01-20-2014, 03:04 PM
At last week's tournament in Abu Dhabi, Rory McIlroy incurred a penalty of two strokes for not taking proper relief from a spectator crosswalk that had been defined as ground under repair. From the various accounts, it appears likely that he had dropped the ball in a correct place under Rule 25-1 but that the ball then rolled to a position where he still had interference (with his left foot) from the ground under repair (as opposed to his dropping in a wrong place). As Rule 20-2c(v) required him to re-drop and he did not, he played from a wrong place and was penalized accordingly.
How would the same incident have been treated under Codes One and Two?
Under Code One, which requires the ball to be placed (rather than dropped) in such a situation, it is possible but quite unlikely that the player would have placed the ball on a spot where he still had interference from the GUR.
Under Code Two, which introduces the concept of taking relief by placing the ball within two club-lengths of the original location, repeating if desired to obtain complete relief, the player would actually have the option of placing the ball on a spot that does not afford him complete relief. If he has relief after the first placing of the ball, he may play it or place it again within a fresh two club-lengths area. Therefore, there would have been no penalty for McIlroy.
With the McIroy ruling, many have pointed out the rationale behind the current Rules requiring him to take full relief (as otherwise he would have what many would consider to be an undesirable choice of playing the ball as it lies or re-dropping). For the sake of simplifying the relief procedure, Code Two allows for this choice. Does the benefit of a simpler relief procedure outweigh letting the player have a choice as to what to do next?
How would the same incident have been treated under Codes One and Two?
Under Code One, which requires the ball to be placed (rather than dropped) in such a situation, it is possible but quite unlikely that the player would have placed the ball on a spot where he still had interference from the GUR.
Under Code Two, which introduces the concept of taking relief by placing the ball within two club-lengths of the original location, repeating if desired to obtain complete relief, the player would actually have the option of placing the ball on a spot that does not afford him complete relief. If he has relief after the first placing of the ball, he may play it or place it again within a fresh two club-lengths area. Therefore, there would have been no penalty for McIlroy.
With the McIroy ruling, many have pointed out the rationale behind the current Rules requiring him to take full relief (as otherwise he would have what many would consider to be an undesirable choice of playing the ball as it lies or re-dropping). For the sake of simplifying the relief procedure, Code Two allows for this choice. Does the benefit of a simpler relief procedure outweigh letting the player have a choice as to what to do next?