As indicated in Part I, quite inexplicably a penalty is now imposed for the first time in at least 40 years if, while trying to identify one’s ball covered by loose impediments in a hazard, the ball moves.
Rog knows that there are many, many keen and astute roggies in
internet-land who will be contemplating the question posed in 12-1 (Part
1). But before dealing with this issue
in detail, Rog poses the following for your consideration.
Mary’s ball is in a dry water hazard and she thinks that it is covered by some loose impediments. Mary tries to remove such loose impediments as will allow her to identify her ball but it seems that this will not be possible without the ball moving as a consequence of one of those impediments being removed.
Mary decides not to risk moving the
ball by removing the loose impediment (thereby incurring a penalty of one
stroke) but believes that if she proceeds to play the ball without identifying
it and it turns out not to be her ball, she would incur a penalty of two
strokes.
As
the Rules Official on duty what would you advise Mary to do to deal with this
apparent dilemma?
Perhaps Mary could state to her marker, "I am going to mark and lift my ball in order to identify it, would you please watch to ensure that after I do so I recreate the lie, with the proviso that I allow a small section of the ball to be visible." Then Mary would be entitled to "move her ball" when movving the loose impediments.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon - thanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteYour proposal to invoke Rule 12-2 is both rational and understandable, but I do not think that it provides Mary with a way out of this dilemma.
On the one hand Rule 12-1b specifically covers the situation where a player is searching for or ‘Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard’. It is difficult to imagine anything more specific or directly relevant to the situation than this. On the other hand Rule 12-2 is more general and relates to the situation where a ball needs to be lifted in order to identify it.
Some things to consider when contemplating the use of Rule 12-2:
1. There is no suggestion in the question that Mary wants, or would need, to lift her ball: she just wants to check whether she can identify it, in situ.
2. Rules 12-1b and 12-2 are in conflict. 12-1b is clear that the ball may not be moved in the act of removing loose impediments to identify it. 12-2 equally clearly does permit moving the ball to identify it (without penalty) by virtue of the fact that the player is permitted to pick it up. So you need to ask yourself which Rule takes precedence.
3. I would argue that 12-1b should take precedence by virtue of the nature of its direct relevance to the specific circumstances.
But let’s consider that that argument does not hold up and we move to the use of Rule 12-2. We must then, of course, comply with all of the provisions of that Rule.
You are quite correct in the procedure a player must follow in order to lift it in accordance with Rule 12-2.
Rule 12-2 provides that the ball must be replaced and that if the lie has been altered then Rule 20-3b applies.
This is where the 12-2 route gets messy.
In Mary’s case it is clear that the lie has to be altered in order to lift the ball; some of the loose impediments will need to be moved from their original position. So let’s see what Rule 20-3b has to say about replacing the ball.
Rule 20-3b states, in part, that ‘If the original lie of a ball to be placed or replaced has been altered’:
(ii) in a water hazard, the ball must be placed in accordance with Clause (i) above, except that the ball must be placed in the water hazard;
Clause (i) of that Rule states:
‘except in a hazard, the ball must be placed in the nearest lie most similar to the original lie that is not more than one club-length from the original lie, not nearer the hole and not in a hazard;
Hence in these circumstances, through the application of Rule 12-2 there is no requirement for the ball to be returned to its original position nor for the lie of the ball to be re-created (as you have suggested).
In summary, I do not believe in the first place that one can ignore Rule 12-1b and simply move to Rule 12-2 as a matter of convenience, and in the second, if one does use Rule 12-2 there is no equitable means to ensure that the ball is returned to its original lie or to a lie identical to the one in which it came to rest.
Both of the options for dealing with Mary’s dilemma are, in my view, utterly unsatisfactory and arise because of the inexplicable decision to institute the penalty as is now contained in Rule 12-1b.
I simply do not believe that there is any answer to this problem which can be substantiated irrefutably by application of the Rules as they currently stand.
Whatever anyone may decide to do in this situation, my main point is that the Rules do not need to be anywhere near this complicated for we ‘ordinary’ golfers; or for any golfer for that matter.
I would be pleased to receive further argument, should you not accept what I have had to say.
That's a long response "Rog", methinks that means the "lets identify the ball" argument has merit. You usually dismiss my arguments much more succintly than this.
DeleteNot at all Anon.
DeleteThere is now considerable complexity within the Rules on this matter and "let's just identify the ball" is a much too simplistic response.
And besides, "let's identify the ball" is hardly an argument.
I would draw your attention to Dec.13-4/16 Decisions 2010-2011 and compare it with Dec. 13-4/16 Decisions 2012-2013.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon
ReplyDeleteDecision 13-4/16 has, for several years, been one of those Decisions with a certain ‘fairyland’ quality about it.
The Decision in the 2010-2011 Book (and prior), as you are aware, states:
13-4/16 Removal of Loose Impediment in Water Hazard Covering Wrong Ball
Q. A player plays his ball into a water hazard. He finds a ball in the hazard and removes a loose impediment partially covering it. He discovers that the ball is not his ball. He searches for his ball but does not find it. He proceeds under Rule 26-1. Is the player subject to penalty under Rule 13-4 for removing the loose impediment?
A. Yes.
Imagine: it is known or virtually certain that your ball has come to rest in a water hazard. You search unsuccessfully for, say, four minutes and decide that it will not be found and move to leave the water hazard in order to proceed under Rule 26-1. As you leave the hazard you absent-mindedly pick up a pine cone and throw it out of the hazard.
Bang! Two stroke penalty.
Not only is the injustice of this obvious to most sane people, as the removal of the pine cone has nothing to do with your ball and its removal could not possibly in any way benefit your further play of the hole, but the fact that your ball was not found raises the opportunity for a healthy metaphysical discussion on whether your ball was actually in the hazard—there is absolutely no proof that this is where it came to rest. Bizarre!
And, as you are no doubt aware, this Decision has remained in place for many a year.
By implying that it is the creation of new Rule 12-1b which has allowed a reversal of this ridiculous Decision The Castle has indulged in disingenuous behaviour. A player has ‘always’ been entitled, in accordance with Rule 12-1, to move/remove** loose impediments while searching for a ball in a water hazard.
Compare the two Rules:
2008-2011 (Rule 12-1)
In a hazard, if a ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments or sand, the player may remove by probing or raking with a club or otherwise, as many loose impediments or as much sand as will enable him to see a part of the ball.
2012-2015 (Rule 12-1b)
In a hazard, if the player’s ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments to the extent that he cannot find or identify it, he may, without touch or move loose impediments in order to find or identify the ball.
** Within the context of the Rules of Golf these terms must surely be considered as synonymous. If not, the Rules are even more arcane than any of us could have imagined.
You are right, the ball is not to be replaced and the lie recreated, this is clearly said in R20-3b. As far as touching or moving loose impediments when identifying a ball the R12-2 says 'The right to lift a ball for identification is in addition to the actions permitted under Rule 12-1.' So even though 12-1 does not allow a player to move LI's the R12-2 does. As a referee I would tell Mary to mark her ball, lift it and identify it, no penalty.
ReplyDeleteOK Anon
DeleteIf you were the referee it would be your call.
The point I am making is that as a refree you would need to make an 'equity' call as the Rules as currently published provide you with no clear way out of the dilemma. Rules 12-1b and 12-2 are incompatible.
If we, who are interested in the Rules, cannot agree what they mean (and in this case we do not) then what chance does the long-suffering club golfer have of trying to determine what is the correct thing to do.
Being the original anonymous in this thread, but not any subsequent ones, I'll beg to differ with you Rog. Your original question stated that Mary had established that a ball was covered by loose impediments and she wished to identify it. Decision 12-2/2, although not occuring within a hazard, would seem to justify lifting in order to identify. (The ball moving when loose impediments are removed is penalised both within the hazard and outside of it)
ReplyDeleteHi Zeke
ReplyDeleteAs I have conceded to Anon above, your decision would be your decision.
My point is that the Rules as they stand currently not only do not assist you in making that decision but actually cloud the issue to the point where resolution of the matter, with certainty, is very difficult.
I maintain the view that, given the structure and wording of Rule 12, Rule 12-2 cannot be legitimately drawn into the equation.
I am, furthermore, at a loss to see the relevance of Decision 12-2/2 to this situation.
I acknowledge that the question states that Mary wishes to identify her ball. Rule 12-1 is about 'searching for and identifying' a ball in the given circumstances. Rule 12-2 is NOT about identifying the ball, per se, but about LIFTING it for the purpose of identification.
In the normal course of events, such as a ball clearly in view on a fairway, one is not required to follow the procedure outlined in Rule 12-2 in order to INDENTIFY it, but only if there is a need to LIFT it for the purpose of identification.
There is no suggestion within the question that Mary is at the point where she wants to lift the ball: she just wants to find a ball and see whether she can identify it. As Rule 12-1b stands, she is unable to do that without incurring a penalty.