With reference to Rule 27-2a. A player has a caddie,the caddie positions himself where he would expect a tee shot to land, the player cuts the ball into the trees and then plays a provisional ball. What if any is the penalty?
Is the caddie searching for the ball would be the key component of this question I assume. My thoughts would be that passively standing there waiting does not meet the "searching" parameters. Perhaps if your question had specified that the caddie went looking before the player played the provisional may evoke a different response.
Rule 27-2a states that the player must play the provisional ball before he or his partner go forward to search for the ball, the player includes his caddie or his partners caddie.
It does not look like there are many wanting to dip their toe in the water, so I will have a go.
The 'going forward' provision in Rule 27-2a is there, I believe, for the purpose of speeding-up play. The Castle, reasonably, does not want players deciding to play a provisional ball when they have walked 50 metres down the fairway from the tee.
In this case the player has met the spirit of this provision and has not gained (or sought to gain) any advantage.
The view that a provisional ball may only be played if the original may be lost or out of bounds, and that this ball could not be lost because the caddie will surely find it, does not, in my view, come into calculation here.
This player should be applauded for his foresight.
the caddie isn't 'going forward' within the context of 27- 2, and will probably be 'coming back' if sensible, having stood out of range from the tee.
taking your argument to it's logical extreme you would say that a player who drives his ball past his caddie is such a situation wouldn't be able to play a provisional whilst one whose drive fell short would...whilst such a situation might amuse Rog it doesn't exist.
"Going forward to search for the ball" does not seem the same to me as "positions himself where he would expect a tee shot to land". I see no problem at all, unless the caddie positions himself too accurately and is struck by the ball.
Rog, you are right not too many prepared to dip their toe, I have posed this to three National Referees and have not had a response from anyone yet. As you say it is a senseible thing to do but the way the rule is worded I think it leaves a lot of doubt as to whether it is allowed or not.
Larry, Why not ask the ruling body. There answer, if given, would be more convincing than a National Referee's answer. You could get three different answers from your three ref's and then you would be non the wiser.
The new clarification from the Castle on addressing the ball is really helpful. We had "immediately behind" to help us now they have clarified that with the word "closely" Which to me only muddies the water!!
I particularly like the bit about 'ensuring that the Rules are clear, easy to understand and relevant to today’s game.' Self-delusion seems to be endemic in The Castle.
I'm sure Rog will express a view on this in the next couple of days.
Arny, decision 27/18 is a result of a question that I put to the ruling body via the normal channels, from memory it took about twelve months to get the reply, the caddie question I needed an answer immediately as none was forthcoming I used my own judgment and took no action as I agree with Rog. Kind regards, Larry
Your comment, for me, highlights the difference between an 'answer' and a 'decision'. My position (which I get the impression is shared by Larry) is that I am interested in 'answers'; and the only place to get them is the Rule Book. The Castle makes 'decisions', and not infrequently they can be 'shockers'.
If the Rule Book does not provide the 'answer' then the Rule Book needs to modified: we do not need yet more 'decisions' to add to the dreaded Decisions Book.
As to the substance of this matter, in my view (in brief):
1. 'Going forward' is from the tee and does not relate to whether the caddie walks forward of backward along the fairway. In addition, there is considerable doubt in my mind that the 'caddie' is included in the provisions of Rule 27-1: but that is not critical to the primary argument.
2. The caddie has not 'gone forward to search' as there is no ball yet in play (hence nothing for which to search).
3. The sole purpose of the 'provisional ball' Rule (27-2) is 'to save time'; which is exactly what the caddie and player are trying to do. The caddie is sensibly acting as a 'forecaddie'.
In this situation I see the Rule Book as providing quite clear advice on this matter and I see no issue with the actions of the player or the caddie. In addition, there is one 'rule' of golf which is not in the Book: it is called 'commom sense'.
As a peripheral matter, if the caddie begins to search for the original ball then, as you will be aware, that is the point at which the 'searching time' begins (Defn of 'Lost Ball').
Another subject, regarding distance measuring devices (DMDs)
The rules are quite clear that if the device measures anything other than distance which might help a player in his playing of the game, it is not allowed. (ignoring local rule etc,)
I believe this is a quote from the Castle regarding an electric trolley which measures temperature.
'this product is fundamentally an electric trolley..... the distance calculating device and temperature display, ... are incidental to the main purpose and utility of the product. The inclusion of these features does not render the trolley non-conforming, but it is the use of these features that causes a breach. Therefore, provided the devices are disabled (either in 'competition mode' or covered up) the use of this particular trolley is not of itself, a breach of Rule 14-3."
This is a question on their web site under FAQs.
Q. What kind of distance measuring devices are allowed by Local Rule?
A. GPS, laser, any really; however, it is important that the device only measures distance. The use of a distance-measuring device that is designed to gauge or measure other conditions that might affect a player's play, like gradient, wind speed or temperature, is not permitted, regardless of whether such an additional function is used or not, and even if that function is disabled.
Are you saying all smartphones are allowed because they are not DMDs?
In my opinion a DMD is a device that measures distance, not just the dedicated, golf buddy, garmin etc, Even if it was designed for a different purpose. But I might be wrong.
the rules agree with you, with one proviso; any device that could measue distance only falls under the DMD rules IF it is used as a DMD.The DMD rules are the ones you quote from the FAQ.
If it's not used as a DMD then those rules don't apply and you are simply looking at 14-3 as written - your quoted text in relation to a trolley confirming that.
Just going back to Larry's question on a caddie being positioned forward.
R 27-2 describes the procedure for playing a provisional ball. In short. 'The player must inform,opponent,marker,FC. that he intends to play a provisional ball, and must play it before he or his partner goes forward to search.' (no mention of caddie)
Yes, point 1 of my reply above recognises that the caddie is not part of the Rule 27-1 provisions, it is, as you say, only the player or partner.
However, some may want to argue the general principle that the player is alays responsible for the caddie's actions. So, let's address that.
The player is reposnsilble fo any breaches of the Rules by his/her caddie. In this case (even if someone may wish to - invalidly - draw the caddie into the argument) there is no suggestion that the caddie has breached any Rule.
It is the player who may be 'alleged' to have breached the Rule by playing a provisonal ball in the described circumstances.
As I have indicated, I think that this is a simple and clear matter and that none of the extraneuos arguments holds water.
It is precisely that point, that a caddie is an extension of the player under the rules that gave me doubts as to whether there was a breach of the rules, I have still had know answer from a higher official, they have either forgotten or ignored my question, I will give the same response if this occurs again.
Arny, go to the R&A Rules/equipment/14-3 distance measuring devices, you will find a quote there that completely counters your argument about switching off or covering up such devices. Kind regards, Larry.
Arny wasn't presenting an argument, he was questioning how switching off a feature on a trolley could be permitted when switching off, or covering up, non-conforming features on a DMD would not prevent a breach.
I pointed out to him that a trolley is not a DMD, and therefore is not subject to the same rules in this respect as a DMD for which, as you also point out, there are specific rules.
Thanks for your discussion on this matter. I have nothing to add to the specifics of what you say but would like to venture the following for your consideration, having due regard, of course, for your legitimate joint interest in the issue.
1. Nature of the task: When participating in the game of golf, there is ‘information’ and ‘application’: that is, there are lots of things the player can know, take into account or be advised about, but the only thing that really counts is, can he actually propel the ball to the chosen target in the required manner, as required.
2. Nature of information: While distance and elevation change are specific to a given situation on the golf course, elements such as wind and temperature are not. That is, for instance, what relevance does wind speed and direction at the closest weather station 10 (or 100) kilometres away have to assisting the player with his second shot to the 5th green? I would suggest limited (at best) and none (most of the time).
3. Consequences of policy: I am sure we all know that the issue of what does or does not comply with the current (and constantly changing) Castle policy, (possible) restrictions on players’ ability to carry, for instance, their smartphone onto the course for safety, personal or business reasons, and the (dis)connection of Castle policy to the real world, is causing confusion and aggravation among players for no sensible reason.
4. Clarity: Further to your discussion about DMDs, trolleys, smartphones, etc, please consider the following regarding ‘course guides’:
- The use of ‘any artificial device’ … ‘For the purpose of gauging distance or conditions that might affect his play’, is prohibited (Rule 14-3).
- The committee is entitled to promulgate a local rule which authorises the player to use ‘a device that measures distance only’ but prohibits the use (or carrying) of such a devise which measures ‘gradient’ (App 1, Part B, 9).
- A ‘course guide’ is an ‘artificial device’ (Decision 14-3/5).
- The inclusion in a course guide of information on gradient and virtual distance is approved (formal advice).
If you are able to reconcile this little lot then you are to be commended and definitely qualify as a master of Orwellianesque ‘castlespeak’.
So the question is: what is the point in burning all this mental energy and causing so much confusion and aggravation over something which can never be accurately and comprehensively addressed and is of so little actual consequence, particularly to the club golfer?
Furthermore there are other technology issues of real consequence which The Castle has mishandled (and continues to mishandle) to the real detriment of the game.
First, the approval of long putters which require a method totally alien to what we would all recognise as a ‘golf swing’ has created a separate game and has compromised the basic values and traditions of the game.
Second, failure to address the question of the dynamic specifications of the ball continues to have a detrimental effect on courses around the world. Clubs struggling for existence find themselves faced with courses which are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the modern game and feel the need to find, and spend resources on, ever-increasing length.
These are the real issues on which the Castle Dwellers should be focusing rather than the esoteric questions of whether one can be disqualified for carrying a smartphone (which one barely knows how to use) because one is likely to suffer a heart attack, simply because it includes a compass which one may use to find one’s way out of the woods into which one has struck one’s ball.
Dearest Rog, "3. The sole purpose of the 'provisional ball' Rule (27-2) is 'to save time'; which is exactly what the caddie and player are trying to do. The caddie is sensibly acting as a 'forecaddie'. "
The concept of "saving time" does not apply when raking a bunker before hitting your bunker shot - go figure? - - Rosie
I would like to add one more comment to my original question, decision 29-1/4.5 answers the question if it was a partner that went forward ( another "the rule does not contemplate") I will assume that the castle would give the same ruling for the caddie!
With reference to Rule 27-2a. A player has a caddie,the caddie positions himself where he would expect a tee shot to land, the player cuts the ball into the trees and then plays a provisional ball. What if any is the penalty?
ReplyDeleteIs the caddie searching for the ball would be the key component of this question I assume. My thoughts would be that passively standing there waiting does not meet the "searching" parameters. Perhaps if your question had specified that the caddie went looking before the player played the provisional may evoke a different response.
ReplyDeleteRule 27-2a states that the player must play the provisional ball before he or his partner go forward to search for the ball, the player includes his caddie or his partners caddie.
ReplyDeleteLarry
DeleteIt does not look like there are many wanting to dip their toe in the water, so I will have a go.
The 'going forward' provision in Rule 27-2a is there, I believe, for the purpose of speeding-up play. The Castle, reasonably, does not want players deciding to play a provisional ball when they have walked 50 metres down the fairway from the tee.
In this case the player has met the spirit of this provision and has not gained (or sought to gain) any advantage.
The view that a provisional ball may only be played if the original may be lost or out of bounds, and that this ball could not be lost because the caddie will surely find it, does not, in my view, come into calculation here.
This player should be applauded for his foresight.
the caddie isn't 'going forward' within the context of 27- 2, and will probably be 'coming back' if sensible, having stood out of range from the tee.
Deletetaking your argument to it's logical extreme you would say that a player who drives his ball past his caddie is such a situation wouldn't be able to play a provisional whilst one whose drive fell short would...whilst such a situation might amuse Rog it doesn't exist.
I agree.
ReplyDelete"Going forward to search for the ball" does not seem the same to me as "positions himself where he would expect a tee shot to land". I see no problem at all, unless the caddie positions himself too accurately and is struck by the ball.
ReplyDeleteRog, you are right not too many prepared to dip their toe, I have posed this to three National Referees and have not had a response from anyone yet. As you say it is a senseible thing to do but the way the rule is worded I think it leaves a lot of doubt as to whether it is allowed or not.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
DeleteWhy not ask the ruling body. There answer, if given, would be more convincing than a National Referee's answer. You could get three different answers from your three ref's and then you would be non the wiser.
The new clarification from the Castle on addressing the ball is really helpful. We had "immediately behind" to help us now they have clarified that with the word "closely" Which to me only muddies the water!!
ReplyDeletearny
ReplyDeletePlease tell us more.
Has there been a supplementary missive from the Castle?
New clarification from the R &A andUSGA. Try this link for the full info.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2012/April/Addressing-the-ball.aspx.
Thanks for that arny. Fascinating!
DeleteI particularly like the bit about 'ensuring that the Rules are clear, easy to understand and relevant to today’s game.' Self-delusion seems to be endemic in The Castle.
I'm sure Rog will express a view on this in the next couple of days.
Arny, decision 27/18 is a result of a question that I put to the ruling body via the normal channels, from memory it took about twelve months to get the reply, the caddie question I needed an answer immediately as none was forthcoming I used my own judgment and took no action as I agree with Rog. Kind regards, Larry
ReplyDeletearny
ReplyDeleteYour comment, for me, highlights the difference between an 'answer' and a 'decision'. My position (which I get the impression is shared by Larry) is that I am interested in 'answers'; and the only place to get them is the Rule Book. The Castle makes 'decisions', and not infrequently they can be 'shockers'.
If the Rule Book does not provide the 'answer' then the Rule Book needs to modified: we do not need yet more 'decisions' to add to the dreaded Decisions Book.
As to the substance of this matter, in my view (in brief):
1. 'Going forward' is from the tee and does not relate to whether the caddie walks forward of backward along the fairway. In addition, there is considerable doubt in my mind that the 'caddie' is included in the provisions of Rule 27-1: but that is not critical to the primary argument.
2. The caddie has not 'gone forward to search' as there is no ball yet in play (hence nothing for which to search).
3. The sole purpose of the 'provisional ball' Rule (27-2) is 'to save time'; which is exactly what the caddie and player are trying to do. The caddie is sensibly acting as a 'forecaddie'.
In this situation I see the Rule Book as providing quite clear advice on this matter and I see no issue with the actions of the player or the caddie. In addition, there is one 'rule' of golf which is not in the Book: it is called 'commom sense'.
As a peripheral matter, if the caddie begins to search for the original ball then, as you will be aware, that is the point at which the 'searching time' begins (Defn of 'Lost Ball').
Rog,
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with you on the 'Going forward' problem.
The first rule in my book is the 'common sense rule'
My comments to Larry were because I have on occasions written to both ruling bodies and received prompt responses to my queries.
Another subject, regarding distance measuring devices (DMDs)
ReplyDeleteThe rules are quite clear that if the device measures anything other than distance which might help a player in his playing of the game, it is not allowed. (ignoring local rule etc,)
I believe this is a quote from the Castle regarding an electric trolley which measures temperature.
'this product is fundamentally an electric trolley..... the distance calculating device and temperature display, ... are incidental to the main purpose and utility of the product. The inclusion of these features does not render the trolley non-conforming, but it is the use of these features that causes a breach. Therefore, provided the devices are disabled (either in 'competition mode' or covered up) the use of this particular trolley is not of itself, a breach of Rule 14-3."
This is a question on their web site under FAQs.
Q. What kind of distance measuring devices are allowed by Local Rule?
A. GPS, laser, any really; however, it is important that the device only measures distance. The use of a distance-measuring device that is designed to gauge or measure other conditions that might affect a player's play, like gradient, wind speed or temperature, is not permitted, regardless of whether such an additional function is used or not, and even if that function is disabled.
one's a trolley, the other's a DMD.
DeleteThe Q&A you reference relates to DMDs, not trolleys (or Smartphones, etc)
Anon,
DeleteAre you saying all smartphones are allowed because they are not DMDs?
In my opinion a DMD is a device that measures distance, not just the dedicated, golf buddy, garmin etc, Even if it was designed for a different purpose. But I might be wrong.
the rules agree with you, with one proviso; any device that could measue distance only falls under the DMD rules IF it is used as a DMD.The DMD rules are the ones you quote from the FAQ.
DeleteIf it's not used as a DMD then those rules don't apply and you are simply looking at 14-3 as written - your quoted text in relation to a trolley confirming that.
Just going back to Larry's question on a caddie being positioned forward.
ReplyDeleteR 27-2 describes the procedure for playing a provisional ball.
In short. 'The player must inform,opponent,marker,FC. that he intends to play a provisional ball, and must play it before he or his partner goes forward to search.' (no mention of caddie)
arny
DeleteYes, point 1 of my reply above recognises that the caddie is not part of the Rule 27-1 provisions, it is, as you say, only the player or partner.
However, some may want to argue the general principle that the player is alays responsible for the caddie's actions. So, let's address that.
The player is reposnsilble fo any breaches of the Rules by his/her caddie. In this case (even if someone may wish to - invalidly - draw the caddie into the argument) there is no suggestion that the caddie has breached any Rule.
It is the player who may be 'alleged' to have breached the Rule by playing a provisonal ball in the described circumstances.
As I have indicated, I think that this is a simple and clear matter and that none of the extraneuos arguments holds water.
It is precisely that point, that a caddie is an extension of the player under the rules that gave me doubts as to whether there was a breach of the rules, I have still had know answer from a higher official, they have either forgotten or ignored my question, I will give the same response if this occurs again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArny, go to the R&A Rules/equipment/14-3 distance measuring devices, you will find a quote there that completely counters your argument about switching off or covering up such devices. Kind regards, Larry.
ReplyDeleteArny wasn't presenting an argument, he was questioning how switching off a feature on a trolley could be permitted when switching off, or covering up, non-conforming features on a DMD would not prevent a breach.
ReplyDeleteI pointed out to him that a trolley is not a DMD, and therefore is not subject to the same rules in this respect as a DMD for which, as you also point out, there are specific rules.
Arny, Anonymous & Larry
ReplyDeleteThanks for your discussion on this matter. I have nothing to add to the specifics of what you say but would like to venture the following for your consideration, having due regard, of course, for your legitimate joint interest in the issue.
1. Nature of the task: When participating in the game of golf, there is ‘information’ and ‘application’: that is, there are lots of things the player can know, take into account or be advised about, but the only thing that really counts is, can he actually propel the ball to the chosen target in the required manner, as required.
2. Nature of information: While distance and elevation change are specific to a given situation on the golf course, elements such as wind and temperature are not. That is, for instance, what relevance does wind speed and direction at the closest weather station 10 (or 100) kilometres away have to assisting the player with his second shot to the 5th green? I would suggest limited (at best) and none (most of the time).
3. Consequences of policy: I am sure we all know that the issue of what does or does not comply with the current (and constantly changing) Castle policy, (possible) restrictions on players’ ability to carry, for instance, their smartphone onto the course for safety, personal or business reasons, and the (dis)connection of Castle policy to the real world, is causing confusion and aggravation among players for no sensible reason.
4. Clarity: Further to your discussion about DMDs, trolleys, smartphones, etc, please consider the following regarding ‘course guides’:
- The use of ‘any artificial device’ … ‘For the purpose of gauging distance or conditions that might affect his play’, is prohibited (Rule 14-3).
- The committee is entitled to promulgate a local rule which authorises the player to use ‘a device that measures distance only’ but prohibits the use (or carrying) of such a devise which measures ‘gradient’ (App 1, Part B, 9).
- A ‘course guide’ is an ‘artificial device’ (Decision 14-3/5).
- The inclusion in a course guide of information on gradient and virtual distance is approved (formal advice).
If you are able to reconcile this little lot then you are to be commended and definitely qualify as a master of Orwellianesque ‘castlespeak’.
So the question is: what is the point in burning all this mental energy and causing so much confusion and aggravation over something which can never be accurately and comprehensively addressed and is of so little actual consequence, particularly to the club golfer?
Furthermore there are other technology issues of real consequence which The Castle has mishandled (and continues to mishandle) to the real detriment of the game.
First, the approval of long putters which require a method totally alien to what we would all recognise as a ‘golf swing’ has created a separate game and has compromised the basic values and traditions of the game.
Second, failure to address the question of the dynamic specifications of the ball continues to have a detrimental effect on courses around the world. Clubs struggling for existence find themselves faced with courses which are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the modern game and feel the need to find, and spend resources on, ever-increasing length.
These are the real issues on which the Castle Dwellers should be focusing rather than the esoteric questions of whether one can be disqualified for carrying a smartphone (which one barely knows how to use) because one is likely to suffer a heart attack, simply because it includes a compass which one may use to find one’s way out of the woods into which one has struck one’s ball.
Dearest Rog,
ReplyDelete"3. The sole purpose of the 'provisional ball' Rule (27-2) is 'to save time'; which is exactly what the caddie and player are trying to do. The caddie is sensibly acting as a 'forecaddie'. "
The concept of "saving time" does not apply when raking a bunker before hitting your bunker shot - go figure? - - Rosie
I would like to add one more comment to my original question, decision 29-1/4.5 answers the question if it was a partner that went forward ( another "the rule does not contemplate") I will assume that the castle would give the same ruling for the caddie!
ReplyDelete