Changing right to left handed

[Three]

The rules do not have anything to say about club selection, whether you play with some left handed and some right handed clubs, whether you play a shot opposite handed with the back of a club or by turning the club round to play with its face etc. Your player who carried a mixture of right and left handed clubs is not obliged by the rules to use any particular one at any particular time. He has complete freedom of choice for any shot including the one near the staked tree whatever he said to you. If the club he selected for that shot resulted in his gaining relief from the staked tree, that's just a consequence of his freedom of choice.

Have you forgotten my very first question on this forum, regarding my pp who deliberately chose to play a wedge from 300 yards away in order to get a drop when in reality he wanted to play a 3 wood? He took the drop because his wedge stance was affected, then swiftly pulled out his 3 wood as planned.

The R&A advised that he did not have the choice to choose any club or shot he wanted simply to get a drop.

I see this as an identical situation. 100 times out of 100, the guy would have played left handed from the given distance. All of a sudden, however, he deliberately tried to claim that he would play right handed, this was done ONLY to get a drop from an iffy lie. Exactly the same decision should be applied imo, no relief, as there is no interference from the shot he would normally take if the obstruction wasn't there.

 

[Colin L]

I certainly have not forgotten the kind of situation you describe and actually considered it and other situations carefully before answering. The reason for refusing relief in that instance is that the shot with a wedge is considered unreasonable because the wedge is overtly chosen in order to get relief. It is not his intention to play short. A player might choose a wedge in order to play short and safe deliberately in those circumstances and be allowed relief. It is the declared intention that catches the first player out. If he had said nothing about that intention he would have been allowed relief.

An ambidextrous player who carries right and left handed clubs and is adept with either has, in my view, a choice between either kind for any shot. He is capable of playing to the green right-handed for this 90 yard shot and so the right-handed shot is not unreasonable. He is not in the same position as a player like me who plays entirely right-handed except for the very occasional left-handed shot with the club reversed to get out of trouble. For me to adopt a left-handed shot that will only travel a few metres and claim relief from something when I have a clear right handed shot that could, say, reach the green is unreasonable. Not so, in my opinion, for the ambidextrous player who regularly alternates between left and right handed clubs. I could not take his explanation about distance from the green as imposing any sort of restriction on his choice.

 

[Three]

I certainly have not forgotten the kind of situation you describe and actually considered it and other situations carefully before answering. The reason for refusing relief in that instance is that the shot with a wedge is considered unreasonable because the wedge is overtly chosen in order to get relief. It is not his intention to play short. A player might choose a wedge in order to play short and safe deliberately in those circumstances and be allowed relief. It is the declared intention that catches the first player out. If he had said nothing about that intention he would have been allowed relief.

An ambidextrous player who carries right and left handed clubs and is adept with either has, in my view, a choice between either kind for any shot. He is capable of playing to the green right-handed for this 90 yard shot and so the right-handed shot is not unreasonable. He is not in the same position as a player like me who plays entirely right-handed except for the very occasional left-handed shot with the club reversed to get out of trouble. For me to adopt a left-handed shot that will only travel a few metres and claim relief from something when I have a clear right handed shot that could, say, reach the green is unreasonable. Not so, in my opinion, for the ambidextrous player who regularly alternates between left and right handed clubs. I could not take his explanation about distance from the green as imposing any sort of restriction on his choice.

But aren't you forgetting the well established fact that the player always plays ALL shots from around 130 yards and in left handed, and carries a variety of clubs for this very reason? The player in question NEVER normally plays any shot right handed from the distance in question (90 yards), it is therefore a fact that he is only addressing the ball right handed in order to take relief.

The decision surely lies in the answer to the question "would he play the shot right handed if he wasn't trying to get relief?". As it is well established that the answer to that would be " no, never" then relief should not be given.

 

[Colin L]

No, I can't forget these "well established facts" as I don't recognise them as such. You seem to be inferring an absolute certainty about what the player always does and what he never does on scant evidence. In any case, it still comes down to whether the right handed shot is reasonable and since the intended outcome - hitting the green - is the same as the intended outcome of a left handed shot would have been, it cannot be considered unreasonable. In the question you posed, the outcome of the wedge shot would have been hugely different from the intended outcome of a shot with a 3-wood.

 

[Three]

I played a guy once who had half right handed clubs and half left handed .

He told me he had the unmentionables in his short irons so played 130 yds in left handed.

we did have one discussion about a staked tree where he wanted a drop form 90yds right handed but I said "no as you told me you play from 130 left handed " and the tree did not interfere with his swing this way.

No, I can't forget these "well established facts" as I don't recognise them as such. You seem to be inferring an absolute certainty about what the player always does and what he never does on scant evidence.

The player's statement is far from "scant" evidence.

It is clearly obvious in this scenario that he only chose to address the ball right handed in order to get a drop from a bad lie. Had the lie been better or the obstruction not been there, he would have played left handed.

No free drop.

 

[USER1999]

For the 90 yard shot, he would have had to hit a club that goes more than 130, so not only is he playing in his stated least favourable way, but also with an unsuitable club. For me, that is unreasonable, and no drop. If he had a left and a right handed wedge, fair enough, but to manufacture a shot with something else just to get a drop?

 

[rulefan]

For the 90 yard shot, he would have had to hit a club that goes more than 130, so not only is he playing in his stated least favourable way, but also with an unsuitable club. For me, that is unreasonable, and no drop. If he had a left and a right handed wedge, fair enough, but to manufacture a shot with something else just to get a drop?

Do you never take the 'wrong' club for the 'right' shot?
eg taking a long iron or hybrid to hit a relatively short distance under trees. If the shot can be played and potentially made, it is not unreasonable.

 

[Colin L]

It is not the business of a referee to make judgements on what is a suitable club for a player to use. A player can hit the ball the same specified distance using a variety of clubs.

I can't say much more than that for the reasons given I would allow the player relief from a right handed shot if that is the shot he chose. I have the impression that rulefan would concur but I'd better not put words in his keyboard!

 

[duncan mackie]

It is not the business of a referee to make judgements on what is a suitable club for a player to use. A player can hit the ball the same specified distance using a variety of clubs.

I can't say much more than that for the reasons given I would allow the player relief from a right handed shot if that is the shot he chose. I have the impression that rulefan would concur but I'd better not put words in his keyboard!

I think he's already posted to that effect Colin!

This is the sort of issue that's at the core of golf and the rules; it's not a grey area, it's a function of a sport that relies on the players integrity.

If this player is advising that he is taking a specific club solely for the purpose of gaining relief (ie if the tree wasn't there he would use the other handed club) then he is not entitled to relief. That principle is clear.

Any actual ruling would therefore depend on the player. Only where the course of action outlined is a clearly unreasonable stroke is there scope for the player to be challenged.

It won't be lost on some that as the rules require a player to make his decisions with integrity it follows that any decision should be assumed to be reasonable.....but that's going a little far here!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

This is wrong the way people have decided he MUST play every shot from 130 and under left handed, what if the ball lies on the edge of a greenside bunker and the only way he could play left handed was to take an awkward stance in the bunker or simply play right handed with a good stance, some are suggesting he'd be cheating!! Ridiculous!

 

[clubchamp98]

Its good that after 30 years finally you know the right answer.

Let me explain why I think it's wrong !

He is by a staked tree and elects to play right handed.

His nearest point of relief is the other side of the tree but he is still in the rough.

he can't play left handed because he will hit the tree his most lofted club is 7 iron right handed he has no chance with this club as the rough is ankle high.

so he claims relief left handed his nearest point of relief is back where he started.

we could have been there all day.

his lie was much better so he played left handed with SW

i think that's taking the Michael.

i might be wrong but I am entitled to be wrong aren't I?

 

[clubchamp98]

This is wrong the way people have decided he MUST play every shot from 130 and under left handed, what if the ball lies on the edge of a greenside bunker and the only way he could play left handed was to take an awkward stance in the bunker or simply play right handed with a good stance, some are suggesting he'd be cheating!! Ridiculous!

But in this scenario he is not claiming a free drop.

i never said he can't chose right or left I said I thought it was wrong to use this to gain a free drop.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Let me explain why I think it's wrong !

He is by a staked tree and elects to play right handed.

His nearest point of relief is the other side of the tree but he is still in the rough.

he can't play left handed because he will hit the tree his most lofted club is 7 iron right handed he has no chance with this club as the rough is ankle high.

so he claims relief left handed his nearest point of relief is back where he started.

we could have been there all day.

his lie was much better so he played left handed with SW

i think that's taking the Michael.

i might be wrong but I am entitled to be wrong aren't I?

I think you've a right to be annoyed, but that's it, he's not breaking any rules, if he'd of been up against a wall and within 130 yds and no shot left handed then simply changed to right hand to play on, would you see anything wrong in that?

Edit: just seen other response, I get your annoyed but , he's not doing anything outside the rules.

 

[duncan mackie]

This is wrong the way people have decided he MUST play every shot from 130 and under left handed, what if the ball lies on the edge of a greenside bunker and the only way he could play left handed was to take an awkward stance in the bunker or simply play right handed with a good stance, some are suggesting he'd be cheating!! Ridiculous!

It's far from ridiculous; the simple matter is that there will be something that dictates the players choice of shot, and it's his choice.
However, that thing cannot be the availability of a drop from the tree.
Your example of a bunker is a good one; personally in an open medal comp I remember turning the club round to play from a good stance, the wrong way round because I judged it the better percentage shot. I also played a full shot 7 iron in a play off for the club's Masters event because a tree prevented me from playing the right way round.
In reference this competence because there is no way I would be able to claim relief from a poor lie because an obstruction was available if playing games this 'wrong way round'.
So, as already highlighted, the test to be applied is whether the choice of shot is clearly unreasonable - and in the example given I would suggest that an objective assessment would conclude that whilst it would be surprising, it wouldn't be clearly unreasonable.
Put another way, if he was my opponent in a match I would look at him and ask him to look me in the face and confirm that if the tree wasn't there he would have played the shot that way, with that club. If he confirmed that the matter would be closed.
But you cant get away from the fact that if he knows he's only doing it to get a drop, but confirms to the contrary (to get the drop), then he would be cheating.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It's far from ridiculous; the simple matter is that there will be something that dictates the players choice of shot, and it's his choice.
However, that thing cannot be the availability of a drop from the tree.
Your example of a bunker is a good one; personally in an open medal comp I remember turning the club round to play from a good stance, the wrong way round because I judged it the better percentage shot. I also played a full shot 7 iron in a play off for the club's Masters event because a tree prevented me from playing the right way round.
In reference this competence because there is no way I would be able to claim relief from a poor lie because an obstruction was available if playing games this 'wrong way round'.
So, as already highlighted, the test to be applied is whether the choice of shot is clearly unreasonable - and in the example given I would suggest that an objective assessment would conclude that whilst it would be surprising, it wouldn't be clearly unreasonable.
Put another way, if he was my opponent in a match I would look at him and ask him to look me in the face and confirm that if the tree wasn't there he would have played the shot that way, with that club. If he confirmed that the matter would be closed.
But you cant get away from the fact that if he knows he's only doing it to get a drop, but confirms to the contrary (to get the drop), then he would be cheating.

Cheers Duncan, my point is, (sorry for the confusion) is the stated everything from 130 in was left handed, using the wall analogy, if the left handed shot was impossible then his options would've probably been proceed under penalty, with his ability to play right handed he saves himself the penalty and has therefore again, gained an advantage playing right handed within the 130 yds, personally I think what was stated about left and right handed play at the start is irrelevant.

 

[clubchamp98]

I think you've a right to be annoyed, but that's it, he's not breaking any rules, if he'd of been up against a wall and within 130 yds and no shot left handed then simply changed to right hand to play on, would you see anything wrong in that?

Edit: just seen other response, I get your annoyed but , he's not doing anything outside the rules.

No because he every right to do that against a wall.

But to get a free drop I think it's wrong .

In the MPs expenses scandal most of them never broke any rules .

I would not do that to gain an advantage it's against the spirit of the game.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

No because he every right to do that against a wall.

But to get a free drop I think it's wrong .

In the MPs expenses scandal most of them never broke any rules .

I would not do that to gain an advantage it's against the spirit of the game.

He had no right with the wall as it was you who insisted in your first post that he played everything left handed within 130, surely allowing right handed by a wall is in principle giving him a freebie?

 

[chrisd]

Just a hypothetical question, if he hadn't had the conversation about his choice of clubs from certain distances and decided to just pull out whichever club would afford him a free drop, knowing he carried right and left hand clubs, would you have queried his choice?

 

[clubchamp98]

He had no right with the wall as it was you who insisted in your first post that he played everything left handed within 130, surely allowing right handed by a wall is in principle giving him a freebie?

I never insisted , you can't do that he told me that was the way he played .
the argument was about a free drop from a staked tree.
if there is no drop involved he can do what he wants.

 

[clubchamp98]

Just a hypothetical question, if he hadn't had the conversation about his choice of clubs from certain distances and decided to just pull out whichever club would afford him a free drop, knowing he carried right and left hand clubs, would you have queried his choice?

Probably not as I tend not to watch opponents only where his ball goes and how many shots he takes.
as I have said it was the free drop that was the problem