Loose impediments between ball and hole

[cliveb]

However there is no penalty if you move an LI accidently or when approaching your ball in a hazard so long as it isn't moved in making the backswing and the lie of the ball or area of the intended stance or swing is not improved

So - if you accidentally (or deliberately) move a loose impediment in a hazard which improves your stance, there is a penalty.

But pretty much everyone shuffles their feet into the sand when taking their stance in a bunker. Isn't it highly likely that this might sometimes move a small twig/leaf/etc? Should we be penalised for doing that? I've never heard of anyone incurring such a penalty.

 

[rulefan]

So - if you accidentally (or deliberately) move a loose impediment in a hazard which improves your stance, there is a penalty.

But pretty much everyone shuffles their feet into the sand when taking their stance in a bunker. Isn't it highly likely that this might sometimes move a small twig/leaf/etc? Should we be penalised for doing that? I've never heard of anyone incurring such a penalty.

Decision 13-4/13 says accidental movement is not penalised "provided the loose impediment was not moved in making the backswing and the lie of the ball or area of the intended stance or swing was not improved".

 

[Colin L]

You have to be able to walk through a bunker to your ball, Clive, and that in the autumn might mean treading on quite a number of leaves. It wouldn't be workable if accidental touching of LIs were penalised.

 

[cliveb]

Decision 13-4/13 says accidental movement is not penalised "provided the loose impediment was not moved in making the backswing and the lie of the ball or area of the intended stance or swing was not improved".

I can conceive of two possible interpretations of this ruling (due to how different people interpret the meaning of the words OR and AND):

1. There is a penalty if the LI is accidentally moved during the backswing, regardless. There is also a penalty if the LI is accidentally moved (not during the backswing) which improves the lie/swing/stance.

2. There is a penalty only if the LI is moved during the backswing AND that movement during the backswing results in an improvment to lie/swing/stance.

Which of these two is it? I thought it was interpretation 1, but am happy to be corrected.

 

[rulefan]

One

 

[MashieNiblick]

Clive raises a good point with regard to improving the area of the stance. This can be a bit grey and open to interpretation and I would be interested in people's views.

My take is it is rather like the scenario mentioned in Decision 13-2/0.5 - Meaning of "Improve" in Rule 13-2 . Knock down a few small leaves out of hundreds = no penalty, knock down a large leaf out of a few = penalty.

There is also the fact that you are entitled to fairly take your stance (Rule 13-2) and to place your feet firmly in so doing (Rule 13-3). Decision 13-2/1 gives a detailed explanation of "fairly taking" your stance. This says, in part

"Thus, in taking his stance for the selected stroke, the player should select the least intrusive course of action which results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. The player is not entitled to a normal stance or swing. He must accommodate the situation in which the ball is found and take a stance as normal as the circumstances permit. What is fair must be determined in the light of all the circumstances. "

So in a bunker with say just few pine needles spread around, if I take my stance and shuffle my feet and the odd one or two I am standing on move as a result I would say that I am acting within Rules 13-2 and 13-3 and not really improving the area of my stance. However if there was a thick carpet of pine needles or leaves and I shuffled my feet to get through them so my spikes could get into the sand I think that would be a breach, as I could fairly take my stance and place my feet firmly without doing that, even though it would mean my stance was not as good as I'd like it to be. In that case I would just have to stand on the needles and keep my feet still.

Happy to be corrected on that interpretation and not sure If I may have missed something, but that's how I would see it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Duncan was explaining about the area in which the ball is to be dropped (Rule 13-2) as opposed to an area the ball might roll into after being dropped . The answer is the same but from a different rule ie Rule 1-2 which prohibits an action intend to affect the playing of hole by making a physical change to it. That applies to an area you think a dropped ball might roll into (without having to be redropped). See Decision 1-2/3

I don't see any difference regarding how far away you are from your ball when you decide to do this. If you are talking of a conscious thought that you'd better replace the divots because of a strong likelihood of having to drop your ball and of its rolling into a divot hole, it is the same situation no matter when or how far away you thought to do it.

I guess the generic situation I was thinking of would be where I would get a drop in an area where there were a lot of unrepaired divots within two club lengths of the point a drop. So let's say I see my ball has gone into GUR and that GUR is surrounded by unrepaired divots. This seems clear to me that I couldn't repair any divots before taking my drop and I would be pushing it to say I didn;t realise I would be getting a drop when repairing divots in the area I would drop - a pain if it ends up in one - maybe unfair - but there you go. Also as I can place if my ball rolls more than two club lengths from my drop point then I can place - and I wouldn't place in a divot.

 

[duncan mackie]

.... Also as I can place if my ball rolls more than two club lengths from my drop point then I can place - and I wouldn't place in a divot.

unless of course that's where the ball had first contacted the course on the appropriate drop......