Some thoughts

[John Morrissett]

Quincy -

Thank you so much for taking the time to go through Code One and sharing your thoughtful comments.

Some initial comments to your thoughts:

(1) "Flat" obstructions - The point you make is certainly valid in that it is hardly an imposition to stand on a path or sprinkler head to play a ball. However, that direction becomes a problem with "vertical" obstructions. The suggestion of differentiating the types of obstructions (ground level vs. vertical) has some philosophical appeal, but I would be concerned about adding a layer of complexity (with now two different types of immovable obstructions) to achieve that goal.

(2) Ball in movable obstruction not found - The Rules survived for many years without this provision, but enough incidents kept coming up (esp. a ball that becomes lodged in a cart or other vehicle) that the current provision was added. While your suggestion is consistent with this project's theme of not worrying about the rare and unusual incidents, this situation is concerning in that, without the provision, the Rules provide no guidance other than seemingly to suggest that the player must proceed under stroke and distance. Would you be willing to accept stroke and distance as the result (not a rhetorical question)?

(3) Water hazard (opposite margin option) - We decided to eliminate this option as (a) it is used rarely and (b) it is not well understood. My concern with going the Local Rule route is that, as much as possible, David and I tried to stay away from Local Rules (in fact we incorporated several into the Rules themselves) as we believe that Local Rules are a source of confusion among golfers as they move from course to course and competition to competition.

(4) Power lines - The issue with the Local Rule in Decision 33-8/13 is that it is best adopted when only a decent shot may strike the power line and not necessarily when only a terrible shot might strike it. However, that distinction arguably runs contrary to the theme of not worrying too much about incidents on either end of the spectrum. Therefore, inserting something into the Rules themselves could have appeal; on the other hand, a case could be made for just eliminating the two Local Rules and having the player in all cases play the ball as it lies (as the replay requirement would add the complexity of treating two obstructions differently). Hmmmm.

(5) As near as possible - Late into this project we made an effort to stick with "near" as we believe that to be the preferred word. However, as you identified, we didn't quite catch all the "nearly"s! Thank you for spotting that.

David and I look forward to your thoughts on Code Two!

Best regards,
John