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.
No comments:
Post a Comment