Rules of Golf discussions and meanings • Re: Moving a white out of bounds stake
IMO, general penalty incurred. The player admits to gaining a benefit by making a stroke assisted by an act not permitted by the rules - removing a boundary stake. The tricky question is what rule has been breached? I agree that the first paragraph of R13-2 rules out the application of that rule - the triggers of that rule are not met.
I think it is also true to say there is no direct guidance under the decisions but I'm happy to be advised otherwise. Under past RB practice, if an incident like this occurred in a prominent tournament, they would bring in a new decision to join the current 1400 or so decisions.
I think there are two candidates for a breach ruling. The first is R1-2, altering physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of the hole. The second would be under equity (R1-4). There are examples such as D1-4/4 in which an action that appears very similar to an illegitimate action, but technically does not qualify as an illegitimate action, receives a R1-4 general penalty. I have not managed to come up with the killer argument that 'proves' one or the other, but am inclined to favour R1-2. I note though, we have no definitive guidance on what 'altering physical conditions' means to RBs but for me it would potentially mean altering natural (eg grass) and constructed (eg fixed stakes) aspects of the course.
I think it is also true to say there is no direct guidance under the decisions but I'm happy to be advised otherwise. Under past RB practice, if an incident like this occurred in a prominent tournament, they would bring in a new decision to join the current 1400 or so decisions.
I think there are two candidates for a breach ruling. The first is R1-2, altering physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of the hole. The second would be under equity (R1-4). There are examples such as D1-4/4 in which an action that appears very similar to an illegitimate action, but technically does not qualify as an illegitimate action, receives a R1-4 general penalty. I have not managed to come up with the killer argument that 'proves' one or the other, but am inclined to favour R1-2. I note though, we have no definitive guidance on what 'altering physical conditions' means to RBs but for me it would potentially mean altering natural (eg grass) and constructed (eg fixed stakes) aspects of the course.
Statistics: Posted by Thom — Yesterday, 23:38