Rule 12-1 (bit long winded)

Whereditgo

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
2,332
Location
East Yorkshire, UK
Visit site
Am I missing something here?

A protracted friendly discussion took place in the pub on Sunday after our knock about as to whether or not accidentally moving your own ball during a search was a penalty. I even got my copy of the Rules out of the car to try and resolve the discussion.

The following email 'discussion' took place today and I suspect will continue......

Pete
HI Phil, if you can clarify that lot your a better man than me, have just cut and pasted so no alterations, that's what it says !!!! Have you posted our result ???See you soon.
Cheers Pete

Seeing Ball; Searching for Ball
Rule 12-1 is reformatted for clarity. In addition, it is amended to (i) permit a player to search for his ball anywhere on the course when it may be covered by sand and to clarify that there is no penalty if the ball is moved in these circumstances, and (ii) apply a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a if a player moves his ball in a hazard when searching for it when it is believed to be covered by loose impediments. This change means that the same Rules apply wherever a player is on the course when searching for a ball.
E.g. D13-4/16 – Removal of Loose Impediment in Water Hazard Covering Wrong Ball(Revised).
Under R12-1b, the player is permitted to touch or remove loose impediments in a hazard in order to find or identify his ball that is believed to be covered by loose impediments, even if the identified ball proves not to be the player’s ball. No penalty is incurred in this instance.

Me
Hi Pete,

I have sent the result to xyz, is that the correct contact?

The rule clarification in respect of the searching for a ball other than in a hazard seems clear to me.

It's addressing 2 sets of circumstances; searching for a ball that may be covered in sand anywhere on the course, under which circumstances if the ball is moved there is no penalty.

Which doesn't apply if you are searching for a ball in the rough (unless it could also be covered in sand)?

And searching for a ball in a hazard that may be covered by loose impediments; a penalty applies if the ball is moved, no penalty if the ball subsequently turns out to be the wrong ball.

The rule has been clarified so that anywhere on the course where the ball may be covered by something that under normal circumstances you cannot touch, can be touched during the search.

Would be helpful to have view of the full 'conversation' i.e. what the original (and / or subsequent question was).

Cheers,


Pete
No No No, read again, for some one that advocates read the rule in its entirety, and they are not complicated, you got it wrong . Penalty for moving ball in hazard firstly yes then no (revised) so I believe you read it wrong unless you show me otherwise the rule is not good but read it carefully ! As for conversation there was none, this is an extract from the R&A rules online, I have asked them to clarify but no response as yet if I get one I will forward. Well played at Grange by the way.
Cheers Pete

Me
I thought that was a cut and paste from a reply you got from R & A.

I actually said "there is no ambiguity in the rules, they are complicated because they were originally written by a barrister" and "the only complication is that at times you have to cross reference to other Rules"

I don't have access to the on line rules as am on my phone and internet is too slow here, but, from the rules book I have and the section of the rule you pasted, I stand by my opinion (at least until I can read in more detail later) of the hazard.

Sent from my iPhone


Me
Ok, have re read, as far as possible with no internet, and I've not changed my opinion.

If during a search the ball is moved Rule 18-2a applies (1 stroke penalty and replace), except as provided under 12-1a to 12-1d (18-2a also has 7 exceptions).

Moving a loose impediment in a hazard would normally be a penalty, the example tells you that the revision now allows you to move loose impediments in a hazard during a search (penalty if you move the ball though), including if the ball subsequently turns out not to be the ball being searched for, no penalty if you move the ball while replacing the loose impediments to recreate the lie, but ball must be replaced, this is revision is to provide the same Rules when searching for a ball anywhere on the course.

Pretty sure the above is correct - your thoughts?

Sent from my iPhone


Pete
Correct my learned friend (or is it fiend) only thing you missed and its in the cut and paste ; if you ACCIDENTLY move your ball whist searching in a hazard no penalty even when moving loose impediment in the act of searching, so the reality is no penalty if you move it by accident if its wrong ball or not definitely no penalty so you missed it again.

Me
Sorry mate, have to disagree! That only applies to searching in sand. It then goes on to say (in your cut and paste) ", and (ii) apply a penalty of 1 stroke under Rule 18-2a if a player moves his ball when searching for it in a hazard when it is believed to be covered by loose impediments"

The comma and the "and" are important

Sent from my iPhone


Pete
The conjecture is in the title searching in a water hazard, and the words "even if" with those words most golfers interpretation would be, as your ball or not. So is it an exception to rule 18 or overrides it either way it clearly states no penalty at the end which you have not read correctly or misinterpreted, or I have. Over to you .
The Rule Guru

Me
That's Rule. 12-1c we have been discussing 12-1a and 12-1b. the only instances where it's not a penalty under 12-1c are if the ball is in the water and the player is probing to find the ball.
 

Foxholer

Blackballed
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
24,160
Visit site
It's Rule 18-2 that applies - Ball Moved by Player. Partner etc.

12-1 is only the starting point for the particular situation. 12-1 refers to Rule 18, just as should happen in 'real life' when the ball is moved by the player.

1 Shot Penalty btw.

And I disagree that the Rules are (inherently) complicated. If (the correct rule is) read literally, then they are extremely simple - as per the above example. It's when the reader is either looking at the wrong rule (a common enough occurrence and forgivable) or is trying to interpret the wording (far too common and unforgivable!) that things go awry!
 
Last edited:

palindromicbob

Tour Winner
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
4,415
Visit site
:confused:

Trying to get my head round this post but...

When a ball is moved by a player, partner or his caddie Rule 18-2 always applies, i.e ball must be replaced and a penalty of one stroke applies. But 18-2a does refer to the exceptions and restates them. These are covered under 12-1 and only apply during the search.

Clause a,c and d of rule 12-1 exempt the player from penalty under 18-2a during a search in particular circumstances such as when covered by sand, probing in water n a hazard, or in abnormal ground conditions/an obstruction but they still have to replace the ball.

Clause b exempts the player from penalty under Rule 13-4 (touching loose impediments in a hazard) provided this is for identification but doesn't exempt from penalty under rule 18-2a via 23-1.

Does that seem about right?

It's a good idea when searching for your ball to always ask/let your FC's or opponents to be the vigorous ones stamping around like cattle while your tread carefully :D
 
Last edited:

Whereditgo

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
2,332
Location
East Yorkshire, UK
Visit site
Thanks guys, that's pretty much what I was trying to put across in my reply to my mate, you put it much more succinctly than I managed though.

I couldn't even find the part that was quoted to me in the original email.

With regard to the reading, understanding and interpreting the Rules, the problem I find is that people are usually looking for the answer to be what they require for the given situation or discussion and therefore don't have an open mind and either miss critical words or punctuation or replace key words in tgeir own head should and shall being examples.

I frequently have to fight the corner of the Rules against accusations of "ambiguity" and being "open to interpretation". I don't believe there is ambiguity anywhere within the Rules, and nor are they open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,136
Visit site
Short winded...

You are right he is wrong - the end.

He is the sort of person that keeps moving the goalposts to suit his argument.
 
Top