Taking left handed stance to get relief

[Wally Fairway]

Quote:

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.

Very similar situation once, only it was a guy I was playing against.

He hit it right up against a tree, only way he could hit the ball was lefty and that put him standing on the cart path.

He took his drop & hit it right handed and was able to halve the hole....I remember it clearly, however I have no idea how our match ended; must have been 10+ years ago

[turtleback]

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 am not sure I understand what you guys mean by a loophole.  In my experience loophole is just another name for a rule that other guy knew, that the person claiming loophole didn't, that worked out to the first guy's advantage.  Or just a generic name for a result that people didn't like.

[Rulesman]

Loophole

: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.

[turtleback]

Loophole

:an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.

That is basically what I understood a loophole was.  I just do not see it meaning the same thing to people who consider the routine application of the rules in a way that happens to benefit a player as a loophole.  I know the REAL definition of loophole, I was wondering what THEIR definition was, that made these things loopholes to them.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Loophole

:an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.

That is basically what I understood a loophole was.  I just do not see it meaning the same thing to people who consider the routine application of the rules in a way that happens to benefit a player as a loophole.  I know the REAL definition of loophole, I was wondering what THEIR definition was, that made these things loopholes to them.

I think we are splitting hairs.   By the above loop hole definition, I can say that when the rules creator defined loose pediment, they likely omitted some limitation/restriction on what loose pediments can be removed, and by whom.   If the original rule creator can reply to this post to refute that, I will stand corrected.   Otherwise, we are all sharing our opinions that are different from one another.

If anyone here is suggesting that all golf rules have no loop holes, that's going to be impossible to defend.   But that's another thread someone can start and 10 page worth of discussion and disagreement.

[saevel25]

If anyone here is suggesting that all golf rules have no loop holes, that's going to be impossible to defend.   But that's another thread someone can start and 10 page worth of discussion and disagreement.

The rules of golf are probably one of the least ambiguous for sports. There really isn't many loopholes. Basically a loophole to me is a being able to wrongly interpret the intent of a rule, because that rule was not specific enough, to allow for an advantage.

There are some cases were the rules can be inventively applied.

Example being you can deem any ball that has not entered a water hazard as unplayable and drop were you last hit your ball with a one stroke penalty. So if you blast your ball off a green and into a bunker you can deem it unplayable and replay that putt with penalty. Might be more beneficial if you know you suck a bunker shots.

[rkim291968]

The rules of golf are probably one of the least ambiguous for sports. There really isn't many loopholes. Basically a loophole to me is a being able to wrongly interpret the intent of a rule, because that rule was not specific enough, to allow for an advantage.

Then, you and I agree on what the definition of loop hole is in this context.    We may have different interpretation of what the rule writer's "intent" was on specific rules.

[saevel25]

Then, you and I agree on what the definition of loop hole is in this context.    We may have different interpretation of what the rule writer's "intent" was on specific rules.

In the case of the drop from a left handed stance there is no loop hole. The intent with that rule is always to look at each shot as a case by case basis. If where you dropped it gives you a right handed swing then so be it.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Then, you and I agree on what the definition of loop hole is in this context.    We may have different interpretation of what the rule writer's "intent" was on specific rules.

In the case of the drop from a left handed stance there is no loop hole. The intent with that rule is always to look at each shot as a case by case basis. If where you dropped it gives you a right handed swing then so be it.

The rule is not confusing.   But I still doubt if the rule writer's intent was properly interpreted.   If you get a drop based on left handed stance, how do you know if the rule writer didn't intend the golfer to hit left handed after the drop?  WeI'd never know.

[iacas]

The rule is not confusing.   But I still doubt if the rule writer's intent was properly interpreted.   If you get a drop based on left handed stance, how do you know if the rule writer didn't intend the golfer to hit left handed after the drop?  WeI'd never know.

Yes we can… the USGA writes the Rules, and they publish Decisions on them. It's completely knowable.

[Pretzel]

The rule is not confusing.   But I still doubt if the rule writer's intent was properly interpreted.   If you get a drop based on left handed stance, how do you know if the rule writer didn't intend the golfer to hit left handed after the drop?  WeI'd never know.

Yes, we would, because the USGA decides what the intent is and its officials have, on multiple occasions, ruled as such to allow for a right handed swing after taking relief for a left handed one. In the case of my story about relief, the call was made after a USGA official made an identical call at another RMJGT tournament in Oregon.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

The rule is not confusing.   But I still doubt if the rule writer's intent was properly interpreted.   If you get a drop based on left handed stance, how do you know if the rule writer didn't intend the golfer to hit left handed after the drop?  WeI'd never know.

Yes, we would, because the USGA decides what the intent is and its officials have, on multiple occasions, ruled as such to allow for a right handed swing after taking relief for a left handed one. In the case of my story about relief, the call was made after a USGA official made an identical call at another RMJGT tournament in Oregon.

I stand corrected.

[ColinL]

The rule is not confusing.   But I still doubt if the rule writer's intent was properly interpreted.   If you get a drop based on left handed stance, how do you know if the rule writer didn't intend the golfer to hit left handed after the drop?  WeI'd never know.

Of course we know.  The rules writers made it specific in Decision 24b-2b/17

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

I haven't gone back through the thread to look, but I'm sure that Decision must have been cited already.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Then, you and I agree on what the definition of loop hole is in this context.    We may have different interpretation of what the rule writer's "intent" was on specific rules.

In the case of the drop from a left handed stance there is no loop hole. The intent with that rule is always to look at each shot as a case by case basis. If where you dropped it gives you a right handed swing then so be it.

The rule is not confusing.   But I still doubt if the rule writer's intent was properly interpreted.   If you get a drop based on left handed stance, how do you know if the rule writer didn't intend the golfer to hit left handed after the drop?  WeI'd never know.

Believe me, you're wrong about that.  The two entities responsible for maintaining the rules would never allow their intent to be so badly misinterpreted.  The intent is exactly what saevel125 said it is, to take each shot on its own merits, evaluate each stance in the present tense, and not be concerned about what might happen once that specific situation has been resolved under the rules.

By the way, there is not, nor has there ever really been, a "rule writer".  Both the USGA and the R&A; have committees that study the rules and examine real life rulings for problems and inconsistencies.  They hold joint meetings to work out new phrasing and to draft needed modifications.  They have more or less worked together for 100 years, and have been unified in agreeing on the written rules since 1980.

[rkim291968]

Guys, I already said "I stand corrected" 3 posts ago.   Pardon my ignorance on the topic but no need to rub it in after the mea culpa.   I am not being defensive here ... just pointing out that people tend to pile on even after a "surrender."

[Bird E3]

Guys, I already said "I stand corrected" 3 posts ago.   Pardon my ignorance on the topic but no need to rub it in after the mea culpa.   I am not being defensive here ... just pointing out that people tend to pile on even after a "surrender."  :8)

That's what I said. I understood the ruling 30 posts ago, but I hate the rule, and I kept making it known. I still got piled on. Like I said, go into almost any thread on here, and you will find an argument or people bashing each other.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Guys, I already said "I stand corrected" 3 posts ago.   Pardon my ignorance on the topic but no need to rub it in after the mea culpa.   I am not being defensive here ... just pointing out that people tend to pile on even after a "surrender."

That's what I said. I understood the ruling 30 posts ago, but I hate the rule, and I kept making it known. I still got piled on. Like I said, go into almost any thread on here, and you will find an argument or people bashing each other.

The thing is, when a question is asked on a RULES forum, the answer is given according to the rules.  We can't help it if you don't like it, that's how it is.  There is no argument from anyone but you when you are simply disagreeing with facts.  I will sometimes try to explain the logic or fundamental principle behind a contested rule, but I don't see that as arguing, only as attempting to show that there is logic and reason behind what appears to you to be an unreasonable rule or procedure.  If you continue to argue, then you might as well beat your head against the wall, because there won't be an answer that makes you happy.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, right or wrong, but when you ask a rules question, you'll get a rules answer.

[joekelly]

I'd also say that some readers are long behind the latest post so perhaps what feels to you like 'piling on' is only their personal expression and any desire to affect you is not their intent.  But of course, the opposite may be true in a few cases.