Too shocked to comment on a breach?

[Colin L]

In the political world the "clarification" would have been pounced on by opponents as a U-turn. ?

We can look forward, presumably, to a complete and I hope succinct rewrite of the rule in the 2023 edition.

 

[salfordlad]

(And don't get me started on the abuse of the term 'clarification' in this instance. It is more like a 180 degree backflip on the original intent of Rule 10.2b(4) rather than a 'clarification '.)

In the political world the "clarification" would have been pounced on by opponents as a U-turn. ?

We can look forward, presumably, to a complete and I hope succinct rewrite of the rule in the 2023 edition.

I, too, was a supporter of the original "no-one can stand there" rule and was disappointed that the Ruling Bodies caved in to the pros rather than holding the line. Those principled words were significantly neutered with an unprecedented 700+ word "clarification". Given the final line in the sand they pitched, though, it isn't clear to me that the next version can be especially succinct - but we can live in hope!

 

[Colin L]

I've only once had to deal with a contravention of the rule - quite recently - when I saw a caddie who clearly just didn't know the rule standing behind his player throughout the whole process, stroke and all. I first had to retire to a discreet spot to revise the 700+ words, to make sure I got it right.

So yes, succinct is to be hoped for but probably not as admirably brief and welcome as" no-one can stand there" would be.