Rog’s Blog: Time to Drop the ‘drop’

I was watching some golf on TV recently when I was aroused from my torpor by a suggestion from one of the commentators: abandonment of dropping the ball in favour of placing in all circumstances!

This is a proposition of which Rog is very much in favour as it encompasses several positive outcomes and, from my viewpoint, no negatives.

The game of golf has at its core the element of randomness and things simply would not be the same without it: what would there to be to complain about! A shot strikes a tree or a cart path, for example, and the outcome can be significantly beneficial or detrimental. The ball can bounce or roll to the right or left with significantly different results. There are, as we all know, an untold number of such examples.

But there are sufficient opportunities for ‘chance’ to play its role within the game itself without further opportunities arising through artificial human intervention.

The basic tenet of the game is that the ball should be played as it lies, however it is largely because of human intervention (through architecture, hazards, obstructions and maintenance) that there is a need for this principle to be over-ridden from time-to-time, or the game could simply not proceed.

This is where relief (free or penalty) comes into play: and there are many, many opportunities for this to occur.

So, we need copious rules covering, for instance:

·        When to drop (and when to place);

·        Where to drop;

·        How to drop and by whom; and

·        When to re-drop.

So, let’s have a look at a few implications.

1.    When to drop

Several Rules address this question. Take as an example, Rule 25 (relief from interference by an Abnormal Ground Condition). This Rule proclaims that through the green the ball must be dropped; in a bunker the ball must be dropped; on a teeing ground the ball must be dropped; and yet on the putting green the ball must be placed.

This Rule is, in part, responsible for the incorrect belief held among several experienced officials of whom I am aware that a ball must always be placed on a putting green and may never be dropped. However a close examination of Rules 26 and 28 reveals that there is no distinction between sectors of the course when taking relief, the Rule is silent: the ball must, therefore, always be dropped. So what hope do the punters have?

 

2.    Where to drop

Rules concerning relief are generally very clear on where a ball must be dropped when applying the variety of relief options available. These are (as we are all aware) typically as near as possible to the point where the ball was last played; as far behind the original position of the ball; or one or two clublengths from the point where the ball lay but not nearer to the hole.

The general principle is that in the last case a free drop must be taken within one clublength and a penalty drop must be taken within two clublenghts.

This is all very straight-forward and sensible.

3.    How to drop and by whom

Rule 20-2 describes each of these provisions more than adequately. However, when it comes to the ‘how’ one sees among club golfers beaches of this procedure on a regular basis. In fact if one did not know better one would assume that the dropping Rule had been devised by Rafferty! And no-one seems to care.

 

4.    When to re-drop

This is where the fun starts.  Rule 20-2c makes it quite clear that there are seven circumstances (with a total of 13 sub-sections) which require that a dropped ball be re-dropped.

These are:

c. When to Re-Drop

A dropped ball must be re-dropped, without penalty, if it:

(i)      rolls into and comes to rest in a hazard;

(ii)     rolls out of and comes to rest outside a hazard;

(iii)   rolls onto and comes to rest on a putting green;

(iv)   rolls and comes to rest out of bounds;

(v)   rolls to and comes to rest in a position where there is interference by the condition from which relief was taken under Rule 24-2b (immovable obstruction), Rule 25-1 (abnormal ground conditions), Rule 25-3  (wrong putting green) or a Local Rule (Rule 33-8a), or rolls back into the pitch-mark from which it was lifted under Rule 25-2 (embedded ball);

(vi)   rolls and comes to rest more than two club-lengths from where it first struck a part of the course; or

(vii)  rolls and comes to rest nearer the hole than:

(a) its original position or estimated position (see Rule 20-2b) unless otherwise permitted by the Rules; or

(b) the nearest point of relief or maximum available relief (Rule 24-2, 25-1 or 25-3); or

(c) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or lateral water hazard (Rule 26-1).

 

The problem is that these provisions are so complex that only the most tutored player will understand them.

Then there is the added provision that a dropped ball breaching the provisions of Rule 20-2c for a second time must be placed as follows:

If the ball when re-dropped rolls into any position listed above, it must be placed as near as possible to the spot where it first struck a part of the course when re-dropped.

Good luck with the last bit (a nice piece of grass with a bit of elevation is invariably far too attractive)!

 

Permit me to describe two instructive instances entailing Rule 20-2c:

1.    An experienced professional took relief from a lateral water hazard and dropped his ball within two clublengths of the point of entry of the ball into the hazard (26-1c). His ball rolled towards the hazard, but not nearer to the hole than the entry point, such that it was necessary for him to stand in the hazard to play his shot.

He applied the provisions of Rule 20-2c, picked up his ball and re-dropped it.

Result? Penalty of two strokes (Rule 26 does not feature in section (v))!

2.    An experienced professional, playing the final hole of a tournament which he was leading, played his tee shot into a lateral water hazard.  He decided to take relief by dropping his ball ten metres behind the hazard on line with the point of entry and the flagstick.

When he dropped the ball it ran more than two clublengths from the point where it first struck the ground and, in consultation with his fellow-competitor, he picked up his ball and re-dropped it (part (vi)).

When he re-dropped his ball it ran a metre closer to the hole from the point where it first struck the ground. Again in consultation with his fellow-competitor, he picked up his ball and placed it at the point where the re-drop had struck the ground.  He played to the green, two putted and won the tournament.

No-one noticed that he had incurred a two stroke penalty: his re-drop was not nearer to the hole than the original position of the ball ((vii) a) or the point where his ball crossed the hazard margin ((vii) c) and was, therefore, in play. By lifting and placing he played from the wrong place (see Rule 20-7).

There are also those who believe that 20-2c(v) applies to taking relief from an unplayable lie.

 Do not expect the club punter to understand what this is all about, or care that much about it.

 

5.    Speed of play

All of this dropping, redropping, consulting and placing has serious implications for the vexed question of ‘slow play’: the bane of modern golf.

 

6.    Inequity

Consider the following as examples (among the many which could be cited):

A player takes relief from an excellent lie on the fairway because a sprinkler head is interfering with his stance and drops his ball which rolls into a deep divot. Is this equitable or essential to the values of the game? I do not think so.

A player takes relief from an unplayable lie and his dropped ball rolls back into the same lie. Is this equitable and essential to the values of the game? I do not think so.

A player who has lifted his ball from GUR may, prior to dropping the ball, remove loose impediments in the intended dropping area (Decisions 23-1/6 and 23-1/6.5) and yet may not repair a ball (pitch) mark in the same area (Decision 13-2/10). He may remove a detached divot but may not press down a divot partially attached to the ground. I would call this an unacceptably inequitable randomness risk.

 

The solution

Expunge ‘dropping’ from the Rules and in every instance where relief is to be taken, substitute placing of the ball in the position permitted by the relevant Rule.

Such a modification would eliminate all of the negative aspects which dropping introduces into the game without impinging in any material way on the integrity, values or playing of the game.

It will also eliminate a significant number of words from the Rule Book and umpteen Decisions from the Decisions Book.

This reform is productive simplification and is, as they say in the classics, ‘a no-brainer’.

 

Rog's Blog: Changing One’s Mind & Correcting Errors

Scene 1

 

Bill advises his fellow-competitor Bob that he can see his ball in a water hazard and that he is going to take relief.

Bill drops his ball in the correct manner, within two club-lengths of the agreed point of entry and is about to play his stroke when Bob points-out that the hazard is a water hazard and that Bill is not entitled to drop in the place that he has.

So, Bill has put his ball into play at the wrong place.

Fortunately for him Rule 20-6 exists. It states:

20-6. Lifting Ball Incorrectly Substituted, Dropped or Placed

 

A ball incorrectly substituted, dropped or placed in a wrong place or otherwise not in accordance with the Rules but not played may be lifted, without penalty, and the player must then proceed correctly.

Just to be sure that we fully understand what we are reading, we are provided with Decision 20-6/1 to reassure us. It states:

20-6/1

Ball Placed When Required to Be Dropped or Dropped When Required to Be Placed; Correction of Error

 

Q. A player placed a ball when he should have dropped it or dropped it when he should have placed it. Before playing a stroke, may the player lift the ball, without penalty, under Rule 20-6 and proceed correctly?

A. Yes. Otherwise the player would lose the hole in match play or incur a penalty of two strokes in stroke play for a breach of the applicable Rule.

We can be fairly certain, therefore, that Bill can lift his ball and drop it in the correct place without penalty, even though he put his ball into play in a wrong place in breach of Rule 26-1.

Scene 2

Andy’s ball has come to rest outside of a lateral water hazard and one of the hazard stakes interferes with his area of intended swing.

The stake is easily removable and so Andy removes it and prepares to play his shot.

Andy’s fellow-competitor Tony has observed what has occurred and before Andy can play his stroke, Tony advises Andy that he thinks that hazard stakes might be designated as immovable under a Local Rule.  They check the back of the scorecard and discover that Tony’s belief is, indeed, correct.

Andy replaces the stake into its well-defined hole (this is not the first time which it has been removed) and proceeds to take relief from the stake under the immovable obstruction rule, and play to the green.

As the players mark their cards on the next tee, Andy’s marker Jeff asks what he has added to his score as a penalty for moving the stake in breach of the Local Rule.

Andy is perplexed by this proposition as he is aware of the ‘non-consolidation principle’ described in Rule 20-6 and advises Tony that he corrected his error prior to playing his stroke.

The players cannot agree but decide to consult the match committee before Tony signs Andy’s card.

The match committee (MC) is sympathetic (as such committees invariably are) but advises Andy that while he did not consolidate his error in removing the stake, and replaced it and proceeded correctly, he would still be penalised for having removed the stake contrary to Rule 13-2, which provides that a player must not improve the area of his intended swing by moving an immovable obstruction.

Andy is astonished and asks for an explanation.

The  MC refers Andy to Decision 13-2/25. It states:

Player Removes Boundary Post on Line of Play But Replaces It Before Playing

Q. A player removes a post defining out of bounds on his line of play. He realises he has made a mistake and replaces it before playing his next stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player was in breach of Rule 13-2 the moment he moved the post and there was nothing he could do to avoid the penalty. The replacement of the post before the next stroke was irrelevant.

The MC advises that since the Decisions do not address directly the situation created by Andy, their decision is that Andy will be penalised two strokes based on the principle contained in Decision 13-2/25.

 

Scene 3

As Joan approaches her ball she discovers that it lies in a position where her backswing might be impeded if she were to attempt to play the ball towards the green.

Joan takes a club and experiments with a few practice swings to test the situation.

During this process she makes contact with a bush and a small twig falls to the ground.

Joan is well aware of the provisions of Rule 13-2 and as she is unsure whether the dislodgement of the twig would constitute a breach of this Rule she decides to proceed by chipping her ball at right angles to the line of play so that there is no possibility that the path of her swing will be anywhere near the area from which the twig was dislodged.

As the players reach the green Joan’s marker remarks on what Joan had been doing and Joan explains that she did not proceed with her initial thought of playing her ball towards the green as the path of her swing may have been improved and that she had chosen to play the ball in a different direction so that Rule 13-2 would not be breached for that stroke.

The players decide to check Joan’s actions with the match committee before submitting her card.

Joan is advised that Rule 13-2 prohibits improvement of the area of the intended swing and that Decision 13-2/24 confirms that Joan has breached the Rules and is subject to a two stroke penalty.

This Decision states:

Area of Originally Intended Swing Improved by Breaking Branch; Area of Swing Finally Used Not Affected by Branch

Q. A player, intending to play in a certain direction, took a practice backswing for a stroke in that direction and broke a branch impeding his backswing. The player then decided to play in a different direction. The area of his intended swing for a stroke in this new direction was not improved by the breaking of the branch. In such circumstances, would the player incur a penalty under Rule 13-2?

A. Yes. The player was in breach of Rule 13-2 as soon as he improved the area of the originally intended swing. The penalty is not avoided if he subsequently plays in another direction, even if the breaking of the branch had no effect on the area of the swing for a stroke in the new direction.

Joan asks how the committee has discerned her intentions as at the time she was contemplating her options she had not formed any intention of playing any particular shot.

It is also worth noting that a ‘swing’ is not defined. Hence it is somewhat difficult to see how anyone can be adamant about the ‘area of swing’ or the actual intended swing plane for any particular shot played by any particular player.

Scene 4

We return to the poor chap discussed in Dodgy Decisions #13.

It seems that because a clairvoyant (who happened to be present) determined that this player intended to play from the hazard at the time that he removed the loose impediment, the player is penalised. This is despite the fact that he does not subsequently play from the hazard and that there is no justification for such a decision under the terms of Rule 13-4.

These are just four of any number of examples which paint a picture which can best be described as a ‘dog’s breakfast’! (and one which only a sophisticated club player would be able to work his/her way through by reference to the Rule Book).

 

We have:

1.    A player who has (genuinely) put his ball into play at a wrong place but is permitted to correct his error without penalty prior to consolidating the error by making a stroke at the ball;

2.    A player who has made an error in removing a movable obstruction which is designated immovable and despite correcting his error and proceeding within the Rules is penalised two strokes; 

3.    A player without any particular intentions has taken a decision to ensure that the results of her action in dislodging a twig do not gain her any advantage in respect of the stroke which she actually plays; and 

4.    A player who has had his intentions decided for him and has thereby incurred a two stroke penalty even though he has not breached the terms of the Rule upon which the penalty is purported to be based.

The Castle Dwellers need to spend time dealing with situations such as this, where there are conceptual inconsistencies, to provide that the principle of ‘consolidating an error’ applies in a consistent and rational manner. Penalties need to be applied where an advantage is gained in playing the actual stroke, not to situations where only a possible intention may be in the player’s mind at the time an erroneous act is performed.

The principles which should apply in these cases are:

1.    A player may either correct his error prior to playing a stroke or he may not! I favour the former and would like to see broadening of the application of the principle enunciated in Rule 20-6.

2.    A penalty should be applied only to actual strokes and should not be applied to unarticulated intentions or mere passing thoughts.

 

Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #13

More loose impediment lunacy!

 
Picture the following:

Jody’s ball has come to rest in a pool of water in an otherwise dry water hazard. As she walks towards her ball she picks up a pine cone lying some 5 metres from her ball and throws it into the adjacent copse of trees (she was caring for the course and the interests of other competitors following).

Jody then retrieves her ball and proceeds to take relief from the hazard.

 

Jody’s fellow-competitor, Susie, advises Jody that she may have incurred a two stroke penalty, and in support of her contention quotes from memory the following Decision:

 

13-4/17

Loose Impediment Removed from Water Hazard; Player Then Decides Not to Play from Hazard

Q. A player whose ball was in a water hazard removed a loose impediment from the hazard. He then decided not to play from the hazard. He proceeded under Rule 26-1. Was the player absolved from the penalty incurred under Rule 13-4 for removing the loose impediment in view of the fact that he subsequently invoked Rule 26-1 and did not play his ball from the hazard?

A.   No.

 

There seems little doubt from the unequivocal and uncompromising tone of the answer that The Castle would be adamant that Jody falls within the purview of this Decision.

However, it is difficult to see how either Jody or the poor chap in the Decision should be penalised as neither of them played a stroke from within the hazard.  Rule 13-4 is quite clear that the only prohibition (relevant to these situations) on touching or moving a loose impediment in a hazard occurs when this is done ‘before making a stroke at a ball that is in the hazard’: which neither player did.

On a broader front, one must ask the obvious question:  If Jody had no intention of playing her ball from the hazard what possible relevance could the pine cone have had to her further playing of the hole?

Is there someone who can provide us with an answer to this question?

If not, one can only ask why it is that we have to endure such nonsense in the game of golf.

It is definitely time to eradicate the distinction between loose impediments through-the-green and in hazards, and thereby eliminate the need for dodgy decisions such as this.