The Exceptions to the application of Rules 24 (Obstructions)
and 25 (Abnormal Ground Conditions) have always been problematic to the extent
that they are of no practical use or interest to the context within which 99.99%
of golfers play the game. Does The Castle really believe that Fred or Freda in
the Wednesday comp. is going to debate the semantics of the situation when the
ball comes to rest in an inconvenient place and there is a convenient
obstruction or puddle available to relieve them from their plight!
Rog has felt obliged to advise budding Rules
Officials that these Exceptions are, and would be, of no practical assistance
to them if, and when, they are faced with a belligerent player whose ball is resting in the roots of a tree blocking his line to the green but claims that it is 'practicable' to kneel on the ground, play with the back of his club and aim at an angle of 130 degrees to the line of play (as he does 'all the time') thereby touching a surfaced path with his big toe thus entitling him to relief under this Exception. No! It will come
down to a matter of judgement in which the Rules, as written, will be of no
assistance what-so-ever.
And now, in the current Book, the Castle Dwellers have come up with a change to the wording (no doubt to 'clarify' the situation). While this is to no practical effect,
they did not bother to alert us to the change, hence one can only assume that they do not view it as significant. And remember they have form, with such gems as 'virtually certain' and 'caring of the course'! *
Without delving too far into the past, as there is
sufficient material for a PhD in the last two Books alone, let's just consider
what those Books say in respect to Rule 24:
2008-2011
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if
(a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference
by anything other than an immovable obstruction or (b) interference by an
immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal
stance, swing or direction of play.
2012-2015
Thus we have
'clearly unreasonable', 'unnecessarily abnormal', and 'clearly impracticable': which is quite enough to be going on with. There will, without
doubt, be protracted and earnest debate among aficionados about what the
words mean and what is the effect of the change in wording. Apart from the fact that the change
cannot be significant, as the CDs did not feel the need to alert us to it, the real
and only answer is: these words mean nothing of significance or practical value! The line between 'necessary' and 'unnecessary abnormality' is, however interesting to contemplate.
Herein lies the major problem with the Rules of Golf: they are
written in language which is too often unclear, convoluted and excessively subjective and for circumstances which do not pertain to the overwhelming majority of golf.
The principle that one should not be able to wheedle ones
way out of a situation where one's ball is 'dead', by virtue of the fact that
there happens to be a convenient path near-by, is sound and should be clearly
and unequivocally articulated.
The Exception should read, as appropriate (or, more precisely, mutatis mutandis):
Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if
anything other than an immovable obstruction prevents him from taking a normal stance and making a normal stroke directed at the normal line of play (or words to that effect).
Some will argue that 'normal' carries the same fatal problems as 'unreasonable', 'abnormal', and 'impracticable'. However, Rog is very confident that the average punter will have a pretty clear idea of what this word means in this context. Such a change would save a lot of arguments, and spare
us as officials, spectators and
viewers from the player histrionics we have had to endure in the past. **
* It is worth contemplating that in the 2008 Book the words
'known or virtually certain' (KVC) were inserted to replace the hitherto
standard of 'reasonable evidence' (which was apparently in need of
'clarification'). These four words
required 279 words in the 2008-2010 Decisions Book to explain their meaning.
But that was not enough: in the current Decisions Book this explanation has
been expanded to 416 words.
** By all means
if the PGA tours wish to finely tune these provisions to cater for the vicissitudes
of tournament play or to boost viewer
interest through player histrionics and player/official confrontation, then that is open to them. But the average punter should not be
encumbered with this type of absurd code.
No comments:
Post a Comment