Live from Stanford: 2014 Peg Barnard Invitational

            The 2014 tournament season is officially underway for me with the Peg Barnard Invitational at Stanford.  Last year was an incredible year where we witnessed NCAA history when Mariah Stackhouse shot an opening nine 26 en route to a final round 61 and an individual victory.  So far through one round, this year has not been quite as eventful.

            Only one remotely notable situation occurred and it leads to what the topic of discussion will be for today:  drop zones.

            A misunderstanding of a local Rule led to a couple players being told their only option for relief from an obstruction was a drop zone that had been provided as an additional option.  Fortunately, I don’t believe either player was significantly disadvantaged but it raised the issue of how to use drop zones.

            Most of us are familiar with drop zones for water hazards, but drop zones can be used for many reasons.  The text in the Rules of Golf Appendix I-B reads, “If the Committee considers that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed in accordance with a Rule providing relief, it may establish dropping zones in which balls may or must be dropped when taking relief.  Generally, such dropping zones should be provided as an additional option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.”  At Stanford, we have two kinds of dropping zones. There are four drop zones provided as additional options for relief under Rule 26-1 (Water Hazards), and there are two situations where drop zones are used as additional options for relief under Rule 24-2 (Immovable Obstructions).

            The drop zones for relief under Rule 24-2 are in place because determining the nearest point of relief in these situations is can potentially be excessively difficult.  In both cases, in order to not go closer to the hole, the nearest point of relief may be a significant distance from where the ball lies.  So on hole 7, two drop zones have been installed and the player may use the nearer of the two, and on hole 8 one drop zone has been installed as an additional option. 

            The reason I’ve made these an additional option rather than mandatory is because there are potential cases where a player could not only determine the nearest point of relief quickly, but that point would be a better option than the drop zone.  When a better option is possible, it would be unwise to take away that option by making the drop zone mandatory.  Typically, we see mandatory drop zones used with TIO’s (temporary immovable obstructions).  This is usually to protect the TIO itself (i.e., TV towers with cables or the camera itself).

            It is also interesting to note that drop zones do not have to be white-painted circles.  We are most familiar with this form because it is easy and common.  But a drop zone can be established in many shapes and ways.  This year for the Peg Barnard, because the water hazard drop zones are on the forward teeing areas where the membership has expressed dismay at the white-painted circles in the past, we have defined the dropping zones using blue tee-markers, and the drop zone is actually the size and shape of a teeing ground (a rectangle two club-lengths in depth defined by the outside edges of the tee-markers).  If you implement this method, it is important to note how the drop zone is defined on your notice to competitors and it may be useful to remind players that they may not tee the ball when using those drop zones.

            Some other interesting Rules regarding drop zones:

• The ball may roll closer to the hole when dropped in a drop zone.

• The ball does not have to stay within the drop zone so long as it does not roll more than two club-lengths from where it first strikes the course.

• The player does not have to stand within the drop zone when dropping.

For the complete text regarding the use of drop zones, see Appendix I-B-8 in the Rules of Golf or the Decisions on the Rules of Golf.

For scores and info on the Peg Barnard go to golfstat.com

D.A. Points' Spongy Ball

     Well, leave it to the AT&T to have another interesting week.  We FINALLY got some rain in California and it couldn't have come at a better time...except for the AT&T.  That isn't what has become newsworthy however, as late Friday came word of a disqualification penalty.
    D.A. Points was disqualified for a breach of Rule 14-3 when he took at a green spongy ball used as a training aid while waiting on the 18th tee at Pebble Beach.  On second thought, if you're going to be disqualified, there is probably no worse place to break the Rules, right?  While players are permitted to use their normal equipment in such a fashion because it is traditionally accepted (the head cover under the arm is a popular drill on tour) the use of unusual equipment in such a manner is a breach of Rule 14-3 just like using a weighted donut during a stipulated round (see Decisions 14-3/10, 14-3/10.3 and 14-3/10.5 for examples).
    What is really interesting is how the pro-am aspect is being handled.  I completely understand the politics of allowing the pro-am partners to continue playing (lots of money involved and you don't want to worry about finding a marker to fill the other half of the pairing), but Rule 31-7 is pretty clear that for a breach by one partner of Rule 14-3, the entire side is disqualified.  So really, D.A. Points and Condoleezza Rice should be disqualified as a team from the competition.  Instead, they have a local pro (pretty decent player I might add) playing with Rice for the pro-am portion today.  That's something I have never heard of.  Again, I understand, and in the same situation I probably would have allowed Points and Rice to play the third round together but only as playing markers.  It is extremely odd to not only allow the pro-am team to continue, but to substitute a player as well.
UPDATE:  The local pro subbed for Briny Baird who had withdrawn.  The Tour permitted Points to play on Saturday in the team competition.  Still an odd situation.
    Now as I'm writing play has been suspended for a non-dangerous situation because part of Pebble Beach has become unplayable due to the wind.  What is interesting about this, is that because one course is unplayable, all three courses must suspend play.  Part of the logistics of a three-course event like the AT&T Pro-Am is that when it comes to suspending play, resuming play and starting times, what you do on one course, you must do at all three.

Bubba Watson's Relief

Bubba Watson takes relief from a burrowing animal hole

   On the 13th hole during the third round of the Phoenix Open, Bubba Watson found his ball in a bush.  Normally, the measuring you see above would be to take an unplayable, but Watson was granted relief for interference from a burrowing animal hole.  Reports differ as to whether the ball was actually in the hole or Watson just had interference with his area of intended swing, but either way, he had interference as defined by Rule 25-1a.
   When taking relief from an abnormal ground condition (ground under repair, casual water or a burrowing animal hole), through the green the player must drop the ball (if immediately recoverable) within one club-length of the nearest point of relief no nearer the hole. As you can see in the picture above, Bubba is measuring from a point within the bush, which is absolutely correct.  The nearest point of relief is determined by where interference from the condition exists, and is not always the nicest point of relief.  In this case, the nearest point of relief was still in the bush, but one club-length managed to get Bubba out of trouble.
    The question that should be raised is that an Exception to Rule 25-1 exists that states, "A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable..."  One could make a valid argument that the bush made Bubba's stroke impracticable and that he should not have been entitled to relief.
   Given that professional golfers can do amazing things if they can get a club on the ball, it was fair to say that Bubba could have played the ball had he not been given relief and therefore the Exception did not apply.  The question to ask when applying the Exception is, "What would you do if the condition (burrowing animal hole) were not there?"  If the answer is, "Take an unplayable," then the player should not be entitled to relief.  If the answer is, "I'd take a whack at it because I can still hit it," the player is probably still entitled to relief.
    It's a bit of a judgment call, and I think the call was correct, but it's worth mentioning that the player is not ALWAYS entitled to relief if they manage to find their ball in a burrowing animal hole even inside a bush.

Kevin Stadler's Unplayable

Kevin Stadler's Ball suspended in a cholla cactus

    On the 11th hole at TPC Scottsdale during the final round of the Phoenix Open, Kevin Stadler's ball came to rest in a unique position suspended above the ground in a cholla cactus.  The announcing booth didn't have a great grasp of the situation so here it is, step-by-step.
    Kevin Stadler opted to proceed under Rule 28c by dropping within two club-lengths of where the ball originally lay, no nearer the hole, with a one-stroke penalty.  Because his ball was suspended in the air, rather than using the actual spot where the ball was, he was permitted to use the spot on the ground directly beneath the ball as his reference point for taking relief.  This ruling is permitted by Decision 28/11 which covers when a player wants to take an unplayable using Rule 28c, but the ball is suspended in the air.
   David Feherty was a bit confused as to why Stadler was permitted to substitute another ball, providing a poor explanation given by Slugger White that Slugger permitted the substitution because it was dangerous for Stadler to reach into the cactus to retrieve the ball.  Here's the catch - when proceeding under Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable), a player is permitted to substitute a ball even if the ball is readily recoverable. Specifically, the Rule reads, "When proceeding under this Rule, the player may lift and clean his ball or substitute a ball."
   While Slugger did get the ruling correct, the explanation given on television was a bit wayward.  Any time a player proceeds under Rule 28, they may substitute a ball if desired.

Live from Rules School: Los Angeles Edition

            To those who have followed the blog from the start will remember last year’s segment “Live from Rules School.” Well, this year due to both time constraints and technical difficulties I was unable to provide a running blog of the proceedings from Rules School. 

            Needless to say now, Rules School is complete and yet again I must wait a year to attempt to complete the Road to 100.  Congratulations to all of my peers who achieved this feat in the class.  I won’t name anyone, but you know who you are, and while we all have heard that once you cross that 92 threshold the difference between a perfect score and not is more about reading and silly mistakes than knowledge, a perfect score is a great achievement worthy of praise.  So job well done!

            I, of course, managed to spin myself out of the correct answer on both of my misses.  Also, of course, I will not share any details beyond that about the exam itself, so do not ask.  For those who will take it this year, trust your instincts and take your time.

            What I will talk about, are the new and interesting things I learned and will take away from the workshop.  This was my first Advanced PGA/USGA Rules Workshop.  Attendance is limited to those who have achieved a score of 85 or better on the exam within the past four years.  Because of this, the types of questions that are asked are of a more philosophical level, both to the instructors and during breaks amongst ourselves.  Below I will go through some key points I think will help everyone trying to better grasp the Rules.

            First, however, I must give my thanks to David Staebler and Larry Startzel for their wonderful presentation and expertise.  It was my first workshop with both of them and I was delighted by their insights, “aha moments,” and delivery.  I look forward to communicating and hopefully working with you both in the future.

           

“Authority Trumps Prohibition”

            In many places throughout the Rules of Golf, certain Rules seem to contradict each other.  It leads to confusion as to which Rule applies and what a player can actually do.  A recurring phrase that arose during the workshop was that “authority trumps prohibition.”  This means that if a Rule specifically authorizes a player to do something, that authority overrides the prohibition of another Rule.  Here’s a perfect example:  Rule 13-4 specifically prohibits the player from touching or moving loose impediments in a hazard when his ball lies in the same hazard.  This is in conflict with Rule 12-1b which specifically authorizes the player to remove loose impediments in a hazard when searching for a ball believed to be covered by loose impediments in the hazard.  Well, authority trumps prohibition.  Because Rule 12-1b specifically authorizes the player to move loose impediments in that specific situation, the penalty under Rule 13-4 does not apply. 

            This phrase has also been interpreted as, “the specific overrides the general.”  Again, the general Rule 13-4 prohibits moving loose impediments in the hazard, but the more specific Rule 12-1b permits the player to move the loose impediments in the specific situation of searching for the ball believed to be covered by loose impediments in the hazard.

Smart Phones

            We’ve been searching for clarification on the use of smart phones as distance-measuring devices now that compasses and weather applications are now permitted.  We received that clarification.

            First, remember that a smart phone may be used as a phone at any time, so long as you are not using it to breach the Rules (calling your swing guru for advice, recording your swing to see your flaws during the round, using the level to measure the slope on a green, etc.).  The specific issue has been whether or not distance-measuring apps were permitted.

            Previously, because the use of a compass during the round was prohibited, all the smart phones that had a compass installed on the phone (and were not removable) could not be used as distance-measuring devices.  After the Decision change, the new concern became the level application that could not be removed.  I will try to best explain the correct logic and interpretation now:

            The level is an app that yes, could be used to breach the Rules.  But it could also be used legally.  What if you just wanted to see if the ball-washer was level?  That is not a breach of 14-3.  So step one is that as long as the smart phone does not have the capability to directly measure or gauge conditions which might affect your play, it is legal for use as a distance-measuring device. So if your phone has an actual thermometer or anemometer (wind gauge), or application to that effect, it is not legal for use as a DMD. Step two is that the distance-measuring app you choose must also not be able to measure or gauge conditions that might affect your play.  Specifically, if the distance-measuring app can calculate or measure slope/gradient, that distance-measuring app is in breach of the Local Rule in 14-3/0.5 and may not be used.

            The general Rule of thumb is to now think of the app itself as the “device.”  This of course comes with the exception that if your phone breaches step one above, it still isn’t legal even if the DMD app itself is legal.  It took a while to get to this position, but there are a whole bunch of smart phone users who will be very happy.  This definitely beats, “if you can afford a smart phone that has a DM app, you can afford to buy a legal DM rangefinder.”

            Clarification is still necessary though.  This does not change the previous stance on DMD lasers/rangefinders that have slope functions available.  Those devices are designed to specifically measure distance and must be held entirely to the standard of the Local Rule.  If the laser has the ability to measure slope at any time, whether through use of a Mode button or removable face plate, the device is not legal for use as a DMD. The same would apply to a PDA device.  If it has a slope function, the device is not legal even if that function is turned off or not used.  Is it possible the ruling there may evolve and change in the future as it did with smart phones?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  That’s for the Rules of Golf Committee to decide, and they’ll tell us if it does.

Fine Print: Committee’s Decision and Rules of Golf Committee Referral

            I used to misinterpret the fine print under Rule 34-3.  First, it states that the Committee’s decision is final.  The following paragraph explains that a player or players may request that a statement be sent to the Rules of Golf Committee for their opinion as to the correctness of a ruling.  I used to think this meant that if the Rules of Golf Committee came back and said the ruling was incorrect, that it would be overturned.  This is not the case.  The statement means exactly what it says.  The player can request a statement for their opinion as to the correctness of the ruling.  Meaning, they can find out if the tournament’s Committee was right or wrong, but regardless of the result, the ruling will stand.  The real lesson from this mini “aha moment” is that the text means exactly what the text says: the Committee’s decision is final. 

Clubs

            At the first multi-day seminar I taught, the introduction question that was asked of participants was, “What is your least favorite Rule?”  I answered Rule 4, Clubs.  And why shouldn’t it be my least favorite?  It’s one of the few Rules with a maximum penalty and adjustment to the state of the match penalties, if you breach the Rule between two holes, some of the Rule 4 sub-rules apply the penalty to the next hole and some apply to the hole just played, and there is never any explicit clarification between wear and tear and damage.  It’s a perfect storm for confusion, but a deeper look at the Rule reveals an even deeper logic and clarity with some interesting points as well.

            1.         It is impossible to breach Rules 4-3a(i) and 4-3a(ii).  I’ve never tried to apply a penalty, but it’s good to know that I never will have to either.

            2.         The difference between applying the penalty to the next hole or the previous when a breach occurs between holes is whether or not a player could gain an advantage.  Under Rules 4-4a, 4-4b and 4-3a, a breach cannot assist a player until they have started play of a hole. Also, when you boil it out, breaches of 4-4a, 4-4b and 4-3a are all the same thing.  You’ve added a club when not permitted.  What good is an additional club until you’ve had the opportunity to choose from the additional clubs for a stroke? So if the breach occurs between holes, it could only have helped the player on the previous holes.  But under Rules 4-1 and 4-2, a breach could potentially assist the player on the next hole (if you carry a medicus – a non-conforming club – you could swing it between holes to work on tempo). 

            3.         The difference between wear and tear and damage.  Rule 4-1b tells us that a club that was conforming as new is deemed to conform through normal use, even if it has been worn to a point that would normally be non-conforming (a face so worn that it is actually concave in a spot).  However, if a club has been damaged in the normal course of play rendering it non-conforming you could use it for the rest of the round, but if you start a new round with it you would breach 4-3c because what you’re doing is carrying a non-conforming club in breach of Rule 4-1 (remember the penalty statement to 4-3c says “See Penalty Statement for Rule 4-1 or 4-2”).  If it was damaged in the normal course of play how is that not wear and tear through normal use?  Well damage is a violent, abnormal action, whereas wear and tear is a gradual and incremental change in the club’s characteristics.

           

            While these are certainly not the only lessons learned this week they come to the forefront of my mind and stick out the most.  Again, thank you to the wonderful instructors and I look forward to next year.

Rory McIlroy in Abu Dhabi and the role of Rule 20-2c

            It wouldn’t be the Abu Dhabi without a little bit of Rules controversy right?  Rory McIlroy surrendered two-strokes for a breach of Rule 25-1, but despite the Eurpoean Tour’s John Paramour getting to the media before theories could run rampant, I still haven’t seen a truly thorough explanation.  So before we talk about the aftermath, here’s what happened.

            On the second hole, Rory McIlroy’s ball came to rest in a cross-walk, an area defined as ground under repair by Local Rule (this exists in PGA Tour events as well, players have see this week in and week out).  The Rule governing the relief procedure for a ball in ground under repair is Rule 25-1b.  The player is entitled to find his nearest point of relief and through the green he must drop the ball within one club length of that nearest point of relief no nearer the hole. 

            Most of the world has heard this, and actually understands this.  What has not been talked about, are the real reasons why McIlroy ended up being in violation of that Rule.  In order to figure that out we have to look at Rule 20-2c, which governs re-dropping.  Rule 20-2c tells us that when a dropped ball rolls and comes to rest in a position where there is interference by the condition from which relief was taken under Rule 25-1 the ball MUST be re-dropped.  If the player does not re-drop the ball in that situation and plays the ball, he has played from a wrong place in breach of the applicable Rule (in this case 25-1). 

            The phrase above has become colloquially known as “taking complete relief.”  When Rory McIlroy played the dropped ball with his foot still on or touching the ground under repair, he still had interference (as defined by the Rules) from the ground under repair.  When he still had interference, he was required to re-drop the ball.  Since he did not, he played the ball from a wrong place in breach of Rule 25-1, and incurred a two-stroke penalty.

 This Rule is not new, has not been changed or tweaked recently, and while re-drop situations can be complicated, for a player of his caliber this was Rules 101.  For him to call this a “stupid Rule,” is stupid in and of itself and I will explain why.

Take this example:  You’re taking relief from a cart path.  You drop the ball in the correct spot within one club-length of the nearest point of relief but it rolls into a spot where you still have to stand on the cart path.  Without Rule 20-2c, and even more specifically, without the clause that required Rory to re-drop the ball, you would have to play that ball with interference from the cart path.  What good does that do?  If you took away this Rule, you could potentially never get relief from a situation when you are entitled to it. 

So before the golf world goes haywire over this “outrageous” rule and starts hacking away at the governing bodies, just take a step back and think about it.  In this situation, it may have seemed harsh, but when you apply the Rule to an example that illustrates why the Rule exists, it is easy to understand.