Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #10

Decision 18-2a/13 states:

Ball Lifted Without Authority and Cleaned

Q. A player’s ball comes to rest on the apron of a green. Mistakenly believing that the ball is on the green, the player marks, lifts and cleans it. The player incurs a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a for lifting the ball without authority under the Rules. Does the player incur an additional penalty stroke under Rule 21 for cleaning the ball?

A. No. Rule 21 states that a ball may be cleaned when lifted except when it has been lifted in accordance with Rule 5-3, 12-2 or 22.

This Decision is questionable for two reasons: its astonishing logic and its inconsistency with other Rules.

First, to argue that an action is approved because it complies with a deficient Rule is truly amazing. Rule 21 does indeed describe only three (3) exceptions to the general principle that a ball may be cleaned when lifted but fails completely to address the situation where a ball may be ‘illegally or inappropriately’ lifted in other circumstances.  The solution is not to persist with the fantasy that it is reasonable for a player to lift a ball contrary to the Rules, proceed to remove adhering mud from it, replace it and escape sanction, other than for the act of lifting, just because Rule 21 is silent.

Second, Decision 20-1/0.7 states, in part:

Lifting Ball to Determine Application of Rule

Q. May a player lift his ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief under a Rule (e.g. to determine whether his ball is in a hole made by a burrowing animal or is embedded)?

A. In equity (Rule 1-4), if a player has reason to believe he is entitled to relief from a condition, the player may lift his ball, without penalty, provided he announces his intention in advance to his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play, marks the position of the ball before lifting it, does not clean the ball and gives his opponent or fellow competitor an opportunity to observe the lifting.

.

.

.

If the ball does not lie in a position from which the player is entitled to relief, or if the player is entitled to relief but decides not to take it, the ball must be replaced, and the opponent, marker or fellow-competitor must be given the opportunity to observe the replacement. If a player who is required to replace the ball fails to do so before making a stroke, he incurs a penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play under Rule 20-3a, but there is no additional penalty for failure to comply with the procedure for lifting or under Rule 20-1 or 21.

If the player lifts a ball without having reason to believe that it lies in a position from which he is entitled to relief without penalty or if the ball does not lie in a position which entitles the player to relief and the player fails to comply with this procedure, he incurs a penalty of one stroke but there is no additional penalty under Rule 20-1 or 21.

While it is not to say that they are unreasonable, or that there is not precedent contained within Rule 5-3 and 12-2, there is, of course, no specific provision within the Rules to support the procedural requirements mandated in this Decision. But The Castle must be able to create conditions in cases of equity – except where these conditions contravene a Rule or create inconsistency!

Let us assume that a player believing that her ball is embedded in a closely mown area. She lifts the ball in accordance with the above procedure but in the process cleans the ball. The player determines that the ball is not, in fact, embedded replaces it and proceeds to play.

We see in Decision 18-2a/13 confirmation that Rule 21 permits the cleaning of any lifted ball except when lifted under Rule 5-3, 12-2 or 22.  Yet Decision 20-1/0.7 specifies that there are other circumstances in which the ball may not be cleaned.

So how can there be different provisions for a ball ‘illegally’ lifted (where the ball is incorrectly believed to be on the green) and one ‘inappropriately’ lifted (where the ball is, for instance, incorrectly believed to be embedded)?

It is clear that this whole area is confused (and confusing) and that there are decisions which are dodgy as a consequence.

 

The simple answer to this problem is to modify Rule 21 to read:

A ball on the putting green may be cleaned when lifted under Rule 16-1b. Elsewhere, a ball may be cleaned when lifted, except when such action is prohibited by another Rule or the ball has been lifted contrary to a Rule.

Rules 5-3, 12-2 and 22 already state that the ball may not be cleaned under application of each of these Rules and it is, therefore, not necessary to limit the application of Rule 21 by restating the provisions of these Rules. Attempting to create exhaustive lists of exceptions is always fraught with danger.

 

 

 

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #9

‘general_zeke’ has drawn our attention to the possible dodginess of Decision 26-1/12.
 

 

This Decision states:

Hazard Marked as Water Hazard Where Ball Last Crosses Margin and as Lateral Hazard Where Ball Comes to Rest

Q. A body of water is defined in part as a water hazard and in part as a lateral water hazard. A ball last crosses the hazard margin at a spot where it is marked as a water hazard but it comes to rest in that part of the hazard marked as a lateral water hazard. In addition to playing the ball as it lies, what are the player's options?

A.  Since the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard where it is defined as a water hazard, the options in Rule 26-1c are not available. Thus, the player is limited to the options in Rules 26-1a and 26-1b.

 

As the ‘general’ says: ‘How can a ball that lies within a lateral water hazard have “last crossed the margin of the hazard where it is defined as a water hazard”? ‘Surely the demarcation between water hazard and lateral water hazard (an imaginary line across the hazard) is a boundary of both. If it is the boundary of both one would assume that it is this margin that the ball last crossed. As such it would be the margin of both water hazard and lateral water hazard with the lateral water hazard being the side that the ball last crossed.’

 
The ‘general’ makes a very interesting point.

The Definition of a Lateral Water Hazard states, in part:

A “lateral water hazard” is a water hazard or that part of a water hazard so situated that it is not possible, or is deemed by the Committee to be impracticable, to drop a ball behind the water hazard in accordance with Rule 26-1b. All ground and water within the margin of a lateral water hazard are part of the lateral water hazard.

 

When the margin of a lateral water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the lateral water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. … The margin of a lateral water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards.

 

A ball is in a lateral water hazard when it lies in or any part of it touches the lateral water hazard.

 

The question is: How can a ball be in a lateral water hazard unless it has crossed a/the margin of that hazard?

 

The implication of the Definition is that the lateral water hazard part has only one (continuous) margin. This can, in my view, support the view that the line across the water between the two red pegs on either side of the hazard is part of that margin. It is difficult to see how part of this hazard is a water hazard, and part a lateral water hazard, if there is not a boundary between them.

 

Rule 26-1 states, in part:

 

Relief for Ball in Water Hazard

c.    As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

 

The clear implication here is that a lateral water hazard has more than one margin.

So, which is it? The Definition and Rule 26-1 cannot both be correct.

In both cases, however, there cannot be any doubt that there is a margin across the hazard between the water hazard and the lateral water hazard and that it is the margin of the lateral water hazard which the ball last crossed before coming to rest in the lateral hazard.  That is, since it is a fact that the ball is within the lateral water hazard, it follows, ipso facto, that it must have crossed a margin of that hazard.

 

 

Relief should, therefore, be taken utilising this point as reference and option 26-1c should be available.

 

It is difficult to fathom the rationale which the Castle Dwellers have applied when reaching this Decision. But there will invariably be a relief option within two club-lengths of the point where the ball crossed the margin between the two hazards or on one of the other margins of the lateral hazard at a point which is the same distance from the hole as the reference point.

We would be grateful to receive any comment from Roggies who have a view on the extent to which this Decision is dodgy, or argument as to why it is not dodgy at all.

 

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #8

Decision 1-2/1.5 states:

 

Competitor Alters Line of Play of Fellow-Competitor

Q. In stroke play, A’s ball is under a partially detached tree branch from which he believes he is entitled to relief without penalty. A calls for a ruling. B, A’s fellow-competitor, argues A’s case to a referee and, during the conversation, lifts the branch and improves or worsens A’s line of play. What is the ruling?

A. As B did not alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting A’s playing of the hole, B is not in breach of Rule 1-2. A incurs no penalty. A may replace the branch, but he is not required to do so.

 

One can scarcely believe what one is reading!

 

Here we have a competitor who enters into an argument which is none of his business and then proceeds to physically ‘improve or worsen A’s line of play’. How can this not be a case of intentionally altering the playing conditions? How does one lift a branch by accident or without intent? And how is it known that B’s action was not intended to improve A’s playing of the hole – why else would he be interfering and lifting branches out of the way?

 

Given that the general tenor of the Rules is to be punitive, how can …

B escape a penalty, and

A have the choice of playing under the improved conditions?

This seems to be a very clear case where B should be penalised for breach of Rule 1-2 (two strokes or disqualification) and A should be required to re-create the lie of his ball.

 

Decisions do not get much dodgier than this as one can hardly imagine a more blatant breach of the basic principles and spirit of the game.

Then again, perhaps B could plead that he was just caring for the course … !!

 

 

 

 

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #7

Decisions 13-4/16.5 and 23-1/5.5 and are not so much dodgy as plain risible!

Decision 13-4/16.5 reveals that the Rules 'do not contemplate' the possibility of mosquitos (or other flying insects) existing in water hazards(!) and provides that an insect flying in or alighting upon the player may be ‘swotted away’. Presumably this includes taking the 'physical' action of killing the insect.

Decision 23-1/5.5 provides that a player ‘may take action’ to remove an insect from his/her ball at rest in a bunker so long as this action is not ‘physical’.

 

One could engage in a lengthy discussion around these two Decisions, including whether ‘waving one’s hand, a club or a towel’ (as permitted by 23-1/5.5) constitutes a 'physical' activity or whether only 'mental' activity is permitted to encourage the insect to move and, indeed, what sort of game it is that requires that Decisions like these need to be made, and published.

It is not the Decisions themselves, however, which are the main point of interest; it is the attention they focus onto the sheer absurdity of differentiating between loose impediments in and out of hazards. As argued on the ‘Loose Impediments’ page there is absolutely no rational reason why a loose impediment inside a hazard should be treated differently from the same loose impediment outside of a hazard.

 

For instance, without the effect of the Decisions quoted above, a bee landing on a player in a hazard has a significantly different status from the same bee landing on a fellow-competitor whose ball is on the fairway. Similarly, relief can be obtained from a pine cone on the ground in a pine forest (where pine cones live) yet cannot be obtained from a pine cone in a fairway bunker (where they do not live). These distinctions are ludicrous and serve no meaningful purpose within the game of Golf.

  

The Rules should be modified as follows:

 

1.    Rule 23 to become:

Rule 23 Loose Impediments

23-1. Relief

A loose impediment may be removed without penalty. However, if the ball lies anywhere other than on the putting green and the removal of a loose impediment by the player causes the ball to move, Rule 18-2a applies.

On the putting green, if the ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of the player removing a loose impediment, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the removal of the loose impediment. Otherwise, if the player causes the ball to move, he incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a.

When a ball is in motion, a loose impediment that might influence the movement of the ball must not be removed.

 

2.    Rule 12-1b to become:

Rule 12 Searching for and Identifying Ball

12-1. Seeing Ball; Searching for Ball

A player is not necessarily entitled to see his ball when making a stroke.

In searching for his ball anywhere on the course, the player may touch or bend long grass, rushes, bushes, whins, heather or the like, but only to the extent necessary to find or identify the ball, provided that this does not improve the lie of the ball, the area of his intended stance or swing or his line of play; if the ball is moved, Rule 18-2a applies except as provided in clauses a - d of this Rule.

In addition to the methods of searching for and identifying a ball that are otherwise permitted by the Rules, the player may also search for and identify a ball under Rule 12-1 as follows:

.

.

b. Searching for or Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments

If the player’s ball at rest anywhere on the course 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 moved during the touching or moving of loose impediments while searching for or identifying the ball, there is no penalty; the ball must be replaced and the lie re-created to reflect its state prior to the ball moving.

 

3.    Rule 13-4c. to be deleted.


 

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #6

 

In DD#4 we examined an example of a ridiculously punitive dodgy decision. Now, in the interests of balance, we should consider a case of ridiculous generosity.

Consider the following:

A player tees his ball a little behind the markers. He plays a stroke at the ball, just touches it and moves it a metre. The ball comes to rest within the defined teeing ground for the hole.

Because there is a small earth mound behind his ball, the player presses it down with his foot and then plays his second shot.

 

We know two important things:

1.      The ball is in play after the tee shot, and

 

2.      The player has improved the lie of his ball in play.

 

On the face of it, one would assume that the player has incurred a ‘loss of hole/two stroke penalty’ pursuant to Rule 13-2.

But we find that Decision 13-2/2 states:

 

Player Who Misses Tee Shot Presses Down Irregularities Before Next Stroke

Q. In playing a tee shot A misses the ball. Before playing his next stroke, A presses down turf behind the ball. Is this permissible, since the ball is in play?

A. Yes. Rule 13-2 permits eliminating irregularities of surface on the teeing ground, whether or not the ball is in play.

  

The Definition of the teeing ground states that the teeing ground is the starting place for the hole to be played.

Consequently, I would argue that logic dictates that once the hole has been started, the designated area in question is no longer the teeing ground but reverts to ‘through the green’ status along with all other teeing grounds.

A teeing ground, surely, can only be a teeing ground for the purpose of playing the tee shot!

 

The application of the principle contained in the Decision that the teeing ground on a hole technically remains a ‘teeing ground’ until the hole is completed could become absurd.

For example, the player ‘duffs’ his tee shot just outside of the teeing ground and then plays his second shot into a tree causing the ball to rebound into the teeing ground.

 

He is then, according to the Decision, entitled to improve the lie of his ball by ‘creating or eliminating an irregularity in the surface’.

 

This is definitely dodgy.

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #5

In a stroke competition, a player’s ball comes to rest in a bunker and she declares it unplayable.

The player takes relief (under penalty) by dropping outside of the bunker on the extension of the line between the flagstick and the point where the ball came to rest, and plays the ball onto the green.

 

We know that this player has proceeded in contravention of Rule 28b which requires that for relief to be taken in this way, the ball must be dropped in, and played from, the bunker.

 

It is clear from the Rule that the player has incurred a penalty of two strokes.

However, examination of Decision 28/10 reveals the following:
 

Ball Dropped Outside Bunker Under Option Requiring Drop in Bunker
 

Q. In stroke play, a competitor deems his ball unplayable in a bunker and, purporting to proceed under Rule 28b or 28c, drops a ball outside the bunker and plays it. What is the ruling?
 

A. In this case, Rules 28b and 28c require that a ball be dropped in and played from the bunker. Generally, if the ball is played from outside the bunker, the penalty should be disqualification for a serious breach of Rule 28, ...
 

This is a decidedly dodgy decision as there is, of course, no such provision within Rule 28.
 

This player would be on a rock solid foundation to object to a penalty of disqualification being applied.