops people get under the rules that you don't seem to get implies that either you are phenomenally unlucky to never get a situation where a free drop might work to your advantage or you are passing up opportunities for free drops through either ignorance of the rules or some kind of purer that pure mindset where you do not take the relief afforded you in the rules.

Your continuing to ridicule the rule, the ruling, and golf itself is why this thread turned ugly.

The only point that should be stressed is that there must be circumstances which make the abnormal stroke a reasonable play.   Just deciding on the spur of the moment that you want to "practice" your left handed shot is not sufficient reason to be allowed relief.

[turtleback]

The only point that should be stressed is that there must be circumstances which make the abnormal stroke a reasonable play.   Just deciding on the spur of the moment that you want to "practice" your left handed shot is not sufficient reason to be allowed relief.

Yup.  While it didn't involve a left handed stroke, Sergio tried to pull something like this in a Ryder Cup match with Anthony Kim.  As I recall he was trying to argue that a shot backwards, which would put him in the same place as an unplayable lie drop AT BEST, was a reasonable shot and that therefore he was entitled to relief because an immovable obstruction was interfering with his bogus backwards swing.  Kim kind of mocked him and the ref did not give him his ruling.

[rkim291968]

This is hardly the first time someone has assumed their off-hand stance to obtain relief from an object. If it was a loophole in the eyes of the ROG it would have been closed long ago. It is perfectly acceptable to use the rules to your advantage.

I also see it as a loop hole, like the rule which allowed Tiger getting help from spectators to move a huge rock.  The rules will have loopholes, and it's legit for players to take advantage of.   Bird E3, IMO, does not like the loopholes being taken advantage of.

[iacas]

I also see it as a loop hole, like the rule which allowed Tiger getting help from spectators to move a huge rock.  The rules will have loopholes, and it's legit for players to take advantage of.   Bird E3, IMO, does not like the loopholes being taken advantage of.

I don't see it as a loophole.

The Rules of Golf do not concern themselves, except in some very specific cases, with how a player should play the game. Cross handed grips are allowed. Playing a shot lefty is allowed. Tapping in a ball with the back of your putter is allowed. Standing on one leg is allowed (as is kneeling, so long as you don't put a towel down Craig), etc.

So all you have is this:

• It was reasonable for a guy to play a particular stroke given the situation, and he was interfered with by the drain. He gets relief.
• A loose impediment was in the way of a player's stance or swing, and he was able to have the loose impediment removed.

Good on the both of them for knowing the Rules of Golf. I would argue that this knowledge also makes them less likely to inadvertently violate a Rule of Golf at some point, too.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

This is hardly the first time someone has assumed their off-hand stance to obtain relief from an object. If it was a loophole in the eyes of the ROG it would have been closed long ago. It is perfectly acceptable to use the rules to your advantage.

I also see it as a loop hole, like the rule which allowed Tiger getting help from spectators to move a huge rock.  The rules will have loopholes, and it's legit for players to take advantage of.   Bird E3, IMO, does not like the loopholes being taken advantage of.

They aren't loopholes.  A players actions are either within the rules, or they are against the rules.  Sometimes the rules favor the player, sometimes they don't.  That is all there is to it.  No loopholes.

[iacas]

Video shows the Kuchar situation wasn't the same:

It required a lot more touch and was a much shorter shot.

Aaaaaand, there was no sprinkler head nearby.

[Pretzel]

I had a newly identical situation in my most recent tournament. My ball was resting just to the right (and inside) of an out of bounds fence, making a right handed swing impossible. When I took my stance for a left handed swing, however, I was standing on a cart path. Since there was no relief on that side (the left) of the cart path on that hole, I was allowed to take relief on the other side of the path and then proceed to play a right handed swing now that I had room.

[saevel25]

They aren't loopholes.  A players actions are either within the rules, or they are against the rules.  Sometimes the rules favor the player, sometimes they don't.  That is all there is to it.  No loopholes.

I agree. Golf Rules is all about the situation at hand. If that happens to lead to a chain of events that leads to a very good lie or a good break then so be it. If the reasonable shot is left handed then the rules must be taken into consideration with a left handed swing. The guy drops and now he gets to assess that situation based on what is the shot with the ball back in play. I take it as once you lift and drop the ball is taken out of play and then put back into play.

Just to make the point that order of operations to the golf rules. To bring some levity to this thread.

Colsaerts ball flew over the restrooms into the hazard. The restroom is in play so the rules official forced him to drop in the restroom. Then he proceeds to take nearest point of relief from the man made object.

[Pretzel]

I agree. Golf Rules is all about the situation at hand. If that happens to lead to a chain of events that leads to a very good lie or a good break then so be it. If the reasonable shot is left handed then the rules must be taken into consideration with a left handed swing. The guy drops and now he gets to assess that situation based on what is the shot with the ball back in play. I take it as once you lift and drop the ball is taken out of play and then put back into play.  Just to make the point that order of operations to the golf rules. To bring some levity to this thread. Colsaerts ball flew over the restrooms into the hazard. The restroom is in play so the rules official forced him to drop in the restroom. Then he proceeds to take nearest point of relief from the man made object.

I'm really hoping he dropped it in the toilet when he dropped in the restroom (I can't watch the video right now so that may happen in it). If not that would be a massive disappointment, and missed opportunity.

[ColinL]

That was a fun moment, I remember.  But I still don't know why the NPR for the toilet wasn't just the left of it (as you look at the building in the video) in the bushes.  I don't know, however, where the margin of the water hazard was and the referee certainly seemed to be taking a look at the area.

[saevel25]

That was a fun moment, I remember.  But I still cannot understand why the NPR for the toilet wasn't just the left of it (as you look at the building in the video) in the bushes.  I don't know, however, where the margin of the water hazard was.

I believe the bushes are a hazard. So the ball flew over the building which kinda straddles the hazard and in play. So he had to drop inside the building. Then take relief from the building. If he took relief to the left of the building he would be dropping in the hazard.