Tour school two stroke penalty...ouch.

[Orikoru]

I've only explained why I believe the rule is in place. I've given a perfect example. it doesn't matter if you don't think it would affect his execution of that particular shot. he broke the rule unwittingly. unfortunate but that it how it goes.

No, you actually said that's why you think it is necessary. I was just pointing out that your example changes nothing and I still don't agree. Of course it doesn't matter if I don't agree - absolutely nothing we say on here matters.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Let me try an example of what could happen if the rule only came into play if a players ball touches a spot that has been improved.
I am a big fader of the ball. I hit my tee shot a little offline and now find I my direct line of play to the pin is hampered by a branch of a tree. I get my branch cutters out and then am successful in playing my normal fade around where the branch would have been. Am I penalised.

On my thinking then surely then you have improved your lie vertically and touched that point (bit like the rule currently says), so penalty applies. If however you broke that branch and did not go though that space I was suggesting no penalty.

But you have highlighted a great example, due to another advantage you would have gain(even with a penalty). Hopefully I can explain it, if you went though that branch space and the branch isn't there, then you would also have improved your finishing point you are at a point much further down the fairway (as the branch would have deflected the ball shorter or lost), so the penalty I would apply which is done afterwards in your example would have been less, than the current rule and that's not what I was hoping to suggest. I would now need another rule for trees, oh bums not more rules, my head my head, ignore my previous suggestion

Cheers for that.

 

[duncan mackie]

This still makes no difference to my thinking. It's not like a pot bunker suddenly becomes a nice, pleasurable place to be because he gave it a bit of a raking. I don't think it would affect his execution of the shot at all.

I agree.

And guidance on interpreting such issues is given in 13-2/0.5 and would also seem to agree with you.

Unfortunately the reason he was penalised wasn't as a result of that. 13-2/29 makes it clear that you cannot repair areas that you have worsened (on your line of play) so any discussion as to whether he benefited is irrelevant.

Fwiw, as presented, if they had been someone else's footprints and he had spare time and tidied there is a fair chance that he wouldn't have been penalised.

 

[Sweep]

Let me try an example of what could happen if the rule only came into play if a players ball touches a spot that has been improved.
I am a big fader of the ball. I hit my tee shot a little offline and now find I my direct line of play to the pin is hampered by a branch of a tree. I get my branch cutters out and then am successful in playing my normal fade around where the branch would have been. Am I penalised.

Yes.
But my first question would be “did you get measured for those branch cutters or did you take a risk and buy off the shelf?”

 

[Sweep]

I agree.

And guidance on interpreting such issues is given in 13-2/0.5 and would also seem to agree with you.

Unfortunately the reason he was penalised wasn't as a result of that. 13-2/29 makes it clear that you cannot repair areas that you have worsened (on your line of play) so any discussion as to whether he benefited is irrelevant.

Fwiw, as presented, if they had been someone else's footprints and he had spare time and tidied there is a fair chance that he wouldn't have been penalised.

So here we are back to the Decisions Book again, dispelling the myth that the rules of golf are crystal clear.
The decision you have quoted intrestingly says -
Rule 13-2 prohibits a player from improving certain areas. What does “improve” mean?
A
In the context of Rule 13-2, “improve” means to change for the better so that the player creates a potential advantage with respect to the position or lie of his ball, the area of his intended stance or swing, his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or the area in which he is to drop or place a ball. Therefore, merely changing an area protected by Rule 13-2 will not be a breach of Rule 13-2 unless it creates such a potential advantage for the player in his play.
Examples of changes that are unlikely to create such a potential advantage are if a player:

• repairs a small pitch-mark, smooths a footprint in a bunker or replaces a divot in a divot hole on his line of play five yards in front of his ball prior to making a 150-yard approach shot from through the green..................... Interestingly, when the decision mentions those actions that would provide such an advantage, it only mentions scenarios when playing inside the bunker. I guess it all comes down to distance then. If you are 150 yds out the bunker makes no difference, if you are say 30 yds out, it makes all the difference?