Rule 19-5b relates to a ball in motion being
deflected or stopped by another ball, also in motion.
The 2008-2011 Rule Book stated:
b. In Motion
If a player’s ball in motion after
a stroke is deflected or stopped by another ball in motion after a stroke, the
player must play his ball as it lies. There is no penalty, unless the player
was in breach of Rule 16-1f, in which case he incurs the penalty for breach of
that Rule.
The current Book states:
b. In Motion
If a player’s ball in motion after a stroke other than on the
putting green is deflected or stopped by another ball in motion after a stroke,
the player must play his ball as it lies, without penalty.
If a player’s ball in motion after
a stroke on the putting green is deflected or stopped by another ball in motion
after a stroke, the player's stroke is cancelled. The ball must be replaced and
played, without penalty.
One would have thought that this is a
reasonably significant variation to the Rule and yet The Castle has not
seen fit to bring this to our attention through the Principal Changes section
of the Book. One can only speculate on why this might be the case.
If reference to such a change was consciously
determined by the Castle Dwellers not
to be worthy of making the Principal Changes cut then one can only ask,
‘what is the point of having a Principal Changes section at all?’
Roggies should heed the warning that, based
on experience with the current Rule Book, the Principal Changes section cannot
be relied upon to tell the full story when it comes to alerting material
changes to the Rules.
ROG, the exception to 19-5b (old book) would seem to me to read exactly the same as the rule in the new book, it is now not an exception but a new paragraph or am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteLarry
DeleteThe Exception to Rule 19-5b in the 2008-11 Book states:
Exception: If the player’s ball is in motion after a stroke on the putting green and the other ball in motion is an outside agency – see Rule 19-1b.
On my reading of the Definition, in match play only a ball which did (or does) not belong to either side was (and is) an ‘outside agency’ and in stroke play, only a ball not being played by the competitor’s side at the hole in question was (and is) an ‘outside agency’.
In other words, for the Exception to the previous Rule to come into effect, in match play the ‘other’ ball involved in the incident must have been a ball being played in another match or group, and in stroke play the ‘other’ ball must have belonged to a player who was not in the competitor’s side.
All very confusing!
On the other hand, the second paragraph of Rule 19-5b in the current Book states:
b. In Motion
If a player’s ball in motion after a stroke on the putting green is deflected or stopped by another ball in motion after a stroke, the player’s stroke is cancelled. The ball must be replaced and replayed, without penalty.
I do not think that this paragraph has the identical effect of the Exception to the previous Rule but it does remove any distinction between a ball which is an ‘outside agency’ and one which is not.
That is, in all circumstances now, if a ball in motion after being played from the putting green is deflected or stopped by any other ball, it must be replaced and replayed.
Do you agree?
Yes I do agree, I think that this rule has been revised to remove any confusion, not in my opinion needing major change status!
ReplyDeleteWhile considering this matter I came upon another which I consider a bit harsh (amomg the many).
19-2/10 old book ball hits rake held by caddie, no penalty, rake outside agency at all times!
19-2/10 new book same circumstance the players caddie has accidentally deflected the ball! Rake has suddenly become part of players equipment!
Larry
DeleteI think that there has been a change to the substance of this Rule and that it is more than just a revision to eliminate confusion.
As to whether we should have been notified of this change, I think we need to assess the change and its likely significance to the average punter against the Principal Changes which have been listed. Do you think that trivialities such as ‘time of starting’ and ‘the design of tees and gloves’ are more worthy of notification? There is also notification of Rule 12-1 having been 'reformatted for clarity’.
I stick with my view that if changes such as that made to Rule 19-5b are not notified then there is no point at all in publishing a Principal Changes section in the Rule Book.
On the matter of Decision 19-2/10, you have no doubt discerned that I think the Decisions Book would be a rich source of inspiration for Gilbert & Sullivan and I wonder if we had the situation described by this Decision arise in the Wednesday comp. whether anyone would care less about what this Decision states.
First let’s consider Decision 19-2/10 in the 2010-11 Book. It states (as you quote) that ‘rakes .. are not part of a player’s equipment and remain outside agencies at all times’. Do you agree with the latter statement? Surely a rake is a movable obstruction.
I see what you say about the revised Decision which clearly implies that a rake in the quoted circumstances has now miraculously changed status to become part of the player’s equipment. This change of status is clear as Rule 19-2 is about a ball accidentally (not deliberately) deflected or stopped by a caddie or equipment. But it is also clear from a reading of the Definition of ‘Equipment’ that a ‘rake’ is quite outside the bounds of the concept of ‘anything used, worn or carried by the player’ (for the purpose of playing the game).
A further implication of this revised Decision is that where a rake is lying on the ground and is being touched by a caddie’s toe, if the player’s ball should strike the rake then there is a one stroke penalty! As you say, ‘a bit harsh’!
We should never be surprised by anything the Castle Dwellers come up with.
When I first read your blog on this subject my immediate thought was, that is not correct, a ball that is deflected or stopped on a putting green by another ball should be replayed, which under the old book was true in the vast majority of cases, (how many wed. club comps are match play or fourball). While this does not correct my original comment if you had included the exception in your blog the matter would have been clearer. I shall now go and do nothing in particular and I expect to do it very well! ( Iolanthe )
ReplyDeleteYes, when asked for an opinion about this situation recently (which arose, incidentally, and ironically, during a mid-week four-ball inter-club match), my reaction was the same. I found it hard to believe what I was reading as it did not accord with my understanding of what had previously been the Rule.
DeleteThis is why I say that the change to the Rule has been substantive and is not simply a cleaning-up of the wording.
[Your allusion to the House of Lords is very apposite and draws stark contrast with some other institutions which could be mentioned. It is pleasing to have connected with another G & S devotee.]
Dearest Rog
ReplyDeleteWhy use apposite - an arcane word - when apt would have done?
Rosie.