Rog's Blog: LI & MO Definitions

It is time to modify (ever so slightly) the Definitions for Loose Impediments and Movable Obstructions.

Many will no doubt recall the image of a high profile golfer enlisting the aid of an army of supporters to remove what could only be described as a boulder which was inconveniencing his stroke, with the approval of the duty Rules Official.

There would have been hardly a golfer in the world who did not believe that this was a ludicrous decision and about as contrary to the spirit of the game as it can get.

For the Official's part, he was constrained by the inadequate definition of a 'loose impediment' and confusing Decisions which gave the poor chap little opportunity to deny the request. The discussion centred solely around whether or not the boulder was 'solidly embedded'.  No other factor was, apparently, taken into account although the request could have been denied upon the grounds that it could not be 'picked up' but needed to be 'rolled away'.

And what was The Castle's response?  Was it to recognise the inadequacy of the code, apologise to the official and proceed to rectify the situation, as the responsibilities of stewardship of the game's values demanded?

Certainly not, it was to continue to validate the whole fiasco through Decision 23-1/3 (and 23-1/2).

These Decisions state:

23-1/2 Large Stone Removable Only with Much Effort
Q. A player's ball lies in the rough directly behind a loose stone the size of a watermelon. The stone can be removed only with much effort. Is it a loose impediment which may be removed?

A. Yes. Stones of any size (not solidly embedded) are loose impediments and may be removed, provided removal does not unduly delay play.


23-1/3 Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment
Q. May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc., assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?

A. Yes.

This is in stark conceptual contrast to Decision 23/2 which states:

23/2 Meaning of "Solidly Embedded" in Definition of "Loose Impediments"

Q. The Definition of "Loose Impediments" states that a stone is a loose impediment if it is not "solidly embedded." When is a stone solidly embedded?

A. If a stone is partially embedded and may be picked up with ease, it is a loose impediment. When there is doubt as to whether a stone is solidly embedded or not, it should not be removed.

This Decision implies quite clearly that an object, not solidly embedded, which can only be (re)moved by rolling it is not, by Definition, a 'loose impediment'.

Thus we have a Decision authorising a player gaining assistance from an unquantified number of helpers to remove an object which, to qualify for removal must be able to be 'picked up with ease'!  Or perhaps that should be ‘with much effort’?

Remember also that (just to add to the confusion) the Definition of a 'movable obstruction' requires that if must be movable 'without unreasonable effort'.

It is time for the Castle Dwellers to rectify this situation by re-affirming the principle contained in Decision 23/2 and the Definition of 'movable obstruction' by adding to the 'loose impediment' and 'movable obstruction' Definitions the provision that they must be movable by the player with the assistance of no more than one other person in order to meet the respective definition.

If it was deemed appropriate this could be further qualified by requiring that the object be capable of being picked up as even a stone which can be moved only by rolling by two persons hardly fits the conception of a 'loose impediment'.

Some may complain that this would be inequitable as some are stronger than others. Unfortunately, that is life: some are fitter, some are older, some putt better, some hit further, and so on.

Any perceived inequity would pale into insignificance when we compared with the ludicrous situation authorised by the current code.

And, finally, just to put this matter into proper perspective, an article in a reputable golf magazine by a reputable person in golf stated: The (responsible body in this country) has already said it will revisit the matter with its friends in The Castle. There is a good chance the decision will be altered. That's healthy.   The date of the article? May 1999!