Remove penalties for grounding club in a hazard

[ocepek]

A player gains only minimum advantage by grounding a club in a hazard. It is difficult to prove one way or the other if a player lightly brushes the sand on his back stroke because the evidence is erased with the forward stroke. Also if a ball is in a water hazard and the player can touch growing things and attached things but not loose impediments it is difficult to judge either way. It is hard to imagine for example that a player can touch green grass in a hazard and not touch small insects, seeds or other very small loose impediments on that green grass. Same thing when playing a ball off of an immovable obstruction in a water hazard. It is virtually impossible to rest a club on a bridge over a water hazard and not touch small loose impediments. Just let the player play the ball as it lies and let them ground the club as long as they do not move the ball in the process. Should also be able to remove loose impediments in a hazard same as anywhere else. This would allow deletion of many rules, notes and decisions concerning these matters.

[Simonko]

Too much to be gained with practice swings in a bunker--I'd be doing three or four quick practice swings tuning where the club enters the sand and getting that unmistakable thud, yet I don't take practice swings anywhere else on the course, not even putting. I think greens would become very sandy.

---

Lightly brushing the sand on the backstroke and the difficulty proving it means the player will probably escape penalty. That's good, I like self-regulating rules like this. Same with touching small loose impediments on a bridge in a water hazard. Insects moving on green grass, I see that as incidental, like moving dew on grass.

It's too hard to draw the line between harmlessly brushing the sand and removing enough sand to improve the lie, so I feel it's best to err on the side of 'just be careful'.

[DavidHayes]

Simonko, it was the "greens would become very sandy" aspect that lead to us retaining this prohibition.

[ocepek]

(08-13-2013 10:09 PM)DavidHayes Wrote:  Simonko, it was the "greens would become very sandy" aspect that lead to us retaining this prohibition.

It would be simple to prohibit practice strokes that touch the sand when the ball is in a bunker and just let the player lightly rest the club on the sand similar to playing a ball that lies through the green. A player is prohibited from pushing down hard on a club to get under a ball in the fairway so the same rule would apply in a bunker.

[DavidHayes]

(09-06-2013 10:11 PM)ocepek Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:09 PM)DavidHayes Wrote:  Simonko, it was the "greens would become very sandy" aspect that lead to us retaining this prohibition.

It would be simple to prohibit practice strokes that touch the sand when the ball is in a bunker and just let the player lightly rest the club on the sand similar to playing a ball that lies through the green. A player is prohibited from pushing down hard on a club to get under a ball in the fairway so the same rule would apply in a bunker.

Yes, it was simple to do that (in both Codes).

[Rogaman]

(09-07-2013 10:46 AM)DavidHayes Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:11 PM)ocepek Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:09 PM)DavidHayes Wrote:  Simonko, it was the "greens would become very sandy" aspect that lead to us retaining this prohibition.

It would be simple to prohibit practice strokes that touch the sand when the ball is in a bunker and just let the player lightly rest the club on the sand similar to playing a ball that lies through the green. A player is prohibited from pushing down hard on a club to get under a ball in the fairway so the same rule would apply in a bunker.

Yes, it was simple to do that (in both Codes).

David

This is to advise and acknowledge that I have adopted your principles relating to grounding the club in a hazard and the ‘opposite margin’ provision for relief from a lateral water hazard.

I think your approach to each is eminently sensible; and have modified my code accordingly.

In regard to the latter, I have been a member of my current club, which has 14 lateral water hazards in play, for over 30 years and do not recall ever having seen a player take 26-1.c.(ii) relief.

When planning my re-write of the rules I had identified so many opportunities for significant simplification, improvement and correction of the current code that I did not consider these two prospects.

Could I suggest that you have a look at the relationship between ‘searching’ for the ball and ‘playing the ball as it lies’, in both of your codes, particularly in relation to ‘probing’. It seems to me that there may be a need for more clarity. For instance, where would a player stand under each code if s/he wished to search, by probing the surface, for a ball possibly embedded in the (non-sand) surface of a water hazard?

Should you be interested in an analysis of the current rules in this regard, it can be found at Rog’s Blog: Rule 12-1, parts 1-4 (which can be located through a Google search). For what it is worth, I hope to have overcome potential for conflict between these rules by beginning Rule 13-4 with: ‘Unless otherwise provided in the rules,…’.