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.