Would you do this?

[bluewolf]

Sorry but you would be breaking the rules, the exception to rule 24-2 is clear. Yes you may "get away with it" and the referee may not stop you, but that does not mean your actions would be within the rules.

The game of golf relies on the honesty of players, otherwise we would need a referee with every group in every competition. Glad I am not in your swindle if this is the way you view the rules.

Don't judge me based on a hypothetical situation fella. I was outlining a situation where an unscrupulous individual could work around the rules by lying. Not how I would act. If you read it again, you'll see that. Then you can consider whether your insult was appropriate.

 

[duncan mackie]

Some interesting observations here!

Firstly, the spirit of the game was mentioned, but never quoted. It's in the Rules and it's

"Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf. "

Playing to the rules is therefore always within the spirit of the game.

Covering off a few of the other points raised -

1. Wabinez - right the second time; the exception doesn't apply in the example quoted.
2. Claiming that your only reasonable shot would be left handed when you know you would never try it would be breaking the rules because it's not a reasonable solution. As Bluewolf tried to explain the issue is more about anyone knowing that applies if a person chooses to deliberately flout the rules in such a manner. Generally people who only believe that penalties are applied when other observe them breaking the rules do eventually get caught out, and will never really enjoy their games of golf either. However, any question as to whether you are likely to make a good shot, or even hit the ball, if you tried it is completely irrelevant!
3. Region3 - yes; the same thing applies if you choose to use a different club. The question of the position of the NPR, and whether the ball when dropped complies with 20-2, relate to the club used either left or right handed and the NPR and 1CL are established on that club. If you then decide to play RH again, or with a different club, the question of whether you are now able to claim relief is a new question and you are also, therefore, able to elect to play the shot RH from the initial drop even if this now causes the obstruction from which you originally took relief to interfere!

fwiw I used to practice hard using a reversed iron - in the days when pratice was a bag of balls off grass. Much harder of a mat

 

[Keeno]

I wouldnt take relief, just wouldnt sit right with me.

If you have hit your ball up the derriere of a tree, its your own stupid fault and you deserve to be penalised. Take your medicine and move on, dont try and bend the rules to your advantage.

I agree with this. Golf doesn't mean that much to that I would try and bend the rules. It wouldn't sit right with me.

 

[doublebogey7]

Don't judge me based on a hypothetical situation fella. I was outlining a situation where an unscrupulous individual could work around the rules by lying. Not how I would act. If you read it again, you'll see that. Then you can consider whether your insult was appropriate.

I am sorry if you feel insulted. But I thought I had chosen my words carefully, despite you placing yourself in the hypothetical situation, if you read again you'll see that.

 

[bluewolf]

I am sorry if you feel insulted. But I thought I had chosen my words carefully, despite you placing yourself in the hypothetical situation, if you read again you'll see that.

I used myself as an example.

Anyhoo, we both "kind of" agree so I'll leave it there.

 

[duncan mackie]

I agree with this. Golf doesn't mean that much to that I would try and bend the rules. It wouldn't sit right with me.

the concept of bending the rules doesn't exist- you are either complying with the rules or breaking them; simples

 

[winty57]

having played with a number of professionals both friendly and pro-ams I have learnt a lot about the rules and how to use them to your advantage! They are very knowledgeable on the rules of golf whereas most amateurs are not so confident and wouldnt even think of taking `advantage` or using the rules to their benefit, but the more you watch golf on tv the more we should learn from some of the rulings that are given.
I always carry a rulebook when i play but sometimes even this is vague and needs to be clarified by `Decisions` of golf or the referee if you hav one!

 

[colintheb]

The big easy once said.
“If its within the rules, then I'll continue to cheat like everyone
else”

 

[lobthewedge]

the concept of bending the rules doesn't exist- you are either complying with the rules or breaking them; simples

Very well, but the initial point I made still stands; I would not be comfortable utilising that rule in this particular instance. I would sooner get myself out of trouble using skill and imagination with a golf club, rather than the questionable application of a rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

Very well, but the initial point I made still stands; I would not be comfortable utilising that rule in this particular instance. I would sooner get myself out of trouble using skill and imagination with a golf club, rather than the questionable application of a rule.

But the point i'm trying to ensure those reading the thread get is that it's not questionable......its black or white.

 

[lobthewedge]

But the point i'm trying to ensure those reading the thread get is that it's not questionable......its black or white.

Not an expert when it comes to the rules, so I'll have to take your word for it. However, the very existence of the thread confirms that the application of the rule is questionable.

 

[williamalex1]

This exact situation was discussed in the rules section about 2/3years ago, involving my F/C a plus 2 h/c , and it was found to be within the rules.

Not sure , but it might have been me that posted the original thread.

 

[Region3]

Not an expert when it comes to the rules, so I'll have to take your word for it. However, the very existence of the thread confirms that the application of the rule is questionable.

What is questionable is whether or not the golfer really would play the shot they say they wants to if the option for free relief were not there.

Unfortunately that relies on the same honesty that moving a ball that no one else saw does.

 

[ColchesterFC]

My comment was meant to infer the possibility of a player stating that his intention was to play a particular shot without ever actually intending to. The honesty of the player could be brought into question, but he would be utilising the rules to get an advantage. For example, I'm useless at the left handed shot and would never try it, but I could state that I was about to try it, just to get relief. Not against the rules, but I'd be lying (unprovable) and the Ref couldn't stop me.

Surely ability to actually execute the shot proposed doesn't come into the equation. The rules apply equally to everyone regardless of how good they are. Otherwise you would get into situations where a scratch golfer could be given relief and a 28 handicapper isn't because the former is more likely to be able to play the shot proposed.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Don't think anyone has yet made made explicit reference to the following decisions which may be helpful from a Rules perspective

24-2b/17 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Reasonable in Circumstances

Q. A right-handed player’s ball is so close to a boundary fence on the left of a hole that the player, in order to play towards the hole, must play left-handed. In making a left-handed stroke, the player’s backswing would be interfered with by an immovable obstruction. Is the player entitled to relief from the obstruction?

A. The player is entitled to relief since use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is reasonable in the circumstances - see Exception under Rule 24-2b. 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. If the obstruction interferes with the swing or stance for the right-handed stroke, the player may take relief for the right-handed stroke in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i).

In contrast to

24-2b/18 Obstruction Interferes with Abnormal Stroke; Abnormal Stroke Not Reasonable in Circumstances

Q. A right-handed player’s ball is in a poor lie. A nearby immovable obstruction would not interfere with a normal right-handed swing but it would interfere with a left-handed swing. The player says he wishes to make his next stroke left-handed and, since the obstruction would interfere with such a stroke, he is entitled to proceed under Rule 24-2b. May the player invoke Rule 24-2b?

A. No. If the only reason for the player to use a left-handed stroke is to escape a poor lie, use of an abnormal (left-handed) stroke is clearly unreasonable and the player is not entitled to invoke Rule 24-2b - see Exception under Rule 24-2b.

The question is whether the abnormal stroke is reasonable in the circumstances.

As Duncan said, playing to the rules is always within the spirit of the game. The Rules makers have thought them through fairly carefully over the past 200 years to make that so.

 

[duncan mackie]

Surely ability to actually execute the shot proposed doesn't come into the equation. The rules apply equally to everyone regardless of how good they are. Otherwise you would get into situations where a scratch golfer could be given relief and a 28 handicapper isn't because the former is more likely to be able to play the shot proposed.

there are a number of situations within the rules where a players competence does come into the equation.

off the top of my head they include line of play and the exception to relief highlighted by Wabinex earlier in this thread; 'practicable' is definitely subjective.

as to whether 'reasonably' is subjective, clearly as it involves a physical task it must to some degree include an element of subjectivity. this may not be entirely competence based! The key element, as discussed above, is that if you do not consider a particular shot to be one that you would undertake then you should not be requesting relief on the basis that you have considered the shot unreasonable.

 

[bladeplayer]

the concept of bending the rules doesn't exist- you are either complying with the rules or breaking them; simples

Exactly This ^^

If someone can take or gain relief within the rules why wouldnt they? its no different to staked tree or moveable or immoveable obstructions if your entitled to it , take it ..

 

[Foxholer]

I agree with everything Duncan has posted here.

Fine for relief from the left-handed shot. Then fine again to play/take relief as right-handed.

And the Decisions Mashie posted are relevant too.

However, there are certain situations - covered in the Rules - where relief is not available.

Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable or (b) interference by an abnormal ground condition would occur only through use of a clearly unreasonable stroke or an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

As I've implied, I don't believe a left-handed stroke (or perhaps a right-handed one backwards) is unreasonable, but there is a subjective element to any decision. There are plenty of instances where players (Seve for example) have been allowed this sort of relief.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I would..in competitive play for certain. Don't see it as being against the spirit of the game but merely using the rules in your favour. At the end of the day, it's about getting it in the hole asap. If it was a bounce game then probably not as I couldn't be bothered with all the faffing involved with measuring nearest point of full relief etc