Can you switch dexterity to get relief, then play the shot normally

[jordan2240]

Question arose from a discussion with a golf buddy after he read the 'ask the rules guy' article in one of his Golf magazines.  The example given was a right-handed golfer hit a shot that ended up against a wall, and the only swing he had was left-handed, but swinging left-handed would have required the golfer to stand on the cart path.  In getting relief from the cart path, he would now be able to play the shot right-handed.  According to 'rules guy', he could legally switch back to right-handed.

 

Has anyone ever encountered such a situation?  Seems very odd to me that you could claim a switch in dexterity to get relief, then be able to play the shot with normal dexterity.

 

[antip]

It's uncommon but possible, in limited circumstances. The relevant rule is 16.1a(3), and here's the official additional guidance on the issue:

 

16.1a(3)/2 – Player May Not Use Clearly Unreasonable Stroke to Get Relief from Condition

A player may not use a clearly unreasonably stroke to get relief from an abnormal ground condition. If the player’s stroke is clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, relief under Rule 16.1 is not allowed, and he or she must either play the ball as it lies or take unplayable ball relief.

For example, in the general area, a right-handed player’s ball is in a bad lie. A nearby immovable obstruction would not interfere with the player’s  normal right-handed stroke, but would interfere with a left-handed stroke. The player states that he or she is going to make the next stroke lefthanded and believes that, since the obstruction would interfere with such a stroke, Rule 16.1b allows relief.

However, since the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke is to escape a bad lie by taking relief, use of the left-handed stroke is clearly unreasonable and the player is not allowed to take relief under Rule 16.1b (Rule 16.1a(3)).

The same principles would apply to the use of a clearly unreasonable stance, direction of play or the choice of a club.

[jordan2240]

40 minutes ago, antip said:

It's uncommon but possible, in limited circumstances. The relevant rule is 16.1a(3), and here's the official additional guidance on the issue:

 

16.1a(3)/2 – Player May Not Use Clearly Unreasonable Stroke to Get Relief from Condition

A player may not use a clearly unreasonably stroke to get relief from an abnormal ground condition. If the player’s stroke is clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, relief under Rule 16.1 is not allowed, and he or she must either play the ball as it lies or take unplayable ball relief.

For example, in the general area, a right-handed player’s ball is in a bad lie. A nearby immovable obstruction would not interfere with the player’s  normal right-handed stroke, but would interfere with a left-handed stroke. The player states that he or she is going to make the next stroke lefthanded and believes that, since the obstruction would interfere with such a stroke, Rule 16.1b allows relief.

However, since the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke is to escape a bad lie by taking relief, use of the left-handed stroke is clearly unreasonable and the player is not allowed to take relief under Rule 16.1b (Rule 16.1a(3)).

The same principles would apply to the use of a clearly unreasonable stance, direction of play or the choice of a club.

Thanks for that clarification.  

[MtlJeff]

Incidentally, this exact same situation occurred to me in a tournament and yes i got relief after much consultation....lol

 

My ball came to rest right next to a tree that was right next to a cart path. My only reasonable play was to make a swing right handed (i am a lefty) but to do so put me on the cart path.

 

I took relief and the relief allowed me a lefty swing

[Newby]

6 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

Question arose from a discussion with a golf buddy after he read the 'ask the rules guy' article in one of his Golf magazines.  The example given was a right-handed golfer hit a shot that ended up against a wall, and the only swing he had was left-handed, but swinging left-handed would have required the golfer to stand on the cart path.  In getting relief from the cart path, he would now be able to play the shot right-handed.  According to 'rules guy', he could legally switch back to right-handed.

 

Has anyone ever encountered such a situation?  Seems very odd to me that you could claim a switch in dexterity to get relief, then be able to play the shot with normal dexterity.

 

 

[Socrates]

6 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

Question arose from a discussion with a golf buddy after he read the 'ask the rules guy' article in one of his Golf magazines.  The example given was a right-handed golfer hit a shot that ended up against a wall, and the only swing he had was left-handed, but swinging left-handed would have required the golfer to stand on the cart path.  In getting relief from the cart path, he would now be able to play the shot right-handed.  According to 'rules guy', he could legally switch back to right-handed.

 

Has anyone ever encountered such a situation?  Seems very odd to me that you could claim a switch in dexterity to get relief, then be able to play the shot with normal dexterity.

 

One thing that struck me, was why was there no free relief from a wall (it would be an immovable obstruction)?  The only way is if the wall was part of out of bounds.  If it was part of OB line, then no matter what hand he used, he would get no free relief.

 

Ignoring that ^^, it is permissible to get relief (when free relief might be granted) standing to hit it left handed and then playing right handed after the relief.

[QEight]

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

One thing that struck me, was why was there no free relief from a wall (it would be an immovable obstruction)?  The only way is if the wall was part of out of bounds.  If it was part of OB line, then no matter what hand he used, he would get no free relief.

 

Just to be sure, that in OP case relief from the wall was not seek but from the path. It does not matter what causes him to play wrong handed if it places him on the path and then entitles him a free relief.

[nsxguy]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:47 PM, MtlJeff said:

Incidentally, this exact same situation occurred to me in a tournament and yes i got relief after much consultation....lol

 

My ball came to rest right next to a tree that was right next to a cart path. My only reasonable play was to make a swing right handed (i am a lefty) but to do so put me on the cart path.

 

I took relief and the relief allowed me a lefty swing

 

Just a note, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but as *I* read it - "A player may not use a clearly unreasonably stroke to get relief from an abnormal ground condition"

 

This says to me your relief doesn't have to be because it's the only reasonable play, or even the best(?) choice, but A reasonable direction of play.

 

e.g. If your right-handed stroke headed you right into a lake, that would be an UNreasonable play and you wouldn't have gotten the right-handed relief and then be able to hit lefty.

 

But if you had multiple choices available and A right-handed choice is "reasonable", you get relief even if a "correct"/left-handed shot was "more" reasonable.

[antip]

17 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Just a note, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but as *I* read it - "A player may not use a clearly unreasonably stroke to get relief from an abnormal ground condition"

 

This says to me your relief doesn't have to be because it's the only reasonable play, or even the best(?) choice, but A reasonable direction of play.

 

e.g. If your right-handed stroke headed you right into a lake, that would be an UNreasonable play and you wouldn't have gotten the right-handed relief and then be able to hit lefty.

 

But if you had multiple choices available and A right-handed choice is "reasonable", you get relief even if a "correct"/left-handed shot was "more" reasonable.

I hope they fix that typo in the next version (unreasonablY).

IMO, this is all a bit of a grey zone. The book only provides stark black and white examples and we occasionally have folk say the key is to ask "what stroke would you play in the absence of the abnormal course condition (path, GUR etc)?" But I see nothing published that tells me relief is only restricted to interference with that specific stroke - that any stroke other than that stroke would automatically be "clearly unreasonable". In other words, I'm sympathetic to your argument that there may be more than one "reasonable" play - and it could be that only some of those reasonable plays would have interference.

The challenge is discerning whether any specific play is only being proposed because it will create a relief situation. 

[nsxguy]

27 minutes ago, antip said:

I hope they fix that typo in the next version (unreasonablY).

 

IMO, this is all a bit of a grey zone. The book only provides stark black and white examples and we occasionally have folk say the key is to ask "what stroke would you play in the absence of the abnormal course condition (path, GUR etc)?" But I see nothing published that tells me relief is only restricted to interference with that specific stroke - that any stroke other than that stroke would automatically be "clearly unreasonable". In other words, I'm sympathetic to your argument that there may be more than one "reasonable" play - and it could be that only some of those reasonable plays would have interference.

The challenge is discerning whether any specific play is only being proposed because it will create a relief situation. 

 

Last things first. When one uses words that can be open to interpretation one gets what one gets - not sure they could've worded it different though.

 

And ummmm,,,,,,, errrrr,,,,,,,,, wellllllllll,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, first things last.

 

I copied that from YOUR earlier post. I'm not sure where you copied it from though.

 

This is how it reads on the USGA website

16.1a(3)/2 – Player May Not Use Clearly Unreasonable Stroke to Get Relief from Condition

A player may not use a clearly unreasonable stroke to get relief from an abnormal course condition. If the player’s stroke is clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, relief under Rule 16.1 is not allowed, and he or she must either play the ball as it lies or take unplayable ball relief.

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by nsxguy

[antip]

50 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Last things first. When one uses words that can be open to interpretation one gets what one gets - not sure they could've worded it different though.

 

And ummmm,,,,,,, errrrr,,,,,,,,, wellllllllll,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, first things last.

 

I copied that from YOUR earlier post. I'm not sure where you copied it from though.

 

This is how it reads on the USGA website

16.1a(3)/2 – Player May Not Use Clearly Unreasonable Stroke to Get Relief from Condition

A player may not use a clearly unreasonable stroke to get relief from an abnormal course condition. If the player’s stroke is clearly unreasonable given the circumstances, relief under Rule 16.1 is not allowed, and he or she must either play the ball as it lies or take unplayable ball relief.

 

 

 

Pleased to hear the online version is OK. The print version has the typo, p 224.

[nsxguy]

14 hours ago, antip said:

Pleased to hear the online version is OK. The print version has the typo, p 224.

 

So you typed it word-for-word right from the printed version then.

 

Now that's dedication. Good on ya mate !!! 👍

[antip]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

So you typed it word-for-word right from the printed version then.

 

Now that's dedication. Good on ya mate !!! 👍

I have an electronic version copied into Word from the original online version. If I'd have typed I would have corrected it.

[cardoustie]

I’ve used this relief in an event with a rules official, no issues

 

on a 12” strip of grass hard against a massive blue spruce, only play was lefty which put me on the path

 

got relief , knocked a Wedge on righty … one of my competitors said he was glad to witness it because his understanding was you had to play the shot after relief left handed … ie the same way you sought relief