Couple of queries....

[backwoodsman]

Hi folks. I've been absent for a bit but would appreciate a bit of advice on a couple of things that cropped up in the 19th recently. Both related to supposed rules changes.

i. Someone was claiming that if you mark your ball on the green (matchplay) then on request, move the marker a putter head to the side, then by mistake put the ball back having failed to move the marker back again, if you play the ball it's no longer a penalty ?

ii. Someone else claiming that it's now permitted to move loose impediments in a hazard?

I'm sure both are a load of eye-wash. Surely i. above is still a breach of 20/3 and ii. still a breach of 23/1

Have I missed a major rule change somewhere? Or could there be some circumstances with either might possibly be permitted?

Ta

 

[Yer Maw]

I'll stick my neck out and say nonsense on both accounts. It is up to the player to mark and replace his ball correctly. Though you can get local rules deeming stones in bunkers as loose impediments, though I would personally like stones to be removeable in bunkers as a rule because it comes with the sand, can damage the club, ball and bystanders. Not really anything to be lost from that rule which is why so many courses have it as a local rule.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I'm sure both are a load of eye-wash.

Me too.

 

[duncan mackie]

eyewash

only possible mitigation to ii would be the moving of a LI whilst raking the bunker soley for the purposes of caring for the course...ie you could incidentally move a LI in a bunker without penalty in such a situation, but I suspect that's not what they were getting at.

 

[rulefan]

i. Someone was claiming that if you mark your ball on the green (matchplay) then on request, move the marker a putter head to the side, then by mistake put the ball back having failed to move the marker back again, if you play the ball it's no longer a penalty ?

Only if the opponent chose to ignore the breach, would there be no penalty.

If the supposed rule changes were recent then no doubt those making the suggestions will be able to reference the change fairly easily. The current rules are only 16 months old.

 

[backwoodsman]

Thanks all. I was confident that I was still on the right lines, but they seemed so sure, that I was starting to wonder if I'd missed something.

 

[palindromicbob]

Only if the opponent chose to ignore the breach, would there be no penalty.

If the supposed rule changes were recent then no doubt those making the suggestions will be able to reference the change fairly easily. The current rules are only 16 months old.

Sorry messed up.