R&A and USGA announce new Local Rule

[Fyldewhite]

As you know he doesn't.

FW has simply confused the issue with the reference to addressing - the principle here is simply when you have caused the ball to move.

In response to the wider questions being posed; the relavant fundamental is that you don't get penalised on the putting green if you cause the ball to move when removing a loose impediment - everywhere else on the course you do. This rule would therefore be in direct conflict with that principle if extended, and move us yet another step away from 'play the ball as it lies and the course as you find it'.

Fwiw I'm not a fan of this - it smacks of a rule change to emphasise the problems the committees have implementing the current rules. You will still need to do this anyway to agree whether the ball gets replaced ( but as the majority of the time it won't matter a rule official won't waste time on a ruling now.

I agree. Sorry, I wasn't trying to confuse the issue. All I'm saying is that IMO the old rule was fine....and I mean before last revision, not this latest change. It didn't matter if you had actually caused the ball to move (you were just deemed to have done so).......and therefore no discussion was necessary on how? why? accidental? .....just simply, did it move - yes, had you addressed the ball - yes.....penalty. End of conversation. In answer to rulie it was perfectly defined when you had addressed the ball in a hazard.

 

[duncan mackie]

I agree. Sorry, I wasn't trying to confuse the issue. All I'm saying is that IMO the old rule was fine....and I mean before last revision, not this latest change. It didn't matter if you had actually caused the ball to move (you were just deemed to have done so).......and therefore no discussion was necessary on how? why? accidental? .....just simply, did it move - yes, had you addressed the ball - yes.....penalty. End of conversation. In answer to rulie it was perfectly defined when you had addressed the ball in a hazard.

The last revision was required; there are a lot of situations that make it obvious why (outside the wind etc) eg you address your putt and another ball flies across the green from somewhere and knocks into your ball...you would be pretty miffed to have the previous rule waved in your face! It makes huge common sense to exclude known causes of the ball moving from the presumption ie fundamentally bringing it back to if you cause it to move...

Anyhow, there isn't any relevance in this context to having addressed the ball - that's already gone

Still, we have this new trial, which should speed up tournament rulings. As to club play? We are obviously fortunate here in that most possible situations will be experienced by delc over the coming months and we will be provided with a commentary.

 

[rulie]

I agree. Sorry, I wasn't trying to confuse the issue. All I'm saying is that IMO the old rule was fine....and I mean before last revision, not this latest change. It didn't matter if you had actually caused the ball to move (you were just deemed to have done so).......and therefore no discussion was necessary on how? why? accidental? .....just simply, did it move - yes, had you addressed the ball - yes.....penalty. End of conversation. In answer to rulie it was perfectly defined when you had addressed the ball in a hazard.

Perhaps you could explain how a ball was addressed in a hazard in the past two Rules codes?

 

[Fyldewhite]

Perhaps you could explain how a ball was addressed in a hazard in the past two Rules codes?

I was really refering to how it was defined in the 100 years or so prior to the 2012 revision.......and I still see nowt wrong with it. The fact that they are now having to change the change probably indicates they didn't get it right..... Classic "if it ain't broke...." if you ask me but I totally accept that others think differently.