NOTE: This page has been revised.
As we
would all be aware, Exception 2 to Rule 13-4 has been changed to provide that a
player may smooth sand or soil in a hazard at any time, even before
playing the ball from that hazard. This is a welcome and sensible modification
as it will save time in retrieving the rake and then having to wait until after
the shot is played before smoothing the resultant footmarks.
The
change is, however, not without its problems.
If Rog's
contacts (who are intelligent, educated and experienced) are anything to go by,
there is some confusion as to the situation in regard to a 'subsequent' (as
opposed to the 'next') stroke.
Through
the 2006-07 Decisions Book Rog was astonished to note that The Castle
had introduced into the Rules the concept of a 'contingent penalty'. That is,
an otherwise penalty was deferred (and perhaps avoided) contingent upon the
outcome of the 'next' stroke.
Decision
13-4/38 stated, in part:
If,
however, the player failed to extricate his ball from the first bunker with his
first stroke and had smoothed his footprints while his ball still lay in that
bunker, he would have incurred a penalty if, as a result of a subsequent stroke
in the bunker, his ball had rolled back into the smoothed area.
This Decision was carried through into the 2008-09
Book.
However, for the 2010-11 Decisions Book, while the
Rule itself remained unchanged, this paragraph was changed to read:
If,
however, the player failed to extricate his ball from the first bunker with his
first stroke and had smoothed his footprints while his ball still lay in that
bunker, he would have incurred a penalty if the act of smoothing his footprints
had caused a breach of Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. (Revised)
This
wording has been carried-through into Decision 13-4/38 of the current Book.
Thus we
now have the situation where a player, whose ball is in a bunker, prior to
making a stroke at the ball rakes footmarks in a way which does not contravene
Rule 13-2 in respect to his next stroke. He then plays that stroke and his ball
comes to rest in the area previously raked. What are the implications, if any,
for this next stroke?
Who would
know the answer to this from reading the Rule Book: Rog certainly does not.
Any
suggestions?
And there is more; albeit less consequential. The Castle Dwellers have introduced the astounding burden of proof to this Rule, described as: 'the sole purpose of caring for the course'. Are they serious!
What on earth does this mean? This is anyone's guess - and there certainly will be a multitude of those. Does this have any objective standard? No!
This concept, along with the expectation that Rule 13-2 will not be breached on a regular basis as a result on this Rule change, is pure fantasy. But at least 'virtually certain' will now have a companion.
In the 2010-11 Decisions Book the following appeared for the first time:
1-4/11.5 Player Wraps Towel Around Self or Places Towel on Cactus Before Taking Stance
Q. A player’s ball lies near a cactus, and to play the ball the player would have to stand with his legs touching the cactus. To protect himself from the cactus needles, the player wraps a towel around his legs before taking his stance. He then plays the ball. What is the ruling?
A. Provided the player does not breach Rule 13-2 (i.e., he takes his stance fairly), there is no breach of the Rules. However, if the player were to place the towel on the cactus, in equity (Rule 1-4), the player loses the hole in match play or incurs a penalty of two strokes in stroke play. (New)
Rog checked to see whether this Decision has been revised in the 2012-13 Book to permit the placing of a towel on the cactus so long as the sole motivation for doing so is purely to care for the cactus. Unfortunately no revision has been made, but the Decision has been re-numbered 1-2/10.
Rog does note, also, that the 'Stadler' decision remains in force, unaltered:
13-3/2 Making Stroke While Kneeling on Towel
Q. A player’s ball was under a tree in such a position that he found it expedient to make his next stroke while on his knees. Because the ground was wet, the player (read Craig Stadler) placed a towel on the ground at the spot where his knees would be situated so that the knees of his trousers would not get wet. He then knelt on the towel and made the stroke. Was the player subject to penalty under Rule 13-3 for building a stance?
A.
Yes.
The same answer would apply if he had wrapped the towel around his knees and
knelt on it to make the stroke. It would have been permissible for the player
to have put on waterproof trousers. (Revised)
Surely this can be revised to permit this action so long as 'the sole purpose is for the care of the trousers'.
'Caring for the course' at Rog's club
Fabulous analysis .. Thank you
ReplyDeleteAppreciated Wannabe
Delete"The Castle Dwellers have introduced the astounding burden of proof to this Rule, described as: 'the sole purpose of caring for the course'. Are they serious!"
ReplyDeleteCannot agree more Rog, the primary reason for the early raking of a bunker would be to speed up the game, or save your legs the long walk back.
Raking the bunker is to care for the course, when you rake it is determined by other purposes.
A brilliant distinction Zeke (little wonder you are a general).
ReplyDeleteYou provide a prescient and timely wise-word to the unwary: do not rake a bunker in these circumstamces 'for the purpose of saving time', you will find yourself in breach of Rule 13-4!
"Thus we now have the situation where a player, whose ball is in a bunker, prior to making a stroke at the ball rakes footmarks in a way which does not contravene Rule 13-4 in respect to his next stroke. He then plays that stroke and his ball comes to rest in the area previously raked. What are the implications for this next stroke?"
ReplyDeleteThere are none - there is only one 'next stroke'. He either did, or did not conravene 13-4 when raking - the end.
There is nothing in 13-4/38 that says otherwise.
Next is next, not 'the stroke after next'
Thanks Anon
DeleteAs a result of your comment Rog has re-visited this matter and has revised the page on Rule 13-4 to correct some quite inexplicable errors, including reference to 13-4 when it should be 13-2 (I suspect that he has drawn you into referring to 13-4 as well – my apologies.)
You are no doubt correct. But Rog remains somewhat confused at the train of events as the issues addressed in the Decision paragraph revised in 2010 and what it replaced from 2009 seem to be quite unrelated.
Anyway, in a private conversation with a colleague, she expressed the view that, ‘the bottom line to all this is that there will never again be a penalty for raking a bunker’.
This, also, is no doubt correct, and is fine by Rog.
She could also have added ‘by any means’ as there is no prohibition on ‘smoothing’ by club, hand, foot or ‘any other means’. This does raise the implications for touching the sand in the bunker with the club in the backswing - but I guess that is another story!
Dearest Rog,
ReplyDeleteI have been following with enthusiam the course of your ultimate demise and incarceration within the Castle's dungeon facilities.
May I refer readers to the note in Rule 23-1. Relief?
"If the ball lies in a hazard , the player must not touch or move ANY loose impediment lying in or touching the same hazard." ... see Rule 13-4c.
And what do we find? Exception no.1 is about not being allowed to test the surface - then exception no.2 allows you to do exactly that. Persumably you could not then claim you were trying to save time - as testing the surface would take time!
Rog you will have noticed that 13-4 also lumps bunkers and water hazards together in the definition of what constitutes a hazard.
Dearest Rog,
ReplyDeleteAt a loss for something to do, I inadvertently found myself flicking through the 13-4 decisions from the 1995 "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" - after nodding vigorously in Anon"s direction when he/she said
"He then plays that stroke and his ball comes to rest in the area previously raked. What are the implications for this next stroke?"
Forgive me for not knowing this - but surely there has to be a clarification here? This player has clearly improved the lie and "in equity" that is cheating - surely?
In one decision I read that the "double jeopardy" law applies. To wit - if one plays a bunker shot and the ball stays in - then the player smoothes the bunker with his club. The first shot was deemed to be sufficient testing of the surface as to not get pinged for testing it again. Is this a sign that the Castle wish not to ping us twice? Shame that does not apply to an obstruction in a water hazard.
Lastly have any of the issues you have raised to date been addressed - or resolved - in the latest decisions book? I doubt it - so ..why cant we get clarification from the R&A/USGA - what is the process? Will research further before blogging anew. Yours Rosie
Rosie
DeleteHerein lies a significant issue.
We have 27000 words in golf rules and 168000 words of decisions. They change constantly in major and minor ways, and sometimes independently of each other. The 2012-2013 Decisions Book identifies changes (of one sort or another) to 175 Decisions!
We punters learn a bit about the Rules (usually the hard way) and see their application on the odd golf telecast, and think we know a bit about what is what. But behold, when faced with an issue on the course, we find that something has changed. The Castle Dwellers, behind half-raised drawbridge and closed portcullis has fiddled in some way or another. And even though they may argue that their work has been publicised, most punters have more pressing needs than to constantly be checking to find out what, if anything, is different today from what it was yesterday (or which of the 175 Decision changes has any real relevance).
I am reminded here of the following exchange from ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ (Douglas Adams) in regard to the assertion that plans to demolish the earth to make way for a hyper-space freeway were ‘freely available’ on display:
"But the plans were on display . . ."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
Rosie
ReplyDeleteAs you allude to, there are rules, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions and exceptions which contradict rules to which they are not attached.
I think we could characterise this as a ‘rich tapestry of complications’.
Let’s just take the recently introduced Exception 2 to Rule 13-4.
First there is the matter of the substance of the Exception. One was under the impression from various sources that this Exception was introduced to assist in maintaining speed of play (a perennial problem in any club) as well for general convenience to the player whose ball is in a bunker. But we find upon reading the Exception that it does neither of these things. This Exception applies only if the sole purpose of the player smoothing the surface of any hazard (but more likely to be a bunker) prior to making a stroke is to care for the course. The inescapable corollary to this is that smoothing for any other purpose breaches Rule 13-4 and attracts a penalty.
Furthermore, this Exception does not specify the means by which the ‘sand or soil’ may be smoothed. Hence the use of the club or hand is clearly condoned.
So now we have a situation where, by inference, a player may smooth a bunker with a club prior to playing from the bunker, yet we have Rule 13-4 itself specifically prohibiting the touching of ground in a hazard with hand or club.
The usual and correct interpretation of Rule 13-4b is that a player may not touch the surface of a hazard with the club before making a stroke. That is, the touching of sand in a bunker is prohibited at the commencement of the backswing. This, one assumes, is based on the prohibition of ‘testing the surface’ of the hazard prior to play.
But if the player has already (legitimately) ‘tested the surface’ when he smoothed the sand with his sand-iron, what is the point of continuing with the prohibition on touching the surface during the backswing?
Maybe this becomes a question about ‘improving the lie of the ball’ (Rule 13-2). However there is nothing specific within Rule 13-2 which would indicate that touching the ground during take-away when a ball is, say, in sandy waste is contrary to that Rule. So, unless there is another discriminatory provision in play, one cannot argue successfully that ‘improving the lie’ is the reason for prohibiting touching of the ground during the take-away, in a bunker.
Further examination leads inextricably to the question: why is it necessary to prohibit touching the ground in a hazard (or even taking a practice swing) prior to playing the ball?
If this constraint were to be removed completely then just imagine the saving in words in the Rule Book; the increase in compliance (Rog knows from experience that the overwhelming majority of players are blissfully unaware that they may not touch the sand in their backswing because (a) they are unaware that the provision exists or (b) they are unaware of the definition of a ‘stroke’ or (c) both); and the reduction in frustration, confusion and arguments which arise from the current provisions.
Thank you so much Rog - and you could add make this blog redundant - which would your ultimate goal and perhaps a definition of success.
ReplyDeleteRosie
ReplyDeleteWhat a perceptive observation.
If there were not, in the first place, abundant material to make this blog possible (indeed necessary) and, once initiated, if it were to become redundant, that would be an excellent outcome, and a sign of genuine progress.