At long last, the Revisions to the
Decisions on the Rules of Golf are in!
And boy, there are some doozies…
Today is a very exciting day for a Rules geek like myself, and while some of these changes seem small, maybe even nit-picky, every change is important to correctly applying the Rules. There are only 3 new Decisions this year, but two of them have a
significant effect on certain rulings.
There are 59 revised Decisions, most of which have very little impact
and have been only slightly modified for clarification purposes, and then there
are 24 withdrawn Decisions along with one lone renumbered Decision.
The Newbies
The first new Decision, 14-3/18,
permits the player to access weather reports through an app or internet browser
on a “multi-functional device” (ok, we’re talking about smart-phones). This takes us one step closer to getting
smart-phones the green light as distance measuring devices. (The next step comes later). Previously there was a lot of debate about
whether “general” weather information constituted a breach of the Rules with
regards to learning about temperature or wind-speeds, humidity or any other
meteorological factor that could influence the player, but now the prohibition
is officially limited to exact information.
The kind of information that can only be gathered by a thermometer an
anemometer or other specific meteorological tool.
If you call the second new Decision
the “Tiger Rule” I will block you on Twitter and everywhere else. New Decision 18/4, without going into the
entire text, basically states that if you can’t tell the ball moved with the
naked eye it didn’t move (Also see the joint USGA and R&A statement about
the Use of Video in Administering the Rules).
The masses have already started chirping that this is the “Tiger Rule”
and it only came into play because of the recent penalty to Tiger Woods whose
ball moved while removing loose impediments and it was only discernible through
video evidence. The use of video has
been reviewed for a long time and I can guarantee this specific Decision was
reviewed and discussed prior to the Tiger Woods incident. You can look back to the 2012 U.S. Senior
Open with Corey Pavin who was penalized for a very similar indiscernible
movement and to any number of other events where player’s incurred penalties
for movement they didn’t know had occurred.
There’s a catch though… The new
Decision leaves room for the Committee to decide that the movement WAS in fact
discernible to the naked eye and therefore the penalty for playing from a wrong
place (ball at rest moved then not replaced) should be applied. I don’t want to be on that Committee any time
soon…
The last new Decision doesn’t affect
our current interpretation of the Rules because it was basically taken out of
another Decision. New Decision 18-2b/1
(replacing the former 18-2b/1 which has been nixed) talks about the effects of
gravity and that gravity is not an agency to be considered when applying the no
longer new Exception to Rule 18-2b. This
was taken out of Decision 18-2b/11 and given a prominent place at the front of
the 18-2b Decisions and further clarifies what we already had to work
with. Just as before, in order to
determine that the player did not cause the ball to move with virtual
certainty, it must be known or virtually certain that some “observable factor”
DID cause the ball to move.
The Revisions
There were a lot of revisions, most
of them very minor (i.e. Decision 23/13 was changed from “Clod” of earth to “Lump”
of earth), but several themes arose out of the clarifications and there were
actually some revisions that reversed previous rulings.
The first theme was to clarify in
specific Decisions that players need to be aware they are breaching a Rule in
order for there to be an agreement to waive the Rules. I think a clear example of this is the
revised 2-1/4: Two Holes Purposely Omitted in Match. Currently, if two players purposely omit 2
holes of their stipulated round during a match, they are both
disqualified. Come 1/1/2014, the
Decision is modified so that the players would only be disqualified if they
were aware that omitting holes was a breach of Rule 2-1. This is a relatively significant change in
the world of “Rules Theory” where ignorance is very rarely bliss but it is
consistent with the thread that in order to be waiving the Rules, you have to
know the Rules first.
The second theme is clarity. The words “amended for clarity” or “expanded
for clarity” are rampant (in a good way) throughout the Amendments to the
Decisions. This is why we have a Decision
that talks about a Lump rather than a Clod of earth. But there are also some significant
developments in clarity in these changes.
Decision 25-2/0.5 now has an illustration to explain when a ball is
embedded. Decisions 23-1/6.5 clarifies that the removing loose impediments from
a spot where the ball is to be placed is ok specifically through the green and
not in hazards. We also see several
changes where the Decision refers to a different Decision to get the
facts. They have added the facts back
into the question so that you don’t have to flip back and forth to understand
the answer. And another type of
clarification is additional references.
There are several revised Decisions that have added reference to
specific Exceptions in order to add clarity.
The last kind of clarity comes with detail. The most notable added detail is in the new
27-2a/1.5 which is a clarity Decision in and of itself. Now it puts a specific limit of approximately
50 yards that a player can go forward before he is no longer able to play a
provisional ball (provided the player is not going forward for a different
purpose such as getting a new club or ball).
There are some notable reversals of
fortune in the Amendments as well. The
most notable is Decision 14-3/4 which currently prohibits the use of a
compass. Come 1/1/2014 that Decisions
will specifically allow the use of a compass.
This is the second step in getting smart-phones into the “usable as DMD”
category and was formerly the largest hurdle.
Another reversal of fortune comes with regards to tree roots. Decision 33-8/8 currently prohibits making a
Local Rule providing relief from exposed tree roots as GUR. Come 1/1/2014, if the ball lies
in a closely mown area, the Committee may make a Local Rule treating interfering
roots as GUR.
There are also some notable “recommendations”
that come through the Amendments. The
new 33-1/2 now notes that canceling a round when reducing the number of holes
in a stroke play competition, is not recommended and is highly undesirable
(remember Kapalua?). The new 33-8/16
also states it is not recommended to implement a Local Rule making all stakes
on the course immovable obstructions.
The new 4-1/1 recommends that while the new Groove Condition is being
more widely implemented starting in 2014, it is still only recommended for
competitions with expert players.
The Rest
There are 24 withdrawn Decisions
which all tend to follow the theme of redundancy. These removed Decisions were all either
restating the Rule or were already stated in another Decision. For example, 33-8/3 specifically disallowed
play of a second ball in match play.
Well, if you read the Rules we all know you can’t play a second ball in
match play AND there is still a specific Decision that covers that (3-3/9).
One thing that was slightly
disappointing about today’s announcement was that there was no link to the new
Decisions text available from the News link.
We had to find it through several links and pathways. I, however, will link them for you HERE. ENJOY!
No comments:
Post a Comment