The Castle has managed to turn what was a Rule understood by 3.56% of golfers into a Rule which will now be understood by nobody; that is nobody. And the reason that no-one will be truly able to understand it is because it is complete nonsense, both semantically and practically.
In essence, because a couple of pros did not seem to have
the nous to eliminate Rule 18-2b from the situation on a windy day by not
grounding their putter and thereby not addressing the ball (see Definition) the Castle Dwellers decided to change the
Rules to protect these people from themselves.
To begin at the beginning; old Rule 18-2b provided that once
a player had addressed the ball s/he would be penalised if the ball moved –
having been deemed to have moved
it. That meant that if the wind moved
the ball on the putting green after the putter had been grounded then a penalty
was incurred (and the ball was required to be replaced).
Now just to show that Rog is not entirely unreasonable, let
me say:
· If players think this is unfair and do not have
the smarts to not address the ball, and The Castle has sympathy, then fair enough; fix the problem, and
· The Castle
does deserve some credit for separating the two sentences in the old Rule
into two paragraphs in the new: this was a source of great confusion and the
re-arrangement makes the Rule marginally easier to understand.
So, the simple way to deal with all this would have been for
the Rule to be re-worded along the following lines:
If a player’s ball in play
moves after he has addressed it
(other than as a result of a stroke), unless it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, the player is
deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.
But No! The CDs chose the complicated pathway of
creating an Exception – and what an
exception it is. This course of action
reminds me of an old Inuit telling me once that in order to catch a polar bear
you must first catch a whale.
Let’s have a
closer look at the new Rule. The first paragraph of Rule 18-2b is
clear and unequivocal: ‘If a player’s ball moves after he has addressed it …
the player is deemed to have moved
the ball … ‘ That is, he has moved the
ball within the terms of the Rules. This would
seem to be the end of the matter; but no, there’s more.
The Exception
states that even though he has been deemed
to have moved the ball then if it is known or virtually certain that he did
not move it, he is magically ‘un-deemed’ to have moved it, it having already
been established that he was deemed to have moved it by virtue of having taken
his stance. This is just nonsense.
Consider the
situation where a
player’s ball lies on a slope just off the green on a windy day. He addresses the ball and it moves. The player claims that it was the wind. If his marker or opponent agrees, who cares,
let him proceed without a penalty. If there is not agreement then there is
either a punch-up (virtual or otherwise) or it becomes someone else’s
problem. But this situation, while a
confusion, is not a significant issue.
Consider the
same player whose ball is on a fast, undulating green on the same windy day. He
addresses the ball and begins his backswing. The ball moves and he continues
with his stroke and plays the ball. If
it is agreed that the ball did, in fact, move and that it was not, in fact, the
player’s fault that it did move then Rule 18-2b does not apply. But if Rule 18-2b does not apply then what Rule does apply? This is pretty simple to answer but most
players, I say with due respect, will not have a clue.
But we have
another player whose ball comes to rest through the green, let’s say in the
rough (even though his term has no meaning within the Rules). The player grounds his club behind the ball
and as he begins his stroke a small lizard, of which the player was not previously aware, causes the ball to move. As it is too late for the player to check his stroke, he completes the stroke and plays the ball. So, what happens now? When you have reached a conclusion post it
and I will let you know how well you have done.
I would say that the lizard would be dead???
ReplyDeleteRog
ReplyDeletethe way I played last time I think I would have had much more fun catching a polar bear... or a whale for that matter, than constantly trying to get out of the bunkers I kept landing in...
ha ha like your humour
Just take a moment to bury the poor little lizard.
ReplyDeleteVery considerate Trev - without unduly delaying play, of course.
DeleteSurely they could apply this rule only on the green
ReplyDeleteHi surely
ReplyDeleteThe Rule Book does not limit the application of this Rule to the green only; at least as I read it.
Between you and me, I do not think that the Castle Dwellers thought about it. They couldn't have or we would not have what we have got.
See Rog's Blog 18-2b (Part 2) for further discussion.
Dearest Rog
ReplyDeleteCan I take a stab at answer to the kindly lizard who was doubtless trying to take care of the course prior to dishevelment and the hapless golfer? The stance has been taken and the ball has been addressed. The stroke was not stopped before impact. We have - I think - two rules involved here.
(1) 18-1 ball moved by an outside agency - ball replaced before another stroke made - no reference is made if ball has been hit.
(2) 18-2b The player is not obliged to replace the ball as it moved after the stroke had started and was not stopped - but he has been deemed to have made it move - one shot penalty and play the next shot from where it finished. Any good? Ciao Rosie.
Rosie
ReplyDeleteYou have identified the issues in this problem and I think that your decision is the only one which can be made, even though there is no authority within the Rules to justify it.
I think, however, that most players 9and probably Rules Officials) would simply ignore the complications, apply no penalty and play the ball as it lies.
I hope that you have had a look at Part 2 for further discussion on this matter.