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.
I think the words'he then decided not to play' are the key to this decision. If Jody had picked up her ball before touching the pine cone or stated that she was going to take relief or by other means made it clear that she had no intention of making a stroke in the hazard there would have been no penalty, see decision 14-4/40
ReplyDeleteLarry
DeleteI acknowledge that Decision 14-4/40 relies on a notion of intention. I also acknowledge that in other situations the question of intention, based upon the evidence, becomes critical in making a determination under the Rules: making a stroke and exerting an influence on the ball, for example. However, I do not believe that there is anything in Rule 13 (nor any other Rule) which takes account of a player’s unannounced intentions or, in fact requires the player to declare his/her intentions, in respect to playing a shot (when, how and where it is to be played) until that determination has been made and announced to the marker, fellow-competitor or opponent in situations where it is required under that Rules: taking relief, lifting the ball, provisional ball, and so on.
Rule 13-4 makes it clear, in my view, that the prohibition on touching a loose impediment in a hazard only applies when a stroke is subsequently played at a ball already at rest in the same hazard.
The declared intention of a Jody to take relief may well provide her with a defence against touching a loose impediment while the ball is on the ground in the hazard (although I see nothing in the Rules to support this view) but, again, there is no prohibition within the Rules on a player changing his/her mind even though an intention may have been declared.
As I have reiterated to general_zeke below, removal of all Rules covering loose impediments (and immovable obstructions) in hazards would aleviate all of this unnecessary silliness without impinging in any material way on the values of the game.
But if this was not the decision then unscrupulous players could take advantage ROG! Let's say Jody was about to play from a tricky lie in a hazard but absent-mindedly removed a loose impediment. When threatened with her 2 stroke penalty she could simply take a 1 stroke penalty and a better lie by taking relief from the hazard. After all, she is entitled to change her mind about how she will proceed!!
ReplyDeletegeneral
DeleteWe have a choice here between objectivity and subjectivity. Rule 13-4 states clearly that touching or moving a loose impediment when the ball lies in the same hazard is a penalty only if this is done before making a stroke from that hazard. The corollary to this provision is that even if the ball lies in a hazard there is no penalty (under the Rules) for removing a loose impediment from the hazard if a stroke is not played at the ball from the hazard.
Questions of intention, thinking, trickiness and the like are all subjective – and objectivity trumps subjectivity every time.
As you correctly, and importantly, say, the Rules contain no prohibition on changing one’s mind: how could this be determined with certainty anyway? Who is to know whether the chap in Decision 13-4/17 had actually decided to play from the hazard prior to changing his mind or whether he was just thinking about the prospect of playing the ball.
And what about if he had taken his club into the hazard providing the impression that he intended to play the ball; on seeing the lie, decided to take relief, announced his decision, and then placed his club on and moved a loose impediment while picking up his ball. He would, under this Decision, be penalised for moving a loose impediment while his ball lay in the hazard!
Then we have Decisions 13-4/13 and 13.5 which contemplate the notion of accidentally moving a loose impediment: no penalty is incurred. These Decisions provide further unconfined opportunities for the ‘unscrupulous’ golfer.
The treatment of loose impediments in hazards is, in my view, inequitable and an unnecessary complication of the game and if the treatment of loose impediments was uniform across the course all of these silly decisions would disappear without trace.
Rog
ReplyDeleteWithout getting to much into the legal world in simplistic terms
Actus reus - physical element of the crime (guilty act)
Mens Rea - mental element of the crime (guilty mind)
Your scenario is talking in the realms of the mind.
The ROG define wrongful acts and the appropriate penalty.
We will be sliding a very slippery slope if the rules attempt to tackle players state of mind.
Hi Anon
DeleteMy point is that we are already well down the slippery slope of purporting to take a player’s unannounced intention into account, without, on my reading, there being any foundation for doing so, or need to do so, within the terms of Rule 13-4.
The question is (or should be): did the player make a stroke at a ball in a hazard after touching a loose impediment in the same hazard? It is not: did the player think about or indicate some apparent intention of making a stroke at a ball in a hazard after touching a loose impediment in the same hazard.
The Rules definitely do define clearly what may not be done when the ball is in a hazard but just thinking about how one might proceed is not one of those ‘wrongful acts’, neither is changing one’s mind.
To muse on your interesting legal points, as I understand it:
actus reus (physical act) refers to the aphorism that ‘an (physical) act does not make a person guilty of a crime unless the mind is also guilty’.
mens rea (mental act) implies ‘an evil intention or an understanding of the wrongfulness of the act’. I hope we do not get to the point of penalising golfers for, say, giving fleeting thought to kicking the ball out from behind a tree. Thankfully, in golf, there is no penalty unless and until the act is actually committed. Hence my problem with the Decision in question: the player may have thought of playing his ball from the hazard after touching loose impediment within the hazard, but he did not actually do it!
PS: Would you consider adopting an alias for your comments so that I can identify (among the Anonymouses) with whom I am conversing?