Following-on from Time to Drop the ‘drop’ we need to consider the question of where relief should be taken, or ‘where to place’.
Under current provisions, relief available may be:
· Within one club-length not nearer to the hole (eg: casual water, GUR, immovable obstruction);
· Within two club-lengths not nearer to the hole (eg: lateral water hazard, unplayable lie);
· Nearest point of relief not nearer to the hole (eg: wrong putting green, immovable obstruction near a green); or
· As near as possible to the position of the ball where relief is afforded (eg: embedded ball, immovable obstruction near a green ).
And the reference point for such relief can be:
· Point of entry (ball in lateral water hazard or lost in casual water, GUR or immovable obstruction);
· Nearest point of complete relief from interference to lie and stance (GUR, casual water);
· Complete relief from interference to lie, stance and swing (immovable obstruction);
· Nearest point of relief from interference for lie only (immovable obstruction near green, wrong putting green); or
· Point where the ball lies (unplayable lie, embedded ball).
The obvious question is: Is all this really necessary?
I do not think so.
How much simpler it would be for us all if in every instance where relief is to be taken the ball were to be placed at the nearest point, not nearer the hole, which provides complete relief for lie, stance and swing from the interfering condition, in accordance with relief entitlement relevant to that condition?
To explain:
Situation 1
A player’s ball comes to rest in a position such that his swing is interfered-with by a fixed ball-washer.
Rule 24-2 provides, in part, that:
a. Interference
Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or when the obstruction interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing.
Hence under this proposal, player would be entitled to place his ball at the nearest point to where the ball came to rest where interference to the lie, stance and swing is avoided completely.
Situation 2
A player’s ball is known to have come to rest in a lateral water hazard.
Rule 26-1c provides, in part, that:
Relief for Ball in Water Hazard
If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard … , the player may under penalty of one stroke:
c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.
Under this proposal, player would be entitled to place his ball at the nearest point to the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard where interference to the lie and stance is avoided completely.
Situation 3
A player’s ball comes to rest in a bush as she deems it to be unplayable.
Rule 28c provides that:
If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he must, under penalty of one stroke:
c. Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole.
Under this proposal, player would be entitled to place her ball at the nearest point to the point where the ball lay which provides complete relief to lie, stance and swing from the condition (in this case the complete bush) which is causing the lie of the ball to be unplayable.
Situation 4
A player’s ball is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the fairway.
Rule 25-2 states:
Embedded Ball
A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely-mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole.
Under this proposal, player would be entitled to place his ball at the nearest point to the point where the ball was embedded which provides complete relief from the embedded lie only.
Situation 5
A player’s ball comes to rest on a wrong putting green.
Rule 25-3 states, in part:
a. Interference
Interference by a wrong putting green occurs when a ball is on the wrong putting green.
Interference to a player’s stance or the area of his intended swing is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.
b. Relief
If a player’s ball lies on a wrong putting green, he must not play the ball as it lies. He must take relief, without penalty, as follows:
The player must lift the ball and drop it within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green.
Under this proposal, player would be entitled to place his ball at the nearest point to the point where the ball lay on the wrong green, which is off the green, which provides complete relief from the wrong green for lie and stance.
I ask dedicated Roggies to think for a moment or two about the many positives that these proposed simplifications of the Rules in regard to ‘placing’ and ‘place of relief’ would bring and then take as long as is needed to identify the negative consequences that would visited upon the nature, integrity, values and playing of the game by these modifications.
Please post your list of negatives so that they may be addressed by the collective wisdom of the Roggies who read this site.
Remember that the objective is to make the Rules more explicable to, and manageable by, more players who want to play by the Rules.
Unfortunately placing will produce "perfect" lies, players will be advantaged by your proposal Rog. With dropping there is a potpourri of lies that occur, similar to that which occurs when you approach your ball with either eager anticipation or dreaded trepidation. This is, I believe, a big negative to your otherwise sensible proposal.
ReplyDeletegeneral
DeleteThe concept of ‘advantage’ is not alien to the Rules of Golf. For instance, if your ball comes to rest in casual water (a natural yet randomly occurring condition) it is surely an ‘advantage’ to be able to take relief free-of-charge rather than have to play the ball as it lies or take an unplayable ball penalty; as one might presume.
It should also be noted that competitive golf is not a game against the course but a game between competitors or opponents. Hence if all competitors are able to take relief from a given patch of casual water, in the same way, then there exists a ‘level playing field’. This is what I would call ‘equitable’.
The same argument applies to the proposal to place, rather than drop, a ball when taking relief. As you correctly state: ‘With dropping there is a potpourri of lies that occur.’ This is precisely the point. Why should there be introduced into the natural order of the game a second layer of randomness when, as you say again, fortune may at any time play a part in the lie of the ball; giving rise to ‘eager anticipation or dreaded trepidation.’
Under the current Rules, my ball may be in a very poor lie on the fairway but there is interference to my stance from a sprinkler-head. I choose to take relief. I drop and my ball rolls fractionally nearer the hole than its original position. I drop again, taking care to drop on a ‘perfect’ piece of turf (remember I do have a considerable degree of flexibility in respect to my choice of dropping point), and my ball again rolls slightly closer to the hole. I proceed to place my ball on my chosen spot where it struck the ground. On the other hand, your ball is on an excellent lie, but off the fairway behind a watering control box. You are unable to make a stroke at the ball by virtue of interference from this obstruction. You drop the ball within one club-length of the nearest point of relief and it rolls a short distance further away from the obstruction into an unrepaired divot. Your ball is in play.
Worse still, your ball is in an unplayable position. You take penalty relief and drop the ball. It rolls back into its original lie or into another unplayable lie. You are again unplayable, facing another penalty when you have not played a stroke at your ball.
I think that this type of added complication through chance, where there is no association with the playing of the game, per se, is unnecessary and inappropriate.
In a recent incident I witnessed, a player’s ball came to rest through the putting green in long(ish) grass, in a position where there was interference to his swing from a grandstand. There was no ‘dropping zone’. The player proceeded to locate his nearest point of relief, measure one club-length with his driver and drop the ball on the green. I call this an unreasonable advantage, relative to the interests of the other competitors.
If the ‘place at NPOR’ proposal were in force, the player would have been required to place his ball at the nearest point of relief from the obstruction. This would have been in the long grass in which his ball finished. This is what I would call an ‘equitable’ outcome: a core principle of the game.
"The player proceeded to locate his nearest point of relief, measure one club-length with his driver and drop the ball on the green. I call this an unreasonable advantage, relative to the interests of the other competitors."
ReplyDeleteIt's also a breach of the TIO Local Rule and the player should have been penalized.
Thanks Anon
ReplyDeleteCould you explain the situation re: the TIO Local Rule a little further for us?
The player wasn't permitted to drop his ball on the putting green (as described in the portion of the L.R. below). Had the ball rolled onto the putting green a re-drop would have been required (Rule 20-2c).
ReplyDeleteIII. Relief
A player may obtain relief from interference by a TIO, including a TIO that is out of bounds, as follows:
(a) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies must be determined that (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference as defined in Clause II and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of the point so determined on a part of the course that fulfils (a), (b) and (c) above.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI will stand corrected on the exact details of the incident. I expect that, as an official was present, the ball was dropped on the fringe and not on the green itself. The relief the player was able to obtain was, however, very generous given the place where his ball came to rest.
Thanks for pointing out the error. I should have realised that he would not have been dropping on the green.