To return to the problem of a ball caused to be moved by a
small lizard after the ball has been addressed and the stroke is completed.
The following should be taken into account when attempting
to resolve this problem.
1.
It is known or virtually certain that the player did
not cause the ball to move.
2.
Hence Rules 18-2b does not apply.
3.
So, what Rule does apply?
4.
The lizard is an ‘outside agency’, so perhaps
Rule 18-1 applies.
5.
However, Rule 18-1 only applies if the ball is moved by an outside agency not if is merely caused to be moved by
the outside agency. These words are
significant because ‘moved or causes the ball to move’ appear in all other
relevant Rules (18-2a, 18-3, and 18-4). In this case we would have run into a
dead-end and Rule 18-1 would not apply;
6.
But let’s be generous to The Castle and assume that this wording is just another one of its mistakes
and that it really meant ‘moves or causes to move’ in relation to Rule 18-1;
7.
Therefore, let’s look more closely at Rule 18-1
to deal with this problem;
8.
Oh dear!
Rule 18-1 requires that if an outside agency causes the ball to move
then it must be replaced. But the ball
has been played! And there is no
provision in this Rule to cover the situation where a ball is moved by an
outside agency after the swing has commenced and the stroke is completed.
Conclusion: There is
no means within the new Rules whereby this problem can be resolved.
As Rog said initially, new Rule 18-2b is a complete mess.
Perhaps statement 1 could be challenged Rog. "1. It is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move.".
ReplyDeleteThe presence of the player and his/her actions in preparing to play would more than likely have caused the indolent lizard to become more active, thus causing the ball to move.
At the very least we cannot be ALMOST CERTAIN that this was not the case.
And while we are at it, ALMOST CERTAIN!!!
AT my home course, on 3 holes, there are large trees between tee and water hazard, such that it is impossible to see a ball enter the water. Can we EVER be ALMOST CERTAIN that the tee shot went into the hazard?
Is almost certain a 99% level of probability, or 95% or 80%?
Yes General. The dreaded 'virtually certain' does not mean a lot to we mere mortals, does it.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it takes a page of the Decisions Book for The Castle to try to explain what it thinks the term means.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of golfers are blissfully unaware that 'virtually certain' has any 'real' meaning and are unconcerned that it may have an influence on the way they play the game. Basically they just ignore it.
It is interesting to note that at the time the term was introduced (2008) it was on the basis that it would clear-up the misunderstandings surrounding the previous standard of proof: reasonable evidence!
After the ball and Lizard have been dispatched another ball may be substituted if the original ball is not immediately recoverable.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDelete1. Please quote the Rule/s which substantiates your assertion.
2. What is the situation if the ball comes to rest on the fairway or green after the stroke? There is no suggestion in the question that the ball could not be recovered.
We have only one rule book, the only rule that covers a ball moved by an outside agency is rule 18-1. This rule may be missing a few words but it is all we have until it is improved. The only way we will be able to make a decision in this case is to use 18-1. We have a lot of other rules that are less than perfect but we live with them.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon - so what would be your decision?
ReplyDeleteI hope you agree that there would have been no need to modify the wording of Rule 18-1 if The Castle had not botched its change to Rule 18-2b.
I also note your point that there are a lot of rules that are less than perfect. In my view there are many more of these than should be the case, and that the situation is getting worse, not better.
I aslo like your cavalier approach to rules just having a few words missing: I will use that argument when next I am in trouble on the course.
My decision would depend on the circumstances in each case, as there is no specific rule to deal with a ball moved by an outside agency after the player has begun his stroke I think rule 1-4 would be appropriate. If the player was not disadvantaged by the ball moving then play the ball as it lies, if the player was disadvantaged then cancel the stroke and replace the ball, that would be fair in my opinion. There are many references in the decisions book which start with, "The rules did not anticipate this situation" as a rules official we must try to be fair to the player as well as enforcing the rules.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon - I agree that your decision is quite appropriate in the circumstances and in consideration of the Rules as they now stand.
DeleteI also agree with what you say about Rule 1-4 being available for unforeseen situations. However, it is not a band-aid to be stuck on every problem which arises through lack of foresight in the framing of the Rules: its use should be the exception rather than the rule.
My point is that the Castle Dwellers had four years to get this change right, supported throughout in this endeavour by the brightest and best from a plethora of national associations.
This issue should have been foreseen. Wasn't anyone paying attention!
And remember that The Castle has been at this job for well over 100 years and I think we (golfers) can realistically expect that they would have things in hand by now, and would not be persistently making these errors.
Can I suggest we get off 1812 and have a look at 4-4a/6 just for a change.
ReplyDelete4-4a/6 has been amended to provide clarification on when a player is penalised after a club has been added to his bag by mistake. I have a problem with "if the additional club had belonged to a player in another match or group." My question is what difference does it make? it could have been the green keepers third assistant water boy, the player would still be unaware as he had counted his clubs as required before he went to tee off!
ReplyDeleteHi Larry (and Anonymous)
DeleteThis Decision as it stood for several years was simply ludicrous and straight from fantasy-land. Where was the equity? Where was the judgement? Where was the common sense?
Briefly, for those not familiar with this Decision, an 'innocent' player arrives at the first tee with 14 clubs in the bag, takes his driver, reports to the starter and proceeds to hit-off; it is discovered subsequently that a fifteen club, belonging to another player in the competition, has appeared in the player's bag, through inadvertence or misadventure.
The answer to the question, 'Does the player incur a penalty for starting the round with more than 14 clubs?' was simply YES!
The Decision has now been revised to confine the circumstances in which the player would, and would not, be penalised. But, like you Larry, Rog thinks that the re-phrasing of the question and two of the caveats simply take the Decision to further levels of silliness.
What does it matter whether the club belongs to a player in another group? What if the player had counted his clubs and was waiting on the tee 30 seconds prior to his group's starting time when the offending fifteenth club was inadvertently put into his bag?
The original question in this Decision should be re-instated and the answer revised to simply say NO! and all the rationalisation should be dispensed with.
In the rare case where a rogue club appears in a player's bag, the 'committee' should determine whether anything untoward has occurred.
I don't understand the issue here.
ReplyDelete14-5 and specifically 14-5/1 make it clear that there is no penalty for striking the moving ball in this situation unless 18-2a or 18-2b are involved - and they aren't by the definition of the situation.
No dead end - no penalty.
I do however share sympathy with the lizard.
The issues are:
Delete1. The ball has been moved after address (so Rule 18-2b is the starting point).
2. The ball was not moved by the player (so the Exception to Rule 18-2b is relevant).
3. There is no suggestion that the ball was played while moving (so Rule 14-5 is not a consideration).
4. There is no provision for a ball ‘caused to be moved’ by an outside agency.
5. There is no provision covering the situation where a ball is moved by an outside agency after commencement of the ‘backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.’
And, be assured, the lizard was long gone by the time the stroke commenced!