Set aside the fact that after four years very little has
changed when so much needs to be done and consider what has been done. On the positive side the Principal Changes section
notes the following changes which will be of interest to you and me:
·
The Definition of ‘addressing the ball’ no
longer mentions ‘taking a stance’ but makes it clear that you will have
addressed the ball when you have grounded your club behind or in front of the
ball. This is no big deal as it was
never a requirement of the Rules that you take a ‘stance’ before playing your
shot–think ‘tap-in putt’. However the
change does mean that you will never address the ball in a hazard unless, of
course, you breach Rule 13-4 by touching the surface of the hazard with your
club, in which case you are in big
trouble.
·
The question of raking a bunker prior to playing
a stroke from the bunker—usually because the rake is a ‘mile/kilometre’ away
from your ball and you do the right thing by smoothing the bunker as you walk
to your ball—which has been a long-standing problem among club golfers, with
the result that the Rule was broken on a regular basis. Now, sensibly, you will be able to do the
‘right thing’ and rake your footmarks as you move to your ball, so long as your
‘sole motive’ in doing so is to look after the course.
Other ‘Principal Changes‘ are trivial but there are some
which present real problems.
Before dealing with these problems individually in future
blogs I will pose one question for which I hope there are perceptive and conscientious
‘roggies’ who can provide the answer.
For the past forty (40) years (at least) there
has been no penalty if, in searching for or identifying a ball covered by loose
impediments in a hazard, the ball was moved.
In the Rule Book effective from I January 1972, (then) Rule 33.1e (Finding Ball in a Hazard) provided that:
If a ball be covered by ... fallen leaves or the like, the player may remove as much thereof as will enable him to see the top of the ball. If the ball be moved in such removal, no penalty shall be incurred, and the ball shall be replaced.
In the 1984 Book a restructuring occurred and Rule 12 became 'Searching for and Identifying Ball'. It stated:
In a hazard, if a ball is covered by loose impediments or sand, the player may remove .... If the ball is moved in such removal, no penalty is incurred; the ball shall be replaced and, if necessary, re-covered.
This carried through into the 2008-2011 Rule Book.
But the current crop of Castle Dwellers has decided that the lot of long-suffering golfers is not miserable enough and more punishment must be visited upon them!
Hence, for reasons which escape Rog's simple mind, The Castle has decided to impose a penalty of one stroke if the ball is moved while searching for or identifying it when covered by loose impediments in a hazard.
In the Rule Book effective from I January 1972, (then) Rule 33.1e (Finding Ball in a Hazard) provided that:
If a ball be covered by ... fallen leaves or the like, the player may remove as much thereof as will enable him to see the top of the ball. If the ball be moved in such removal, no penalty shall be incurred, and the ball shall be replaced.
In the 1984 Book a restructuring occurred and Rule 12 became 'Searching for and Identifying Ball'. It stated:
In a hazard, if a ball is covered by loose impediments or sand, the player may remove .... If the ball is moved in such removal, no penalty is incurred; the ball shall be replaced and, if necessary, re-covered.
This carried through into the 2008-2011 Rule Book.
But the current crop of Castle Dwellers has decided that the lot of long-suffering golfers is not miserable enough and more punishment must be visited upon them!
Hence, for reasons which escape Rog's simple mind, The Castle has decided to impose a penalty of one stroke if the ball is moved while searching for or identifying it when covered by loose impediments in a hazard.
Why?
If you have the answer, please share it with all of us. The Castle certainly has not thought it necessary to let us in to the secret.
This certainly seems strange. I cannot think of any reason why it should be changed - seems a bit draconian. I wonder if it is just an error.
ReplyDeleteWeb site looks great, will take a rain check on being a 'perceptive and conscientious Roggie.
DeleteI'm with you Peachie and I would certainly like to hear an explanation from The Castle.
DeleteIf the ball is outside a hazard and the player causes it to move by removing loose impediments during a search he incurs a one stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced. By applying the same penalty in a hazard would seem fair to me.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon, thanks for your contribution.
ReplyDeleteIt is assumed that you are relying upon Rule 23-1, which states:
If the ball lies anywhere other than on the putting green and the removal of a loose impediment by the player causes the ball to move, Rule 18-2a applies.
While it is a small point, this provision does not apply to searching for a ball in an obstruction or abnormal ground condition (Rule 12-1d), but I do understand that, as you imply, removing a loose impediment while searching for a ball in (most) other circumstances falls within the ambit of Rule 23-1.
I think, however, that your attribution of ‘fairness’ is a little more problematic.
Please consider the following:
1. The provision that no penalty was incurred when a ball moved while searching for it in a hazard, whether covered by sand or loose impediments, has existed for 40 years, at least.
2. One assumes that the change to the provision covering loose impediments has been changed by The Castle for reasons of consistency—this is one of the Castle Dwellers’ favourite objectives; and is not unreasonable.
3. By changing a Rule to bring hazard loose impediments into line with other loose impediments The Castle has created an inconsistency between the treatment of sand and loose impediments which did not previously exist. Now, a ball moved while searching in sand in a hazard draws no penalty but a ball moved while searching in loose impediments in a hazard incurs a penalty.
4. One would have thought that a change to a long-standing Rule would have drawn from The Castle a little more by way of explanation than the bland statement in Principal Changes.
5. The whole treatment of ‘searching’ is poor. While there are specific sections for ‘Searching for Ball’ which covers long grass, bushes, whins, heather and the like (Rule 12-1), and ‘Searching for a … Ball Covered by Sand’ (Rule 12-1a) and ‘Searching for … Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard’ (Rule 12-1b) and ‘Searching for Ball in Water in Water Hazard’ (Rule 12-1c) and ‘Searching for Ball Within Obstruction or Abnormal Ground Condition’ (Rule 12-1c), The Castle does not see fit to including a clause which covers ‘Searching for Ball Covered by Loose Impediments Through the Green’. In fact the Index (the most important tool for assisting a player to navigate the Rule Book) indicates that Rule 12-1 is the only Rule which deals with searching for a ball.
6. It is instructive that in the zest for ‘consistency’ and given the choice between two courses of action, The Castle has chosen the more penal option. That is, either, on the one hand, a penalty could have been attached to a ball moved when a player moves a loose impediment when searching in a hazard, thus bringing this situation into line with that which applies outside of a hazard or, on the other, the situation outside of the hazard could have been brought into line with that which has applied within a hazard. The latter would have been, in Rog’s humble view, a much more appealing course with much less problematic outcomes. It would also have shown that the Castle Dwellers have a heart.
My question remains: Why?
There is a difference between searching and removing of course.
ReplyDelete