Which rule is broken here?

[lchang]

Playing competitor, on the tee box, places a ballmark or tee in front and outside his ball.  ("at 1:30 on the clock", so to speak where 12:00 is the target, about 2 inches away from his ball).  He was trying to remind himself to do make an in-to-out swing.  Is it 4.3.a?  10.2.b?  A different one?

 

(I said something to my friend who was doing this--and he blew his top.  But that's a different story...)

[jvincent]

He's in violation of 4.3a(6).

 

(6) Stretching Devices and Training or Swing Aids.
•• Allowed.
»» Using any equipment for general stretching (other than in making a practice
swing), whether the equipment is designed for stretching, for use in golf
(such as an alignment rod placed across the shoulders) or for any purpose
unrelated to golf (such as rubber tubing or a section of pipe).
•• Not Allowed.
»» Using any type of golf training or swing aid (such as an alignment rod or
a weighted headcover or “donut”) or a non-conforming club to make a
practice swing or in any other way that creates a potential advantage by
helping the player in preparing for or making a stroke (such as help with
swing plane, grip, alignment, ball position or posture).

Edited July 21, 2021 by jvincent

[antip]

The easy call is it is a general penalty breach the first time it happens. As to which rule is breached, there is nothing for these precise actions but there are two rules which come very close, one being 4.3a(6), as discussed above.

I slightly favour an authority of 20.3/10.2b(3). The player has set down an object to assist in aligning the swing plane, and I see that as so close to 10.2b(3) as to be virtually indistinguishable.

Does it matter? A little. If 4.3 is the authority, the second instance gets DQ; if 10.2b is the authority, there is a general penalty every time it happens.

 

 

[jimbo123]

Curious about this.  The subsections of 4.3a, like 4.3a(6), are just non-exhaustive examples, right?  Is there any doubt that this use of a tee breaches one or both of the general prohibitions of 4.3a?

 

a player must not create a potential advantage by:

• Using equipment (other than a club or a ball) that artificially eliminates or reduces the need for a skill or judgment that is essential to the challenge of the game, or
• Using equipment (including a club or a ball) in an abnormal way in making a stroke. “Abnormal way” means a way that is fundamentally different than its intended use and is not normally recognized as part of playing the game.

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, antip said:

The easy call is it is a general penalty breach the first time it happens. As to which rule is breached, there is nothing for these precise actions but there are two rules which come very close, one being 4.3a(6), as discussed above.

I slightly favour an authority of 20.3/10.2b(3). The player has set down an object to assist in aligning the swing plane, and I see that as so close to 10.2b(3) as to be virtually indistinguishable.

Does it matter? A little. If 4.3 is the authority, the second instance gets DQ; if 10.2b is the authority, there is a general penalty every time it happens.

 

 

 

I cannot really see how it could be anything else than 10.2b(3). It is a classic example of setting down an object to assist the player in his swing.

[jimbo123]

Just now, Mr. Bean said:

 

I cannot really see how it could be anything else than 10.2b(3). It is a classic example of setting down an object to assist the player in his swing.

Can it be both (and then 4.3a is what matters, as it has the more severe penalty)?

[Mr. Bean]

2 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Can it be both (and then 4.3a is what matters, as it has the more severe penalty)?

 

I have severe difficulties accepting use of 4.3a here.

 

I remember the discussion of tethered tees both before and after 2019. The potential breach was of 8-2a before and 10.2b(3) after. The difference here is that the mark OP was talking about does not indicate the line of play but it indicates the swing path which IMO would be included in the purpose of the Rule in question.

[antip]

3 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

Curious about this.  The subsections of 4.3a, like 4.3a(6), are just non-exhaustive examples, right?  Is there any doubt that this use of a tee breaches one or both of the general prohibitions of 4.3a?

 

a player must not create a potential advantage by:

• Using equipment (other than a club or a ball) that artificially eliminates or reduces the need for a skill or judgment that is essential to the challenge of the game, or
• Using equipment (including a club or a ball) in an abnormal way in making a stroke. “Abnormal way” means a way that is fundamentally different than its intended use and is not normally recognized as part of playing the game.

Don't disagree. But if an action fits under a general rules provision and also fits under a more specific one, the authority will normally only be the more specific one. 

[jimbo123]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I have severe difficulties accepting use of 4.3a here.

 

I remember the discussion of tethered tees both before and after 2019. The potential breach was of 8-2a before and 10.2b(3) after. The difference here is that the mark OP was talking about does not indicate the line of play but it indicates the swing path which IMO would be included in the purpose of the Rule in question.

Interesting.  I’m sure you’re not surprised that I don’t quite follow, so please help me further if you’re able 🙂  .

 

It seems like using a tee in this abnormal way breaches the wording and spirit of 4.3a.  Example (6) makes explicit that one purpose of 4.3a is to address advantage gained by assisting with swing plane.  It just uses a different piece of equipment for an example.  So I’m really unsure why 4.3a is not applicable? 

[jimbo123]

3 minutes ago, antip said:

Don't disagree. But if an action fits under a general rules provision and also fits under a more specific one, the authority will normally only be the more specific one. 

Gotcha. So this is not a case of 1.3c(4) applying, ie simply multiple breaches and you get the worse one?  

[antip]

26 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Can it be both (and then 4.3a is what matters, as it has the more severe penalty)?

As a general point, if a lesser and a stronger penalty are equally applicable, the rules will normally assign the lesser. 1.3c(4)/2 provides different kind of examples eg, move ball (1SP) and improve conditions (2SP). What we are discussing is about whether 4.3 or 10.2b is the best fit, not levying a penalty under both.

Edited July 21, 2021 by antip
additional comment

[jimbo123]

4 minutes ago, antip said:

As a general point, if a lesser and a stronger penalty are equally applicable, the rules will normally assign the lesser. 

Am I misreading 1.3c(4)?  It seems to state the opposite. 

[Mr. Bean]

10 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Interesting.  I’m sure you’re not surprised that I don’t quite follow, so please help me further if you’re able 🙂  .

 

It seems like using a tee in this abnormal way breaches the wording and spirit of 4.3a.  Example (6) makes explicit that one purpose of 4.3a is to address advantage gained by assisting with swing plane.  It just uses a different piece of equipment for an example.  So I’m really unsure why 4.3a is not applicable? 

 

I believe antip answered this:

 

'But if an action fits under a general rules provision and also fits under a more specific one, the authority will normally only be the more specific one. '

[antip]

3 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Am I misreading 1.3c(4)?  It seems to state the opposite. 

See edited comment above. The 1.3c(4)/2 is about unambiguously breaching two different rules. This discussion is about which is the right rule to allocate.

[jimbo123]

Thanks for all the helpful elaborations.  One final question - it seems like the example given in 4.3a(6) regarding using an object to help with alignment would also breach 10.2b. Given everything above, it sounds like 10.2b is the appropriate rule to apply.  Is that not a very strange thing?  That a rule gives an example, even though it is not the appropriate rule to apply in that situation? 

[antip]

4 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Thanks for all the helpful elaborations.  One final question - it seems like the example given in 4.3a(6) regarding using an object to help with alignment would also breach 10.2b. Given everything above, it sounds like 10.2b is the appropriate rule to apply.  Is that not a very strange thing?  That a rule gives an example, even though it is not the appropriate rule to apply in that situation? 

If a player uses an alignment rod to align his feet for a stroke, I'm going to breach under 4.3a(6). If a player uses a club to align their feet for a stroke then I'm going to breach under 10.2b(3). 

[Mr. Bean]

9 minutes ago, antip said:

If a player uses an alignment rod to align his feet for a stroke, I'm going to breach under 4.3a(6). If a player uses a club to align their feet for a stroke then I'm going to breach under 10.2b(3). 

 

That is the route I would take as well. However, this entire issue is slightly confusing as R4.3a deals with not only unusual equipment but also normal equipment used in an abnormal way. Laying down a club to indicate the line of play used to be a traditional way of using a club and thus accepted but today that is no longer allowed. So, if a player lays down a club to indicate the line of play would that be abnormal use of a club or would it still be 'traditionally accepted' ?

 

I have no answer to that and that leads us back to the original question of using a tee or a ball-marker for the same purpose. Confusing....

[antip]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That is the route I would take as well. However, this entire issue is slightly confusing as R4.3a deals with not only unusual equipment but also normal equipment used in an abnormal way. Laying down a club to indicate the line of play used to be a traditional way of using a club and thus accepted but today that is no longer allowed. So, if a player lays down a club to indicate the line of play would that be abnormal use of a club or would it still be 'traditionally accepted' ?

 

I have no answer to that and that leads us back to the original question of using a tee or a ball-marker for the same purpose. Confusing....

You can lay down a club to indicate line of play (except on putting green) - specifically permitted by 10.2b(1). But you cannot use it to assist in taking a stance, breach of 10.2b(3).

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, antip said:

You can lay down a club to indicate line of play (except on putting green) - specifically permitted by 10.2b(1). But you cannot use it to assist in taking a stance, breach of 10.2b(3).

 

You are right, my memory serves poorly. However, the question still remains, is laying a club down to assist in taking stance 'traditional use'. I guess so, as it can be used to indicate the line of play. Or what do you say?

[antip]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You are right, my memory serves poorly. However, the question still remains, is laying a club down to assist in taking stance 'traditional use'. I guess so, as it can be used to indicate the line of play. Or what do you say?

I simply note "traditional use" or "traditionally accepted" no longer appears in the Rules, Interpretations or Committee Procedures, such reference has gone the way of the dinosaurs. The second bullet point in 4.3a alludes to a similar principle but I can see no specific examples like before. 

[sekrah]

10 hours ago, jvincent said:

He's in violation of 4.3a(6).

 

(6) Stretching Devices and Training or Swing Aids.
•• Allowed.
»» Using any equipment for general stretching (other than in making a practice
swing), whether the equipment is designed for stretching, for use in golf
(such as an alignment rod placed across the shoulders) or for any purpose
unrelated to golf (such as rubber tubing or a section of pipe).
•• Not Allowed.
»» Using any type of golf training or swing aid (such as an alignment rod or
a weighted headcover or “donut”) or a non-conforming club to make a
practice swing or in any other way that creates a potential advantage by
helping the player in preparing for or making a stroke (such as help with
swing plane, grip, alignment, ball position or posture).

 

 

Is that allowed on the first tee box?  I know a handful of guys getting their donut work in there.

 

[LeoLeo99]

14 minutes ago, sekrah said:

 

 

Is that allowed on the first tee box?  I know a handful of guys getting their donut work in there.

 

All good as long as it's before the first stroke.   

[Mr. Bean]

28 minutes ago, antip said:

I simply note "traditional use" or "traditionally accepted" no longer appears in the Rules, Interpretations or Committee Procedures, such reference has gone the way of the dinosaurs. The second bullet point in 4.3a alludes to a similar principle but I can see no specific examples like before. 

 

Indeed, but how would you justify your differentiating an alignment rod from a club when used to assist taking the stance? One is an equipment and the other is not? What?

[antip]

41 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Indeed, but how would you justify your differentiating an alignment rod from a club when used to assist taking the stance? One is an equipment and the other is not? What?

I justify because of the specificity of the reference relating to alignment rod in 4.3, which was seeking to carefully state something that had explicitly changed from the previous rules. I don't believe the current split between 4.3 and 10.2b is perfect, but I can see how we got here.

[antip]

55 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

All good as long as it's before the first stroke.   

Agree, no problem with the donut work prior to hitting the first stroke of the round. OP did not specify first hole, just a generic 'tee box'.

[LeoLeo99]

8 minutes ago, antip said:

Agree, no problem with the donut work prior to hitting the first stroke of the round. OP did not specify first hole, just a generic 'tee box'.

I interpreted first tee box to mean first hole.  🙂

[antip]

1 minute ago, LeoLeo99 said:

I interpreted first tee box to mean first hole.  🙂

I understand, but it just said 'tee box', no reference to 'first' or to which hole. If OP is explicitly asking about the first tee, IMO it is clear that 4.3 has no relevance there (although it applies to every other tee box), but rule 10 is more complicated and unclear - it does not have a blanket 'during the round' restriction - other than in the advice space (10.2a). Many of the other rules breaches in rule 10 carry into the stroke itself so they are not 'completed' before the round starts in the way you can cease playing with the donut. I suspect there is some good food for thought here and possibly some interesting rulings may be needed to unravel the interplay between some of the sub-elements of rule 10 and their possible impact on that first counting stroke of the round.

[tatertot]

ALL THE RULES!

 

(I'm a "belt and suspenders" kind of guy when it comes to the rulebook)

[LeoLeo99]

15 minutes ago, antip said:

I understand, but it just said 'tee box', no reference to 'first' or to which hole. If OP is explicitly asking about the first tee, IMO it is clear that 4.3 has no relevance there (although it applies to every other tee box), but rule 10 is more complicated and unclear - it does not have a blanket 'during the round' restriction - other than in the advice space (10.2a). Many of the other rules breaches in rule 10 carry into the stroke itself so they are not 'completed' before the round starts in the way you can cease playing with the donut. I suspect there is some good food for thought here and possibly some interesting rulings may be needed to unravel the interplay between some of the sub-elements of rule 10 and their possible impact on that first counting stroke of the round.

 
My reply was addressed to sekrah whose post I quoted and he/she clearly wrote first tee box.  

 

1 hour ago, sekrah said:

 

 

Is that allowed on the first tee box?  I know a handful of guys getting their donut work in there.

 

 

[antip]

12 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 
My reply was addressed to sekrah whose post I quoted and he/she clearly wrote first tee box.  

 

 

Thanks, we were referring to different material. But the first versus others is an excellent angle that hadn't previously arisen.