When is it "reasonable" to play opposite handed?

[cmagnusson]

Was playing this past Sunday with my father and a couple other old timers. Dad and I are both lefties, he pulls a tee shot just a bit and ends up right on the edge of the bush on the right side of the hole. There is only about 2 feet of rough between the cart path and the bush line.

I told him to take relief to the other side of the cart path, since it would be reasonable to play the shot right handed rather than backing himself into the bush and having all the foliage interfering with his backswing and follow-through, and in accordance with Interpretation 16.1a(3)/1 that puts his stance onto the path and grants him relief to the other side. (Both the path and bush line are straight and parallel, so even in the relief situation there would be nowhere going backwards that would afford relief on the right side of the path that would allow for a left handed swing to reasonably occur).

He was of the opinion that as long as he is physically able to make a swing with his dominant stroke, no matter how impeded it is, that it cannot be reasonable to play opposite handed when doing so for the sole purpose of then getting relief. 

I was pretty sure I once read that the reasonableness should be determined without regard to the path (or any obstruction) being present at all and this is actually two decisions rather than one that leads to the relief, but I can't seem to find that.


Which of us is correct? 

(this was only the second most interesting rules situation that came up, I put a ball a foot into the bush on another hole and when moving some loose impediments I discovered my ball was on top of another ball. After taking my 1 club relief, which thankfully got me out the bush, we found based on the markings that the other ball actually belonged to one of my fellow competitors, but it would have been one he lost last fall!)

[Mr. Bean]

The main thing one needs to consider is whether playing wrong-handedly will advance the player's play. Also one needs to take into account what would the player do if the path was not there.  If the primary or only motive of playing wrong-handed is to get a relief then relief if not granted.

 

But... this must always be evaluated case by case, there is no hard-and-fast rule that applies to 100% of cases.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[SNIPERBBB]

Wouldn't the proper drop actually push the ball into the bush farther? You'd have to take relief for the intended right handed stroke. 

[Newby]

38 minutes ago, cmagnusson said:

Was playing this past Sunday with my father and a couple other old timers. Dad and I are both lefties, he pulls a tee shot just a bit and ends up right on the edge of the bush on the right side of the hole. There is only about 2 feet of rough between the cart path and the bush line.

I told him to take relief to the other side of the cart path, since it would be reasonable to play the shot right handed rather than backing himself into the bush and having all the foliage interfering with his backswing and follow-through, and in accordance with Interpretation 16.1a(3)/1 that puts his stance onto the path and grants him relief to the other side. (Both the path and bush line are straight and parallel, so even in the relief situation there would be nowhere going backwards that would afford relief on the right side of the path that would allow for a left handed swing to reasonably occur).

He was of the opinion that as long as he is physically able to make a swing with his dominant stroke, no matter how impeded it is, that it cannot be reasonable to play opposite handed when doing so for the sole purpose of then getting relief. 

I was pretty sure I once read that the reasonableness should be determined without regard to the path (or any obstruction) being present at all and this is actually two decisions rather than one that leads to the relief, but I can't seem to find that.


Which of us is correct? 

 

Clarifications 16.1a(3)/1 and 16.1a(3)/2 may help.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=interp&section=rule&rulenum=16&subrulenum=7

[SNIPERBBB]

Just to clarify my reply, the issue in the OP is can he get a drop on the other side of the path. Doesn't matter which side of the ball you play from.  NPR is on the same side of the path the ball is unless there's no general area there you can drop in. 

[Mr. Bean]

26 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Just to clarify my reply, the issue in the OP is can he get a drop on the other side of the path. Doesn't matter which side of the ball you play from.  NPR is on the same side of the path the ball is unless there's no general area there you can drop in. 

 

Nope, that is the whole issue here.

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[SNIPERBBB]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Nope, that is the whole issue here.

 

 

 

OP is trying to give relief for the path and the bushes.  Ball is right of the path. If player tries to play right handed and feet are on the path, the NPR except it odd circumstances is farther right. It's a very unusual path or situation where you can go to the left here. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by SNIPERBBB

[Augster]

Depending on the hole, it sounds like relief for the path would be further into the bush. One doesn’t “automatically” get to take the ball across the path. Nearest point of complete relief. 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Augster said:

Depending on the hole, it sounds like relief for the path would be further into the bush. One doesn’t “automatically” get to take the ball across the path. Nearest point of complete relief. 

 

Correct. I was envisaging the bush to be a single one and the 1 cl could give better place to play. If the bush is large then wrong-handed stroke would not give any advantage.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, SNIPERBBB said:

OP is trying to give relief for the path and the bushes.  Ball is right of the path. If player tries to play right handed and feet are on the path, the NPR except it odd circumstances is farther right. It's a very unusual path or situation where you can go to the left here. 

 

You are right, I did not get my head straight here.

[antip]

4 hours ago, cmagnusson said:

 

(this was only the second most interesting rules situation that came up, I put a ball a foot into the bush on another hole and when moving some loose impediments I discovered my ball was on top of another ball. After taking my 1 club relief, which thankfully got me out the bush, we found based on the markings that the other ball actually belonged to one of my fellow competitors, but it would have been one he lost last fall!)

There are potentially some interesting issues here too. Why did you take 1 club-length relief?

[cmagnusson]

17 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Wouldn't the proper drop actually push the ball into the bush farther? You'd have to take relief for the intended right handed stroke. 

 

16 hours ago, Augster said:

Depending on the hole, it sounds like relief for the path would be further into the bush. One doesn’t “automatically” get to take the ball across the path. Nearest point of complete relief. 

So maybe there's a terminology difference here, when I say "bush" I don't mean *a* bush, but rather *the* bush, ie what remains of the forest the golf course was cut into. 

From what I have always understood, taking complete relief means that you have to have no interference on your swing/stance in addition to the ball's position being in relief. The USGA explainer linked below seems to agree: "The NEAREST POINT OF RELIEF is the spot the shortest distance away from where your ball lies (either left of…right of…or behind it) that isn’t closer to the hole and where if your ball was there, you could make a stroke at it without any interference to your resulting lie, stance and swing." It would not be possible to take relief further into the bush and have a swing or stance that was not interfered with because of how dense the trees are.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/trainers-pdf/trainers-nearest-point-of-relief.pdf


 

14 hours ago, antip said:

There are potentially some interesting issues here too. Why did you take 1 club-length relief?

 

15.2a(2):

(2) Relief When Ball Is in or on Movable Obstruction Anywhere on Course Except on Putting Green. The player may take free relief by lifting the ball, removing the movable obstruction and dropping the original ball or another ball in this relief area (see Rule 14.3):

Reference Point: The estimated point right under where the ball was at rest in or on the movable obstruction.

Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: One club-length, but with these limits:

Limits on Location of Relief Area:

Must be in the same area of the course as the reference point, and

Must not be nearer the hole than the reference point.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

11 minutes ago, cmagnusson said:

 

So maybe there's a terminology difference here, when I say "bush" I don't mean *a* bush, but rather *the* bush, ie what remains of the forest the golf course was cut into. 

From what I have always understood, taking complete relief means that you have to have no interference on your swing/stance in addition to the ball's position being in relief. The USGA explainer linked below seems to agree: "The NEAREST POINT OF RELIEF is the spot the shortest distance away from where your ball lies (either left of…right of…or behind it) that isn’t closer to the hole and where if your ball was there, you could make a stroke at it without any interference to your resulting lie, stance and swing." It would not be possible to take relief further into the bush and have a swing or stance that was not interfered with because of how dense the trees are.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/trainers-pdf/trainers-nearest-point-of-relief.pdf

 

 

Yes, the nearest point of complete relief would still be in the bush, unless the bush is either a hazard area or OB. If it is still considered being in the general area, the NPCR may be in a place that you can't realistically make a stroke from, but it's still the NPCR. 

 

The idea of NPCR is that you're taking NPCR ONLY from interference with the immovable obstruction (the cart path). The bush, being natural, is not an immovable obstruction that you would gain relief from. So the fact that the bush would also be interfering with your lie, stance, or swing, is just tough luck. 

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Also, per your title question of when it is "reasonable" to play opposite-handed, I think you are correct that the reasonableness test comes first and then the relief question is secondary.  

 

What would your dad have done if the cart path wasn't there? Would he be making a stroke right-handed or would he have tried to make it work left-handed as is his natural side? If the situation was such that he truly believed playing right-handed is his best course of action, then he can take whatever relief would be afforded him in that situation (although as above the NPCR is probably unplayable). 

 

For me, assuming situation was reversed (I play right-handed), it's not reasonable for me to claim I will attempt a stroke left-handed in the situation. I don't practice that shot and I don't have it in my bag. I'm not certain I'd even make contact with the ball. So if I were to claim I intended to make a left-handed stroke for that reason, and then claim free relief, it would be a lie as the MUCH more reasonable action for me to take would be to either attempt to play it as it lies or take an unplayable. Oddly, taking an unplayable may have me dropping on the cart path, from which I would then get free relief (after the penalty stroke for taking the unplayable, of course). I actually maybe should start practicing that left-handed flipped club punch shot just so that I have enough confidence in it that I can use it when necessary, and that it passes the reasonableness test for me to take advantage of relief if the situation warrants it. 

[antip]

57 minutes ago, cmagnusson said:

 

So maybe there's a terminology difference here, when I say "bush" I don't mean *a* bush, but rather *the* bush, ie what remains of the forest the golf course was cut into. 

From what I have always understood, taking complete relief means that you have to have no interference on your swing/stance in addition to the ball's position being in relief. The USGA explainer linked below seems to agree: "The NEAREST POINT OF RELIEF is the spot the shortest distance away from where your ball lies (either left of…right of…or behind it) that isn’t closer to the hole and where if your ball was there, you could make a stroke at it without any interference to your resulting lie, stance and swing." It would not be possible to take relief further into the bush and have a swing or stance that was not interfered with because of how dense the trees are.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/trainers-pdf/trainers-nearest-point-of-relief.pdf


 

 

15.2a(2):

(2) Relief When Ball Is in or on Movable Obstruction Anywhere on Course Except on Putting Green. The player may take free relief by lifting the ball, removing the movable obstruction and dropping the original ball or another ball in this relief area (see Rule 14.3):

Reference Point: The estimated point right under where the ball was at rest in or on the movable obstruction.

Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: One club-length, but with these limits:

Limits on Location of Relief Area:

Must be in the same area of the course as the reference point, and

Must not be nearer the hole than the reference point.

 

15.2a(1) is the applicable rule, not 15.2a(2). The correct rule required a different procedure.

[bcjim]

If the hole was a dogleg and the bush side was closer to the hole,  then I suppose going to the other side would be appropriate?

[cmagnusson]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yes, the nearest point of complete relief would still be in the bush, unless the bush is either a hazard area or OB. If it is still considered being in the general area, the NPCR may be in a place that you can't realistically make a stroke from, but it's still the NPCR. 

 

The idea of NPCR is that you're taking NPCR ONLY from interference with the immovable obstruction (the cart path). The bush, being natural, is not an immovable obstruction that you would gain relief from. So the fact that the bush would also be interfering with your lie, stance, or swing, is just tough luck. 

 

 

Ahhhh gotcha, that was my misinterpretation of the interference portion of the ruling. Good to know for next time. So, if this was one of the cases on the course where the bush is only a foot or two before the OB stakes, there may be a circumstance where NPCR would be the other side of the path? 

 

47 minutes ago, antip said:

15.2a(1) is the applicable rule, not 15.2a(2). The correct rule required a different procedure.

 

.. but my ball was *on* the other ball. 15.2a(2) is specifically for when the ball is in or on a moveable obstruction, which mine was. Why would I use 15.2a(1)? 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, bcjim said:

If the hole was a dogleg and the bush side was closer to the hole,  then I suppose going to the other side would be appropriate?

 

You would draw a mental line perpendicular to the flagstick through the ball. If the NPCR resides behind that line on the bush side of the cart path, then the NPCR is on the bush side of the cart path. If it is not, then it's not. I.e. it would look like this:

 

 

If there is a place behind that black line that affords complete relief, and the distance from B2 to that point is shorter than the yellow line, then your NPCR would still be on the bush side of the path. 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, cmagnusson said:

.. but my ball was *on* the other ball. 15.2a(2) is specifically for when the ball is in or on a moveable obstruction, which mine was. Why would I use 15.2a(1)? 

 

 

Your ball was not ON another ball but was leaning against it. Thus 15.2a(1) is the correct Rule to invoke. It is very difficult to envisage a situation where a ball is sitting on top of another ball without touching the course. If that should ever happen then 15.2a(2) would be the Rule to be used.

 

I believe antip was referring to that.

[cmagnusson]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Your ball was not ON another ball but was leaning against it. Thus 15.2a(1) is the correct Rule to invoke. It is very difficult to envisage a situation where a ball is sitting on top of another ball without touching the course. If that should ever happen then 15.2a(2) would be the Rule to be used.

 

I believe antip was referring to that.

 

Ah I see. But I will clarify, I am not being hyperbolic, my ball was literally on top of the other ball. They were both in a pile of leaves and were stacked on top of each other, it was the strangest thing I have ever seen golfing in my life.

[antip]

4 hours ago, cmagnusson said:

 

Ah I see. But I will clarify, I am not being hyperbolic, my ball was literally on top of the other ball. They were both in a pile of leaves and were stacked on top of each other, it was the strangest thing I have ever seen golfing in my life.

As Mr B notes, the dividing line is: if your ball is 'on' the MO and not touching the course at all, then 15.2a(2) applies; but if the ball is touching any part of the course and the MO, then 15.2a(1) applies. So, for example, you find your ball in the rough and it is on top of another ball sitting lower in the grass, 15.2a(1) applies.  

[Augster]

12 hours ago, cmagnusson said:

 

So maybe there's a terminology difference here, when I say "bush" I don't mean *a* bush, but rather *the* bush, ie what remains of the forest the golf course was cut into. 

From what I have always understood, taking complete relief means that you have to have no interference on your swing/stance in addition to the ball's position being in relief. The USGA explainer linked below seems to agree: "The NEAREST POINT OF RELIEF is the spot the shortest distance away from where your ball lies (either left of…right of…or behind it) that isn’t closer to the hole and where if your ball was there, you could make a stroke at it without any interference to your resulting lie, stance and swing." It would not be possible to take relief further into the bush and have a swing or stance that was not interfered with because of how dense the trees are.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/trainers-pdf/trainers-nearest-point-of-relief.pdf


 

 

15.2a(2):

(2) Relief When Ball Is in or on Movable Obstruction Anywhere on Course Except on Putting Green. The player may take free relief by lifting the ball, removing the movable obstruction and dropping the original ball or another ball in this relief area (see Rule 14.3):

Reference Point: The estimated point right under where the ball was at rest in or on the movable obstruction.

Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: One club-length, but with these limits:

Limits on Location of Relief Area:

Must be in the same area of the course as the reference point, and

Must not be nearer the hole than the reference point.

 

This is irrelevant. You’re taking relief from the I/O, the cart path. Yes, for relief from the I/O you must take complete relief, lie, stance, swing. 
 

Woods, trees, bushes and the like are all natural objects and part of the general area. There is no free relief from those. 
 

This is why we say the NPCR is the Nearest Point of Complete Relief NOT the Nicest Point of Complete Relief. 
 

A player is not entitled to a good lie, or any kind of swing at all, when taking free relief from an I/O. Always check where the NPCR will be before touching the ball. A LOT of times, when actually playing by the Rules as written, the NPCR will be in a worse spot than playing off a cart path. 

[QEight]

On 5/16/2023 at 11:53 PM, SNIPERBBB said:

OP is trying to give relief for the path and the bushes.  Ball is right of the path. If player tries to play right handed and feet are on the path, the NPR except it odd circumstances is farther right. It's a very unusual path or situation where you can go to the left here. 

Your point is valid, but OP was not asking about that.

[SNIPERBBB]

5 hours ago, QEight said:

Your point is valid, but OP was not asking about that.

Sure but it was the wrong premise. 

[cmagnusson]

13 hours ago, antip said:

As Mr B notes, the dividing line is: if your ball is 'on' the MO and not touching the course at all, then 15.2a(2) applies; but if the ball is touching any part of the course and the MO, then 15.2a(1) applies. So, for example, you find your ball in the rough and it is on top of another ball sitting lower in the grass, 15.2a(1) applies.  

 

I think I get it? But I'm just making a new post for this this is getting too confusing when I think too much haha.

 

 

[antip]

33 minutes ago, cmagnusson said:

 

I think I get it? But I'm just making a new post for this this is getting too confusing when I think too much haha.

 

 

For reasons mysterious, this issue has gotten photo and video airplay in the last year or so on a number golf discussion websites, revealing that misunderstanding of this rule is extremely common. Hopefully, these discussions are raising awareness of this nuance - something that is not clearly explained in the rule book.

[Mr. Bean]

21 hours ago, cmagnusson said:

 

Ah I see. But I will clarify, I am not being hyperbolic, my ball was literally on top of the other ball. They were both in a pile of leaves and were stacked on top of each other, it was the strangest thing I have ever seen golfing in my life.

 

Take two golf balls and try to pile them one on top of the other on your living room table. It may take a while but it is possible. However. the probability of two golf balls being on top of each other on a golf course without the top one touching anything else but the ball below is most likely 1 to googol.