Rules question, free drop

[Leftie]

There is nothing in the rules (afaik) that says that you must play every shot in a round right handed (or left handed).

When I was a member at High Elms (Bromley) I carried a right handed 7 iron mainly for just one shot - the second on the 10th as my tee shot would invariably end up very close to the bushes and trees on the right of the fairway where playing left handed would have been impossible.

I have in the past been able to use the rules in the same way as that +2 h/capper. Shot into the rubbish and it was impossible to get any swing at the ball. Rather than declare it unplayable, I was able to demonstrate that I could get a right handed swing at the ball that also had a path out of the rubbish - albeit a bit backwards away from the green. This swing however had interference from staked trees so under local rule I was able to take a free drop (1 club length from NPR etc).

No-one was more surprised that the ball when dropped rolled into a position where I could take a normal L/H swing towards the green.

 

[duncan mackie]

This confuses me, but I'm probably reading it wrong.

Are you saying that the player gets relief from the casual water that he would be standing in if he were playing towards the green (impossible), even though he's not standing in it playing the only reasonable shot between the roots at 90° to the green?

glad you picked that up - you read it right, I didn't write what I intended 'cos I was in a hurry....

the interference must be to the reasonable stroke, which in itself may not necessarily be towards the green. If I can edit the post still I will....

cheers

 

[duncan mackie]

that's not relevant to the establishment of the relief from the tree

establishing relief relates to a reasonable stroke, stance and swing (I paraphrase the rules for this relative explanation) and in this context the target is relevant to the reasonableness. The target may not be a direct line to the green but it would need to be a reasonable approach to playing the hole.

having established that relief is available there is a related issue with the exception that states that even if the above applies, if it is clearly impracticable for the player to make any shot then relief is denied. At this point the reasonableness of the shot is no longer relevant with regard to direction, swing etc because all that is at question is whether the player could play the ball.

example - player's ball is burried in tree roots, but if he takes a normal stance to play the ball towards the green (ignoring the tree!) he is standing in a puddle of casual water. he is not actually able to get a club to the back of the ball regardless of where he stands. (1) interference is established (2) relief is denied because it's clearly impracticable for him to play any shot.

same situation, same tree, but now the ball lies between 2 parallel roots about 4" high, 6" apart running across his swing path to play at the green. (1) interference is established (2) the player is able to play a shot at 90 degrees to the green. Relief allowed. It is important to note that it is irrelevant that the player may not have interference from the casual water when demonstrating the shot at 90 degrees - only that he has such a shot.

so much for trying to provide clarity - bungle big time by pure careless typing; thank's Region3 for picking it up.

the example should read that

example - player's ball is burried in tree roots, but if he takes a normal stance to play the ball towards the green he is not actually able to get a club to the back of the ball regardless of where he stands. equally wherever he aims he can't play a ny shot. wherever he stands for any shot he would be in casual water (1) interference is established (2) relief is denied because it's clearly impracticable for him to play any shot.

the ball lies between 2 parallel roots about 4" high, 6" apart running across his swing path to play at the green. The player doesn't have any casual water interfering with his stance if he set up to play a shot to the green, but if he plays the only available shot, at 90 degrees he is standing in casual water (1) interference is established with regard to a normal shot in this instance, even though it's not at the green (2) the player is able to play the shot at 90 degrees to the green so relief allowed. It is important to note that it is irrelevant that the player may not be able to play a shot to the green and that he doesn't have interference from the casual water when aiming at the green.

 

[Region3]

glad you picked that up - you read it right, I didn't write what I intended 'cos I was in a hurry....

the interference must be to the reasonable stroke, which in itself may not necessarily be towards the green. If I can edit the post still I will....

cheers

Phew!

 

[bobmac]

Louise, I'll bet you're pleased you asked now oo:

 

[williamalex1]

There is nothing in the rules (afaik) that says that you must play every shot in a round right handed (or left handed).

When I was a member at High Elms (Bromley) I carried a right handed 7 iron mainly for just one shot - the second on the 10th as my tee shot would invariably end up very close to the bushes and trees on the right of the fairway where playing left handed would have been impossible.

I have in the past been able to use the rules in the same way as that +2 h/capper. Shot into the rubbish and it was impossible to get any swing at the ball. Rather than declare it unplayable, I was able to demonstrate that I could get a right handed swing at the ball that also had a path out of the rubbish - albeit a bit backwards away from the green. This swing however had interference from staked trees so under local rule I was able to take a free drop (1 club length from NPR etc).

No-one was more surprised that the ball when dropped rolled into a position where I could take a normal L/H swing towards the green.

i'm glad you're not hypothetical and you are ambi. good on you, what a gift . i'd give my left arm to be ambi.