Hi Linda.
I love reading your clarification of rules.
We recently had an embarrassing experience in a
competition. A competitor, an experienced and competent golfer, whilst unsighted
from his fellow competitors was seen, by a competitor in another group, to move his ball. He would
have won the competition by 2 strokes, had this not been reported.
His explanation was that his ball had landed on some loose
impediments (twigs). He had marked it, moved the ball away, cleared the twigs
and knocked the ball back with his club (the action spotted) and placed the
ball. His claim was that Rule 23-1 allowed loose impediments to be moved
without penalty. As that rule clearly penalises moving the ball, he was
disqualified. Problem solved – or so we thought.
A day later he appealed on the grounds that the Exception to
Rule 6-6d applied. He had not known that Rule 23-1 did not permit the ball to
be moved. Fortunately the 3 penalty strokes imposed under that Exception to the
Rule still kept him off the winner's rostrum.
It seems that this Rule could allow someone, who would or
should normally be disqualified, to win a competition so long as he/she
ends up more than 3 strokes ahead. If you are not spotted offending, you are in
the clear. If you are spotted, you claim ignorance. For example, you claim you
didn't know the ball was out of bounds, that "preferred lies" did not
include moving a ball in the woods, or that you can lift your ball in the rough
to identify it, without notifying your fellow competitors. Even if this
ignorance is improbable, it is difficult to disprove.
It seems that this new exception allows a person to claim
ignorance of even the most basic rule in order to avoid disqualification. No
one will admit to cheating, but there are some who will admit to being
extremely ignorant of the rules of golf. As golf is almost self-policing, and
relies on the integrity of the golfer, how can such claims under the exception
to 6.6d be dealt with? Members are reluctant to play in competition with
someone who can admit to such ignorance, yet no sanctions, apart from a 3-stroke
penalty, apply.
Have you any advice?
Lou from Wales, UK
Dear Lou,
Allow me to begin by explaining the Exception to Rule 6-6d,
which is new for 2016. When a competitor returns a score for a hole lower than what he actually shot, and
the reason for the incorrect score is ignorance
of a Rules violation he incurred while playing that hole, he is not
disqualified. The Committee will add the penalty for the violation, plus a
two-stroke penalty for recording a score that was too low.
Now, on to your question. I must confess that I am skeptical
of an “experienced and competent golfer” who claims he does not know that there
is no option in the Rules of Golf to mark and lift a ball in order to move a
loose impediment. I find that even players with only a rudimentary knowledge of
the Rules are aware of the basic concept of Rule 23 that, while players may
move loose impediments, Rule 18-2 kicks in with a penalty stroke and a
requirement to replace the ball if the removal of the loose impediments causes
the ball to move. That a player could have achieved a high level of skill
without understanding basic Rules like Rules 23 and 18-2 is difficult for me to
swallow. I would hope that a Rules official or a Committee member would
interview the player very thoroughly to find out whether he has always marked
and lifted his ball before removing loose impediments; the official might also
want to interview the player’s fellow competitors and all observers to verify
the truthfulness of such a claim.
As you suggest, this new Exception could allow a player, who
would in the past have been disqualified, to win a tournament, as long as he
has a significant lead (five strokes ahead would be a safe margin). That is,
indeed, the purpose of this Exception. The reasoning behind it is to soften a
draconian penalty. It can sometimes seem unfair that a player who has dominated
the field is mercilessly disqualified from a tournament because of some
infraction of which he was unaware. I believe this Exception improves the game
for everyone.
Golf, as I’m sure we all know, depends on the honesty and
integrity of the individual players. The Committee might want to consider
barring a player who falsely claims ignorance of a Rule in order to win a
tournament from future competitions. There should be no tolerance for cheaters
in the game of golf.
I sincerely doubt that many players will pretend ignorance
of a Rule in order to take advantage of the Exception to Rule 6-6d. In the case
of the rare cheater who might do so, I would recommend extensive interviews
with the player, his fellow competitors, and any observers. I do not believe it
will be as difficult as you seem to believe to ferret out the cheaters, and I
have faith that the overwhelming majority of golfers would not stoop to such unacceptable
behavior.
Linda
Copyright © 2016 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.
