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.