The issues in Mary’s dilemma are:
1.
The ball is in a hazard and not clearly visible.
2.
The ball may be covered by loose impediments.
3.
New Rule 12-1b covers ‘Searching for or
Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard’ and therefore directly relates to the problem (do not let anyone side-track you
to Rule 12-2 which deals with a separate issue and leads to a very dark cul-de-sac).
4.
Mary cannot identify her ball without moving it,
hence risks a one stroke penalty.
5.
Mary cannot play her ball without the risk of
incurring a two stroke penalty for playing a wrong ball.
6.
Mary is between a big rock and a very hard place
and has no equitable solution to her
problem.
Why did The Castle
feel constrained to create this minefield?
Why did it not continue the principle which has applied for 40 years?
See also Rog’s
reply to Anonymous on this matter on 12-1 (Part 3).
Do not let anyone convince you the there is ‘no problem’
because equity will prevail—Rule 1-4 is not
designed for these circumstances and its application would be a
cop-out. Nor should you swallow the line
that it can all be fixed by a Decision—this is just the device by which The Castle rationalises its mistakes.
There will be more on the dreaded Decisions Book in a future
Rog’s Blog.
Although you say do not be side tracked to rule 12-2, 12-2 does say "The right to lift a ball for identification is in addition to the actions permitted under rule 12-1.
ReplyDeleteLarry
DeleteMy apologies for the delay, I overlooked this comment.
Could you please have a look at correspondence with Anonymous and general_zeke in Part 2. These describe my position.
You should, as an RO, certainly act promtly and to the best of your judgement.
By all means allow the player to take action to identify the ball but this would be on the basis of your judgement and not, in my view, by way of a proper application of Rule 12-2.