Code One General Comments

[John Morrissett]

Doc -

We are flattered that you have taken the time to go through Code One so closely. Thank you for doing so and for your specific comments - that is exactly what we want from this Discussion Group.

First, the general comment that David and I did not envision some changes in Code Two as being exclusive to that code (except where the changes are dependent on the points system integral to Code Two). Therefore, it is certainly possible to create, in effect, a Code Three, that would take the changes in Code Two that are independent of the scoring system. In the spirit of this project (simplicity), David and I thought that two codes are enough for now to present the ideas, but don't let that stop you from picking and choosing your favorite elements of each code.

Some comments on your thoughts:

(1) Match play penalties: It is certainly tempting to make the general penalty in match play two strokes as well, as doing so would eliminate a separate penalty structure. In the early 1980s the R&A and USGA looked at doing so and ultimately decided against it as it was felt there are a few situations where a two-stroke penalty in match play would not be sufficient (e.g., wrong information). One reason we retained the loss of hole penalty is that it allows for quite simple rulings (much simpler than those in stroke play, esp. when a correction is required). There was then the question of whether having a more uniform penalty structure outweighs the simplicity of loss of hole rulings - a touch call.

You were good to pick up on the removal of the status of match penalties. It seemed to us that the main benefit of the status of match penalties is that they ensured that a player would be penalized for certain breaches (e.g., that a player would not effectively escape penalty for starting the round with too many clubs if he also lost the first hole because of poor play). However, our experience has been that the concept of adjusting the state of the match is not well understood, defies reason (how can a player be two down after one hole??) and adds a layer to the penalty structure in match play. We felt that the prospect of a player getting "lucky" (if you call it that) and avoiding a penalty because already lost the hole because of his play was acceptable in view of the benefits.

(2) With Rule 3-3, we certainly agree that the current Rule is not well understood - our goal was to improve and simplify it. We thought that introducing the term "selected ball" would help with the readability of the Rule. We were also concerned that not all the outcomes from Decision 3-3/0.5 can be reached from the current Rule, and we expanded the Rule to do so.

Note 3 was added to address the fairly common question of whether a player is required to hole out with both balls and just moves the message of Decision 3-3/8 into the Rule itself.

(3) We removed the current Exception to Rule 6-8a as (a) in general, the fewer Exceptions the better and (b) our experience has been that such a provision is used very rarely.

(4) That is a fair suggestion. We decided to go the Note route as its only applicability is in Rule 7 (so the information is closer to the relevant Rule).

(5) With the order of play when a player is not to play his ball as it lies, this is a good example of the trade-off between what is perhaps philosophically desirable and what is easy to understand. David and I were bothered enough by the prospect of (a) letting a player manipulate the order of play based on the relief option he chooses and (b) having the order of play be dependent on his decision (which in effect forces him to make a decision before his opponent plays, which seems odd) that we retained the current procedure.

(6) Use of a non-conforming tee: As it can be difficult and/or unwise to quantify a possible advantage gained through the use of a non-conforming piece of equipment (whether a club, ball, artificial device, or tee), David and I believe it continues to make sense to provide for a penalty of disqualification. Such a penalty also provides zero incentive for a player to use such a piece of non-conforming equipment. For example, if some miracle tee were developed that would allow a player to drive the ball 400 yards, some players might be willing to accept a two-stroke penalty each time they use the tee.

More later.

Thanks again.
John

---

(7) That section of Code Two could be introduced to Code One. The current procedure for identifying a ball is cumbersome, and, if there is no penalty for playing a wrong ball, a player does not really need to lift a ball for identification.

(8) We are glad you like the change regarding loose impediments. As for retaining the prohibition against testing the condition of a hazard with a practice swing (though note we narrowed the prohibited methods of testing), we were concerned with the practical aspect of allowing practice swings (i.e., that bunkers would have more of their sand deposited outside bunkers).

(9) Understood.

(10) I will let David address your gravity concern as he can explain the view better than I can.

(11) New Rule 18-5: We believe there should be a penalty to discourage players from leaving a ball near the hole when it might assist another player. Current Rule 19-5a works well in that regard in stroke play as it is in the best interest of the player putting to have the other ball lifted. We introduced a penalty in match play to eliminate a difference between the two forms of play that causes some confusion.

(12) I am not sure I follow all of your thinking. If a player does not mark the location of his ball when required to do so, a one-stroke penalty makes sense. True, in many cases it is unlikely that he could replace the ball on the correct spot in such a situation, but there are provisions in the Rules telling him how to proceed when he does not know where to replace a ball. To me, the general penalty for playing from a wrong place seems appropriate, in part as a one-stroke penalty would significantly weaken the unplayable ball Rule (an undesirable result, in my opinion).

(13) The "standard relief" from Code Two could be incorporated into Code One. We're glad you like the elimination of dropping; that one change simplifies an awful lot.

(14) New Rule 15-1a entitles you to lift your ball from the putting green.

(15) Requiring the marking of the location of a ball before a movable obstruction is removed could yield some strange penalties (e.g., if the ball is one foot away from the obstruction).

---

(16) No relief for just intervention on the line of putt: While this situation certainly arises occasionally (esp. with casual water), we thought that the current Rule granting relief (a) creates different results for different parts of the course (e.g., a ball one inch off the putting green is treated very differently from a ball lying on the putting green, even though each faces essentially the same situation), (b) leads to some confusion away from the putting green as to whether there is relief for intervention, and © is not that well understood. Denying intervention relief does simplify things, and the question is whether people believe the gained simplification is worth the new results.

(17) David and I are not fans of the current Local Rule for a provisional ball for a ball that may be in a water hazard. We have fielded way too many questions from Committees that (a) adopt the Local Rule when they should not have and/or (b) apply in incorrectly. More than anything, we just really do not like the idea of giving the player a choice as to which ball to play.

As for relief from water hazards, we strongly caution against going down the Local Rule path as we believe Local Rules contribute to the current confusion about the Rules. The fewer Local Rules, the better.

(18) Certainly possible.

(19) Good point about margins. There has to be a better way.