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 … !!