Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #4

Consider the following:

A player is competing in the monthly medal being played from the back markers.

On the second hole these markers are on the extreme rear of the tee and within a couple of metres of the of the boundary fence. The player tees his ball in line with the markers and takes a practice swing. The practice swing contacts a tree planted on the boundary and dislodges a small branch.

The player re-tees his ball, checks that there is no interference from the tree and plays his tee-shot. 
 

At the conclusion of the round, a competitor in the same competition watching from the first green asks the player what he scored on the second hole. When the player advised that he had scored a four he was asked whether that included any penalties. The player said that no penalties were included.

The other competitor then advises his intention to report the matter to the match committee.

What on earth for, you may well ask (as most people, in fact, do)?


Decision 13-2/14, states:

Q. On the teeing ground, a player broke off a branch of a tree which was interfering with his swing. The player maintained that such action was not a breach of Rule 13-2 because his ball was not yet in play. Was the player correct?

A. No. The player was in breach of Rule 13-2 for improving the area of his intended swing. Although Rule 13-2 allows a player to eliminate irregularities of surface on the teeing ground, it does not allow him to break a branch interfering with his swing. The penalty would apply even if the player, before playing his next stroke, re-teed elsewhere on the teeing ground.

So let’s back-up a bit.

The Definition of 'teeing ground' is:

The “teeing ground’’ is the starting place for the hole to be played. It is a rectangular area two club-lengths in depth, the front and the sides of which are defined by the outside limits of two tee-markers. A ball is outside the teeing ground when all of it lies outside the teeing ground.

There is nothing in the Rules describing the nature of the teeing ground (apart from the provisions that it may have ‘irregularity of surface’ and ‘sand or other natural substances’: Rule 11-1), however I doubt that there would be much argument that it is a flat(ish) piece of prepared turf. It is unlikely that such a piece of ground covered by reeds, long grass, bushes and/or trees would be classified as an acceptable teeing ground.

Note that the Definition does not specify that the teeing ground must or should be a piece of such land of up to or around about specified dimensions but that it IS a piece of land of these dimensions.

Thus, I would argue, it is incumbent upon the Committee to provide a piece of land two club-lengths in depth for the purpose of commencing each hole. It should be most unlikely (or even not be possible) for a player in taking a practice swing at the line of the tee markers to make contact with any tree or bush.

The application of Rule 13-2 turns on the concept of 'improving' the lie, intended stance or swing or line of play. Setting aside the implication of 'intended' (intended when? is changing one's mind now contrary to the rules? etc) as there is no explanation provided by The Castle of what this term means, we need to focus on the meaning of 'improving'.

Decision 13-2/0.5 (new in 2012) explains in some detail just what this term means within the context of the Rules of Golf. The initial paragraph of the Decision states:

In the context of Rule 13-2, “improve” means to change for the better so that the player gains a potential advantage with respect to the position or lie of his ball, the area of his intended stance or swing, his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or the area in which he is to drop or place a ball. Therefore, merely changing an area protected by Rule 13-2 will not be a breach of Rule 13-2 unless it creates such a potential advantage for the player in his play.

The salient points to be taken from this explanation  are:

1. The player must gain a potential advantage;
2. The advantage relates to the position or lie of the ball in play; and
3. There is no breach of Rule 13-2 unless the action of the player creates a potential advantage for the player.

So, in consideration of the facts that:

a) The first hole is completed and the second hole is yet to commence,
b) The player's ball is not in play and does not have a 'lie' or 'position';
c) The Committee has been negligent in not providing a teeing ground as specified, and
d) The player could not by any measure be construed to have gained a potential advantage by re-teeing the ball so that the tree does not interfere with his tee-shot,

it is very difficult to see how a player who inadvertently dislodges a piece of tree in making a practice swing on this tee can possibly be penalised loss of hole or two strokes.

How has the player gained an advantage from moving his teeing position once he knows that a tree within the teeing ‘space’ will interfere with his swing?


The last sentence of this Decision strikes me a decidedly dodgy, but there may be those who can rationalise it with the Rules of Golf.


So if we have one (or more) Roggie who can, please let us hear about it.

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #3

 

We are all aware that Rule 4-4a deals with the requirement that a player may not start a stipulated round with more than fourteen clubs in his/her bag.

This appears quite clear but does raise the interesting question on when a player actually starts the round.

In the 2010-2011 Decisions Book, Decision 4-4a/6 read:

Excess Club Put in Player's Golf Bag After Player Has Counted His Clubs at 1st Tee; Error Discovered After Player Has Started Round

Q. A arrives at the 1st tee, counts his clubs and confirms that he is carrying 14. He then removes his driver from his golf bag, leaves the bag beside the tee and checks in with the starter. At this point, X, a player in another match or group, by mistake puts his putter in A's golf bag, which was identical to X's bag. A then drives from the 1st tee. During play of the 1st hole, A discovers that X's club has been put in his (A's) golf bag. Does A incur a penalty for starting the round with more than 14 clubs?

A. Yes.

 
Thus the distinction between reporting to the starter ready to begin the round and actually playing the first shot was made quite clear: the round did not begin until the first shot was played.

In the circumstances this was a ludicrous distinction, and, thereby, Decision. It meant that a player who was on the tee awaiting his/her turn to play after the starting time of the group  could be penalised for a club placed in his/her bag without his/her knowledge subsequent to his/her entering on to the tee.

In the 2012-2013 Decisions Book, this Decisions states:

4-4a/6
Excess Club Put in Player's Golf Bag

Q. A arrives at the 1st tee. After the match or group’s starting time while A is preparing to play his tee shot, B, his opponent or fellow-competitor, by mistake places his driver in A’s bag, which results in A having 15 clubs. A then drives from the 1st tee. During play of the 1st hole, A discovers that B’s club has been put in his (A’s) golf bag. Does A incur a penalty for starting the round with more than 14 clubs? 

A. No. Although A started the round with more than 14 clubs, A is not considered to have selected B’s club for play for the following reasons:

• the additional club was added to his bag by B on the 1st tee,

• the club was added after the match or group’s time of starting, and

• the club had already been selected for play by B.

Therefore A incurs no penalty, provided he does not make a stroke with B’s club. The club may be returned to B and used by him. 

The decision would be different, and A would be penalised under Rule 4-4a, if:

• the additional club had belonged to a player in another match or group,

• the club had been added before A’s match or group arrived on the tee, or

• the club had been added before A’s match or group’s time of starting.

 

So, to the credit of The Castle, common sense prevailed and the ridiculous situation arising from the 2010-2011 Decision was modified to provide that a player who had counted his/her clubs and had reported to the starter (or was actually on the tee waiting to play in turn) would not be held accountable for actions of others which occurred after that point.

But in revising the 2010-2011 Decision it seems that the CDs could not help themselves; instead of simply saying ‘no penalty’ they just had to complicate matters.

 

The final paragraph of the Decisions states that if the club which had been added did not belong to a member of the player’s group, ‘the decision would be different’ and the player ‘would be penalised’!

 

This would apply whether the person adding the club to the player’s bag was a caddie, a spectator, an official, or some other extraneous person.

Is there anyone who can proffer an explanation for this incredible proviso?

 
In my view this is not just a dodgy decision: it is quite bizarre.

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #2

Consider the following (which arose recently):

 

A player’s ball was on the putting green (with those of his fellow-competitors) and without the knowledge of the player one of his fellow-competitors marked and lifted his ball and set it aside on the green.

 

The player holed his ball from the place at which it had been set aside.

 

On the next tee as the group was preparing to play their tee shots, the fellow-competitor asked for his marker to be returned. This was the first indication to the player that his ball had been marked.

 

What should be done?

 

We can quickly discover from Rule 20-1 that a ball may be lifted by the ‘player … or a person authorised by the player’. So this ball has been, in common terms, lifted by a fellow-competitor in contravention of this Rule.

 

One could first question whether a ball which is marked and picked-up without authority is, in fact, ‘lifted’ within the meaning of the Rules. But the Rules are silent on this point so we will assume that this ball has been ‘lifted’ and the relevant Rules apply.

 

However, we do know from Rule 20-3a that a ball which has been lifted must be replaced by the player or the person who lifted it and that a ball which has been lifted or moved must be replaced or placed (as the case may be) on the spot from which it was lifted or moved. These provisions are difficult for the player to comply with if s/he is unaware that the ball has been lifted.

 

We also know from the first paragraph of the Definition of a ‘Ball in Play’ that a ball which is ‘lifted’ is ‘out of play’ and from the Definition of ‘Wrong Ball’ that a wrong ball is ‘any ball other than the player’s ball in play’.

 

There is, however, another line of reasoning.

 

It is clear that the fellow-competitor has ‘moved’ the player’s ball (within any meaning of that word) other than with the authority of the player, as provided in Rule 20-1. Rule 18-4 covers the situation where, in stroke play (which this is because it involves a ‘fellow-competitor’), a player’s ball is moved by a fellow-competitor. The fellow-competitor incurs no penalty but the ball must be replaced. This, again, is a provision difficult for the player to comply with if s/he is unaware that the ball has been moved.

 

Rule 18-4 also refers the reader to Rule 15-3 – Playing a wrong ball.

 

So in consideration of both lines of enquiry we have a situation where the player has either played the ball in play from a ‘wrong place’ or has played a ‘wrong ball’.

 

That is the first question to decide.

 

If the ‘wrong place’ line is followed, the player (as required by Rule 20-7) incurs a two stroke penalty and counts his score without correcting the mistake. (There is also provision for disqualification of the player if the breach is significant; but let’s not get into that in this instance).

 

If the ‘wrong ball’ option is chosen then Rule 15-3 makes it quite clear that the player incurs a two stroke penalty and must correct the mistake, under threat of disqualification if s/he does not do so prior to playing from the next tee.

 

Both of these seem a bit harsh as the player is unaware that his/her ball has not been played from the place on the green at which it came to rest as a result of her/his stroke. But what other courses of action are available to the player under the Rules of Golf? Is this another instance where Rule 35 is invoked: Stiff Luck!

 

So what do the Castle Dwellers have to say about this?

 

It will be noted that The Castle treats this as a ‘wrong ball’ rather than a ‘wrong place’ situation. I think that this is correct as the ball which was taken out of play has not been properly put back into play, hence remains a ‘wrong ball’, rather than the ball having been put back into play (by the fellow-competitor who lifted it) at a ‘wrong place’.

 

As a result, Decision 15-3b/3 states:

 

Fellow-Competitor Lifts Competitor's Ball and Sets It Aside; Competitor Plays Ball from Where Set Aside

Q. In stroke play, B marked the position of A's ball on the putting green, lifted it and placed it nearby on the green. A failed to replace the ball. He putted it from where it lay and holed out. The error was then discovered. What is the ruling?

A. When a ball is lifted, it is out of play — see Definition of "Ball in Play." When A played a stroke with his ball which was out of play, he played a wrong ball.

If A knew that B had lifted his ball, he incurred a penalty of two strokes under Rule 15-3b and was required to replace his ball on the correct spot and play out the hole.

If A did not know that B had lifted his ball, A could not be penalized for playing a wrong ball. If he became aware of the mistake before playing from the next tee, he was required to replace his ball on the correct spot, without penalty, and complete the hole. If he learned of the mistake after playing from the next tee, the score with the wrong ball would stand and there would be no penalty.

 

Setting aside the question posed above regarding whether the ball was technically lifted (within the meaning of the Rules), the task I set for knowledgeable Roggies is to explain the bases within the Rule Book for the third paragraph of this Decision.

The eminent good sense of this Decision notwithstanding, is there any specific justification to be found in the Rule Book for this outcome? Or is this Decision simply a result of the fertile imagination of the Castle Dwellers and, if so, what chance is there of the long-suffering punter who places reliance on the primacy of the Rule Book reaching the conclusion described in this Decision, from the Rule Book alone?

 

In my view this Decision (while eminently sensible) is definitely dodgy.

Rog's Blog: Dodgy Decisions #1

Decision 12-1/4 states:

Player Touches Ground in Hazard When Searching for Ball Believed to Be Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard

Q. A player's ball is believed to be in a bunker covered by leaves. The player probes for the ball with a club which touches the ground in the bunker. What is the ruling?

A.There is no penalty. Rule 12-1 specifically authorises touching ground in the hazard while probing. Such permission overrides any prohibitions in Rule 13-4.

Firstly, one might ask if this Decision is meant to apply to all parts of Rule 12-1, or, more likely, has there been an oversight by the Castle Dwellers who have simply failed to realise the implications of their 2012 modifications to Rule 12-1?

But, let’s give the CDs the benefit of the doubt and assume that they mean what they say. Let’s assume that they really intend this Decision to apply only to Rule 12-1b: Searching for or Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard.

 

This Rule states:

 

In a hazard, if the player’s ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments to the extent that he cannot find or identify it, he may, without penalty, touch or move loose impediments in order to find or identify the ball. If the ball is found or identified as his, the player must replace the loose impediments. If the ball is moved during the touching or moving of loose impediments while searching for or identifying the ball, Rule 18-2a applies; if the ball is moved during the replacement of the loose impediments, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

 

While Rule 13-4 states:

 

Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

 

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in thehazard, the player must not:

 

a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;

 

b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or

 

c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

 

The question is: Which words in Rule 12-1b ‘specifically authorises touching ground in the hazard while probing’ thus overriding ‘any prohibitions in Rule 13-4’?

I do not think that there are any.

 

As a matter of interest, Rule 12-1 in the 2008-2011 Book states, in part:

In a hazard, if a ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments or sand, the player may remove by probing or raking with a club or otherwise, as many loose impediments or as much sand as will enable him to see a part of the ball.

These words do constitute a specific authorisation.

In my view Decision 12-1/4 is not just definitely dodgy, since there is no foundation for it within the Rules, it is quite simply wrong.

 

For further analysis on this issue, see Rog’s Blog: Rule 12-1 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4)

Rog's Blog: Rule 18-2b is dead - Postscript

The following is a postscript to a previous Rog's Blog (reproduced below).

Some may not have witnessed the following incident at a recent US Tour event.

Rory McIlroy (the player) placed his club behind his ball at rest in the rough and then walked away to re-assess his line of play. According to the player, while he was preparing to play the ball moved.

The player called the duty official and explained that what had occurred, describing quite clearly that he had placed (grounded) his club behind the ball. The official was interested in more information on the context and subsequent events.

The player again explained that he had grounded his club and that while he was reviewing his line of play (from behind the ball), the ball moved. When questioned, he stated that the ball moved 'about 10 seconds' after he had walked away from it (although it was more like 5). The official was very keen to discover any contributing circumstances which could be invoked to exonerate the player and relieve him from his obvious penalty, yet was unable to do so. He was very interested in establishing the time delay between the ball being addressed and it moving.

There was no suggestion that wind, an outside agency or some other extraneous force or body was involved.

The official sought a second opinion.

The decision, supported by the supervising official, was that given the time between the grounding of the club and the movement of the ball it was unlikely that the player had caused the ball to move.

So, we now have another caveat to further complicate the already unworkable Rule 18-2b: the time interval between addressing the ball and the ball moving.

As I have said folks, Rule 18-2b is dead.

The conclusion to the original Blog (see below) was: As a perceptive colleague of Rog’s observed when the new Rule Book was issued: ‘No-one will ever again be penalised for moving the ball after address.’

I now call him as Nostra.

ooOoo

 

As Roggies will be aware, Rog does acknowledge that the change to the Definition of‘addressing the ball’ was a step in the right direction. In doing so he cut The Castle considerable slack by assuming that by the word ‘immediately’ the Castle Dwellers probably mean ‘directly’.

However, it appears that some unreasonable pedants have drawn the attention of the CDs to that fact that ‘immediate’ can mean ‘having no object or space intervening’: this would mean that the Definition would require that the club be touching the ball.

This strict interpretation of ‘addressing the ball’ would also mean that Rule 18-2b would be toothless.

Roggies will be aware that it is clear to Rog that the revised Rule 18-2b is something of a mess for several reasons, but such an interpretation of ‘immediate’ as it applied to ‘addressing the ball’ would make this Rule redundant: simply do not touch the ball with the club and you have not addressed the ball. However, there could be some room for argument about this as there may not be unanimity on the meaning of ‘immediate’.

Now, it seems that the Dwellers accept that there could be a problem with this Definition and have issued a ‘clarification’, the effect of which is to drive the final nail into the coffin of Rule 18-2b.**

In its statement of clarification, The Castlesays, in part:

· If the golf club is grounded “closely” behind the ball in a position where it would be customary for a player to ground the club prior to making a particular stroke, then the club is considered to have been grounded “immediately behind the ball.”

· The same interpretation of the definition would apply if a player grounds his or her golf club “closely” in front of the ball prior to making a stroke.

By this ‘clarification’ The Castle has dug itself a deeper hole; which closely resembles a grave.

First, the notion of ‘where it would be customary for a player to ground the club’ simply means that the player now has complete control over what it means to ‘address the ball’, without any fear of contradiction. That is: ‘It is customary for me to ground my club 2mm behind the ball but since this situation looks tricky I have decided to ground my club 4mm behind, which is not customaryfor me. Ipso facto, I will not have addressed the ball.’

Second, but less significant, this will also apply to a club grounded in front of the ball.

The revised wording now puts ‘addressing the ball’in the same class as ‘ball unplayable’ (Rule 28) in that the player has become,de facto, the sole judge of whether he/she has addressed the ball. As the player alone knows what is his/her ‘customary position’ to ground the club prior to making a ‘particular stroke’ then it is the player alone who knows whether the club has been grounded in the ‘customary position’ in a given instance, hence whether the ball has been ‘addressed’.

This is a rolled-gold get-out-of-gaol-free card!

As a perceptive colleague of Rog’s observed when the new Rule Book was issued: ‘No-one will ever again be penalised for moving the ball after address.’

Valé Rule 18-2b!

Supplementary question:

You are the marker for this player.

Which is his 'customary' address position for a downhill chip shot?

 

** This is an interesting example of how The Castle views its omnipotence. Having discovered that after four years of deliberation the revised Definition does not convey the intended meaning, did the Dwellersmove to retract the Definition and substitute a revision? No, they simply re-defined the English language in their own terms. Long live Henry VIII.