Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #11

In discussing Dodgy Decisions  #9, Decision 26-1/14 came under the spotlight.

 

This Decision states:

Clarification of “Opposite Margin” in Rule 26-1c(ii)

 

 

Q. Please clarify the words “opposite margin” in Rule 26-1c. With regard to the diagram, “X1” indicates where a ball in the hazard last crossed the hazard margin. May the player drop a ball within two club-lengths of “Y1”? And, may a player whose ball last crossed the hazard margin at “X2” drop a ball within two club-lengths of “Y2”, and so on?

A. With respect to “X1”, “Y1” is “a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole”. Accordingly, the player would be entitled to drop a ball within two club-lengths of “Y1”.

The same applies in the cases of “X3”–“Y3” and “X4”–“Y4”, but not in the case of “X2”–“Y2”. A “point on the opposite margin” is a point across the hazard from “the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the hazard”. “Y2” is not across the hazard from “X2” because an imaginary straight line from “X2” to “Y2” crosses land outside the hazard.

 

First let’s examine the case of X2 –Y2, which makes little sense.

 

Consider the following:

1.      Rule 26-1c states (in part) that relief for a ball in a lateral water hazard is available from ‘a point on the opposite margin … equidistant from the hole’. This is not a point on the opposite margin but a point on that margin which is equidistant from the hole.

2.      There are only three (3) mentions of the words ‘straight line’ in the Rules and none of these refers to relief under Rule 26-1c; imaginary or otherwise.

3.      As Rule 33-8b makes it clear that a Local Rule may not waive (or abrogate) a Rule of Golf, it is fair, in my submission, to conclude that a Decision should not have this effect either.

4.      In all relevant explanations and diagrams published by The Castle an arc is the relevant geometrical shape employed.

So, we have a ball which has entered a lateral water hazard at point X2 and the player wishes to apply Rule 26-1c(ii), which is his/her right. In my view the only sensible, reasonable, logical, equitable, rational, practical, and ‘legal’ approach to take is to determine a place on an opposite margin of the hazard by means of inscribing an arc centred on the flagstick. This point is Y2 which is, by any reasonable interpretation of English, ‘across’ the hazard.

To conjure a straight line to indicate that point Z2 is the ‘real’ point on the opposite margin is to create a fiction that straight lines have any relevance what-so-ever to the application of Rule 26-1c. and to deny the player an option for relief to which s/he is rightfully entitled under the Rules. This denial arises because it is obvious that an arc from the flagstick cannot be drawn through both X2 and Z2.

One scratches one’s head and wonders what it is about The Castle which drives it to ever-more contrivances to obfuscate a set of Rules which are already sufficiently complex and confusing. Why be so obtuse? Why not go for the simple and rational option of providing a player with a 26-1c(ii) option on the opposite side of the hazard where the arc of equidistance intersects with that margin?

This part of Decision 26-1/14 is reminiscent of the ‘bad old days’ when, in taking relief from an immovable obstruction, a ball moved from one side of the obstruction to the other behind the obstruction was deemed to have been moved over, through or under the obstruction in contravention of then Rule 24-2b. Fortunately this ridiculous interpretation has (almost) been abandoned – Note 3 to Rule 24-2 preserves the right of a Committee to persist with this approach – as should the equally ludicrous interpretation of across the hazard in this case.

Furthermore, if Y2 is not the ‘opposite margin’ to X2 because an imaginary straight line between these points crosses land outside the hazard, then how can Y1 be on the 'opposite margin’ to X1?

In any case, surely the logical alternative to X1 for relief under Rule 26-1c(ii) is Z1.