Rog's Blog: Rule 18-2b is now officially dead


As Roggies will be aware, Rog does acknowledge that the change to the Definition of ‘addressing the ball’ was a step in the right direction. In doing so he cut The Castle considerable slack by assuming that by the word ‘immediately’ the Castle Dwellers probably mean ‘directly’.

However, it appears that some unreasonable pedants have drawn the attention of the CDs to that fact that ‘immediate’ can mean ‘having no object or space intervening’: this would mean that the Definition would require that the club be touching the ball.

This strict interpretation of ‘addressing the ball’ would also mean that Rule 18-2b would be toothless.

Roggies will be aware that it is clear to Rog that the revised Rule 18-2b is something of a mess for several reasons, but such an interpretation of ‘immediate’ as it applied to  ‘addressing the ball’ would make this Rule redundant: simply do not touch the ball with the club and you have not addressed the ball. However, there could be some room for argument about this as there may not be unanimity on the meaning of ‘immediate’.

Now, it seems that the Dwellers accept that there could be a problem with this Definition and have issued a ‘clarification’, the effect of which is to drive the final nail into the coffin of Rule 18-2b.**

In its statement of clarification, The Castle says, in part:

·  If the golf club is grounded “closely” behind the ball in a position where it would be customary for a player to ground the club prior to making a particular stroke, then the club is considered to have been grounded “immediately behind the ball.”

·  The same interpretation of the definition would apply if a player grounds his or her golf club “closely” in front of the ball prior to making a stroke.

By this ‘clarification’ The Castle has dug itself a deeper hole; which closely resembles a grave.

First, the notion of ‘where it would be customary for a player to ground the club’ simply means that the player now has complete control over what it means to ‘address the ball’, without any fear of contradiction. That is: ‘It is customary for me to ground my club 2mm behind the ball but since this situation looks tricky I have decided to ground my club 4mm behind, which is not customary for me. Ipso facto, I will not have addressed the ball.’

Second, but less significant, this will also apply to a club grounded in front of the ball.

The revised wording now puts ‘addressing the ball’ in the same class as ‘ball unplayable’ (Rule 28) in that the player has become, de facto, the sole judge of whether he/she has addressed the ball. As the player alone knows what is his/her ‘customary position’ to ground the club prior to making a ‘particular stroke’ then it is the player alone who knows whether the club has been grounded in the ‘customary position’ in a given instance, hence whether the ball has been ‘addressed’.

This is a rolled-gold get-out-of-gaol-free card!

As a perceptive colleague of Rog’s observed when the new Rule Book was issued: ‘No-one will ever again be penalised for moving the ball after address.’


Valé Rule 18-2b!









Supplementary question:

You are the marker for this player.

Which is his 'customary' address position for a downhill chip shot?



















** This is an interesting example of how The Castle views its omnipotence. Having discovered that after four years of deliberation the revised Definition does not convey the intended meaning, did the Dwellers move to retract the Definition and substitute a revision? No, they simply re-defined the English language in their own terms. Long live Henry VIII.

4 comments:

  1. you seem to be presenting 'a' player and 'his' as if they are one and the same; I don't read it that way. What is your basis?

    I see the changes as reflecting that 18-2b is now closer to being fair overall.

    I also believe that the revison, and clarity, around addressing the ball isn't limited to 18-2b.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous

    If you do not agree with what you perceive to be my reading of the revised 'addressing the ball' definition, then you need to describe what you believe to be the correct meaning. We will then be able to discuss it.

    Whether the changes to Rule 18-2b are or are not fair is not the issue. My point is, no matter what the motivation, the current provisions, as they are written, are simply unworkable and will not achieve any worthwhile objective.

    [The contrary argument to this is, of course, that players will simply ignore the Rule and do what they think it means or what The Castle has told them it is supposed to mean, to their own best advantage. I do not classify this as a 'worthwhile' outcome]

    While this 'blog' is directed specifically at Rule 18-2b, I am aware that the revised definition of 'addressing the ball' makes a nonsense of 'taking the address position' (as it was previously understood) in determining the 'nearest point of relief' under various Rules. If you think there are other implications arising from the revised 'addressing the ball' definition please identify them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dearest Rog,
    "If the golf club is grounded “closely” behind the ball in a position where it would be customary for a player to ground the club prior to making a particular stroke, then the club is considered to have been grounded “immediately behind the ball.”

    I have never met my playing partner/opponent before - so "customary" can only apply to the person who has committed the offense. As noble the game is for calling penalties on ones self - what a backward step that is - surely??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Rosie

      We have moved from a quite objective situation, where the measure was simply 'did you ground your club?' to one which is riddled with subjectivity, for no sound reason.

      The conventional wisdom seems to be, and the publicity seems to confirm, that the changes to Rule 18-2b have been made to overcome the perceived inequity in the situation where a ball is moved by the wind after a player has grounded her club when putting. This is not a good reason to have changed the Rule as the 'inequity' was capable of being avoided, in the control of the player: just don't ground the club.

      However, I understand that the 'real' reason for this matter having arisen (which does involve 'true' inequity) could have been that a player was prevented from avoiding a Rule 18-2b penalty when his ball in a bunker was moved by the wind after he had taken his stance.

      This problem could have been overcome by a simple change to the 'addressing the ball' definition, as has been done, but (possibly) with the use of the word 'directly' rather than 'immediately'(although 'immediately' seems to me to be quite adequate). Most sensible golfers would have understood exactly what that means.

      However, to overcome what is a 'one in a million' problem, we now have a mass of subjectivity, confusion and arguable inapplicability.

      Delete