In Rog's view the game of golf should be capable of play by reference to
consistent broad concepts and principles. Players, who invariably wish to do
the 'right thing', have neither the
inclination nor the time to bother about detailed
intricacies and differing requirements while trying to score well, enjoy
their recreation and concentrate on extracting $s from their opponents.
It is time, therefore, for the Castle Dwellers to begin concentrating on
what matters most: finding ways of simplifying the Rules.
No-one will be suggesting that the basic integrity of the game should be
compromised. However, like golf itself, simplification will bring risks and
rewards.
Loose Impediments (LI) would be a good place to begin.
Consider the following:
1.
Loose
Impediments occur throughout the course, but apparently some are more
significant than others.
While
a player whose competence level places him/her in the rough may remove a loose
impediment which may or may not be interfering with his/her play, another
player whose competence level places them in a hazard does not have the same
luxury.
Why
should this be so? What is the
logic for this provision?
Not
only does this distinction unfairly impose a double disadvantage on the player
in the hazard (a: the ball is in the hazard, and b: a loose impediment may
interfere with the player’s capacity to play) but also requires players to be
aware of the distinction between an LI in a hazard and an LI through the green.
LIs
on the putting green receive different treatment again but given the more
compassionate provisions dealing with LIs on the green, Rog will not be
complaining about that.
2.
Until
1 January 2012 while a player was penalised if a ball moved as a result of a
loose impediment being moved when searching for a ball through the green, there
was no penalty if this occurred when the ball was in a hazard. This has, of
course, now been changed (see Pages on Rule 12-1 above) so that in searching
for a ball anywhere on the course if the removal of a loose impediment causes
the ball to move, a penalty ensues.
1.
A
‘loose impediment’ may be removed at any time, anywhere on the course;
2. If
the ball is moved as a result of such loose impediment being removed, a penalty
of one stroke would be incurred and the ball must be replaced;
3.
If
a loose impediment whose removal may cause the ball to move is to be removed
for the purpose of searching for or identifying a ball, the player may request
the observance of an opponent or fellow-competitor under the same procedure as
described in Rule 12-2 and, if the ball moves during this process there would
be no penalty incurred, the ball would be replaced and the lie re-created;
4. If
a ball be moved during the removal of a loose impediment on the putting green
no penalty would be incurred if the moving of the ball is directly related to
the removal of the loose impediment (as is currently the case).
It is Rog’s view that
such changes would not materially sully the good reputation or basic principles
of the game but would bring significant rewards in that:
· There
would be improved equity and consistency within the Rules;
· Players
would more readily understand what the Rules require;
· There
would be a much higher likelihood of compliance than hitherto;
· Players
would feel less stressed and aggrieved by the Rules and gain more enjoyment
from the game;
· There
would be less confusion and fewer disputes would arise;
· The
need for a Local Rule to address ‘stones in bunkers’ would be eliminated; and
· Words
would be eliminated from the Rule Book.
The course is generally defined by three areas, namely the green, through the green and hazards. (not withstanding subsets such as “closely mown” and “GUR” etc.)
ReplyDeleteThe rules governing each of these areas differ. Each of the dot points that Rog sees as rewards would be maintained if the rules were the same in each area. Surely this is not what you want Rog but the arguments you put forward would hold for them as well. So do you want
• All water on the course to be treated as casual water (as you can on some parts of the course)
• A free drop if water is between you and the hole whether you are chipping or putting (as as you can on some parts of the course)
• Free relief from all obstructions, whether in a hazard or not. (as you can on some parts of the course }
• Marking, lifting and cleaning your ball anywhere on the course. (as you can on some parts of the course)
Obviously there are many other examples which would illustrate this point.
Now to my main beef.
A hazard is so named because if your ball goes there then life becomes more hazardous than if it went elsewhere.
Rog’s argument about the less competent golfer being unable to move a loose impediment because the ball is in a hazard rather than through the green, is more of an argument for not having hazards at all. He could mount a similar argument that the less competent golfer is unfairly penalised if he hits more balls out of bounds.
Whilst I think that it is ridiculous for a penalty to be applied if the turbulence caused by your backswing disturbs a smidgeon of freshly mown grass in a hazard I cannot agree with Rog’s solution.
I repeat, a hazard needs to be hazardous!
It is not reasonable to claim that because a provision or policy does not have universal applicability then it has no applicability at all. The concept of equity entails neither treating unequal (golf) situations equally nor treating equal situations unequally. What is more, consistency and uniformity are not the same thing.
DeleteCertainly there is no direct connection between complete uniformity and equity and as we know Rule 1-4 makes it clear that ‘equity’ is a guiding principle in the Rules of Golf.
To take your exemplars:
1. Water in water hazards is part of the course, casual water is not. There is absolutely no problem in treating them differently. To do otherwise would be irrational.
2. I assume you are referring here to casual water on the green. ‘Chipping’ is played in the air and ‘putting’ on the ground. There is absolutely no problem in providing for line-of-play relief for a putt but not for a chip. I think you have two choices if you want uniformity here: a: provide no line-of-play relief for ‘putting’ or b: provide line-of-play relief for ‘chipping’. I suggest that the former would be grossly unreasonable and the latter would be a farce - imagine a ‘chip’ of 100 metres and trying to take line-of-play relief for casual water on the green. (Please let me know if this is not the situation you are referring to in this example). As you will be aware ‘line-of-play’ relief also applies only when an immovable obstruction and the ball are both on the green. This is sensible consistency.
3. Obstructions: watch this space.
4. Marking, lifting and cleaning. There is no sound reason to change the current provisions in the interests of uniformity as the current differential provisions are quite rational.
To return to the point: loose impediments.
I would be interested to hear your reasons why a player (A) whose ball comes to rest one metre from the out-of-bounds fence, in trees, and lying within the leaves of a fallen branch can enlist the assistance of an army of helpers to move the branch when another player (B) whose ball comes to rest one metre off the fairway in a bunker but behind a pine cone is unable to remove the pine cone: other than that a hazard is a hazard, is a hazard, is a hazard … or that player A, whilst probably less competent, is just lucky, of course.
By all means disallow the removal of loose impediments throughout the course if you wish to take the draconian approach to gain uniformity but do not discriminate irrationally between hazards and other parts of the course when it comes to loose impediments.
While you are contemplating, reflect on the fact that there is a little bit of the ‘half-pregnants’ at work here. As you know, some pro tours already allow removal of stones from bunkers, and there is authority within the Rules for committees to proclaim a Local Rule for the same purpose. The rationale for this is that ‘… stones in bunkers may represent a danger to players (a player could be injured by a stone struck by the player’s club in an attempt to play the ball) and they may interfere with the proper playing of the game.’ I suggest that the sharp end of a stick in the eye would have a similar effect.
Hey Rog
ReplyDeleteGood job with suggestions for a new loose impediments set of rules. You have only the rest of the rule book to go!! That chap in the bunker looks too well dresssed to be in the bunker.
Anyway - I cannot find - the reason/s why a loose impediment cannot be moved within a bunker. As in there should be a book of justifications as well as decisions.
Also had a chuckle at decision 23/7 - fallen tree - if it is attached no - unattached - yes - would be GUR hopefully (in equity)!
Hi Anon
DeleteThanks for the response and Rog will be trying to deal with a few more similar issues in coming weeks.
Fortunately, bunkers do not discriminate, on sartorial or other grounds!
As to you substantive queries:
1. I am sure you will know that Rule 23-1 states: ‘Except when both the loose impediment and the ball lie in or touch the same hazard, any loose impediment may be removed without penalty.’ This, of course, means that if the ball and a loose impediment are in the same hazard, the loose impediment may not be removed (or moved). The word ’except’ is significant and will be addressed in a future Rog’s Blog.
Rule 13-4c prohibits the touching or moving of a loose impediment in a hazard before making a stroke. And, as you will be aware, a ‘stroke’ entails the forward movement of the club.
These are the Rules but you are quite correct in your observation that we do not see an obvious attempt at explanation or justification of these types of Rules. We do, indeed, need answers to a few of the ‘why?’ questions. You could consider contacting The Castle (or your national association) for an explanation.
2. Yes, you would think that a Decision like 23/7 would hardly be necessary. A comparable situation came to light in a US Tour event in recent years. A player was in a hazard which contained reeds. Some were clearly growing and others were prostrate on the ground. The player touched one of the prostrate reeds in his backswing and incurred a two stroke penalty. If the reed had been attached to the plant or the ground by a mere ‘micro-fibre’, there would have been no penalty (see the Note at the end of Rule 13-4). It is these ludicrous situations which bring expressions of derision from golfers and non-golfers alike. And NO! The tree is not GUR unless it has been, or is being, processed by the ground staff in preparation for removal (Decision 25/7 will help you): do not place too much faith in ‘equity’ as the universal panacea.
As a result of your observation I should now change Rog’s proposal to ‘removing or touching’ a loose impediment anywhere on the course at any time. My omission.
"1. Water in water hazards is part of the course, casual water is not. There is absolutely no problem in treating them differently. To do otherwise would be irrational."
ReplyDeleteAnd here is where you argue for my position Rog. You accept that hazards should be treated differently because "they are part of the course". ie they are hazards; but you will only accept for different treatment is not appropriate for your "beef", the loose impediment.
And as for "I would be interested to hear your reasons why a player (A) whose ball comes to rest one metre from the out-of-bounds fence, in trees, and lying within the leaves of a fallen branch can enlist the assistance of an army of helpers to move the branch when another player (B) whose ball comes to rest one metre off the fairway in a bunker but behind a pine cone is unable to remove the pine cone: other than that a hazard is a hazard, is a hazard, is a hazard … or that player A, whilst probably less competent, is just lucky, of course."
If the player's ball had been 1 metre outside the boundary fence then player A would be just unlucky of course (or in this case off course). As out of bounds is out of bounds is out of bounds!
As you are well aware the game is very much one that is affected by "luck"! To try and alter the rules to eliminate Dame Fortune seems a ludicrous challenge. (if you can use the term irrational then I'm sure you will accept that "ludicrous" will not penetrate your parameters of propriety.)
Zeke, the point I was making about water hazards and casual water was in response to your view that if one goes for indiscriminate uniformity then outcomes are likely to be illogical. I was simply expressing the view that there is very sound logic for treating water hazards (part of the course) and casual water (not part of the course) differently.
DeleteOn the matter of Dame Fortune, I agree with you, it cannot not be eliminated, and any attempt to do so would be futile and contary to the interests of the game. But my point is that the discrepancies which arise from 'luck' should not be exacerbated by poor policy (Rules).
Why should this be so? What is the logic for this provision?
ReplyDeleteI would suggest it is because you are looking at the 'problem' from the wrong direction.
Look at the course first, then at those things that may be in or on it.
Each defined area of the course has, in effect, its own permissions and prohibitions.
When I first took an interest in the rules, I learnt about these defined areas and found out about what made them different and what I could and couldn't do if my ball was in in such an area. Then I learnt about all those objects that I might encounter anywhere on the course.
Logical to me anyway.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI apologise for overlooking your comment, but I have not been monitoring this site for several months.
The 'direction' from which I approach this (and all other problems with the rules) is from the point of view of the club player and the interests of promoting consistent compliance among players.
While you may well have been taught about permissions and prohibitions in various sectors of the course, this hardly addresses the issue of whether these permissions and prohibitions are rational. Nor does it address the question of whether making these provisions more rational and consistent would enhance the club player's capacity to understand, hence comply with, the rules.
I would be interested in your explanation as to why an immovable obstruction should be treated differently within the class of 'defined areas' called 'hazards'.