Which rule is broken here?

[NJBigFish22]

So I am not going to get into the debate about which rule is correct, I think the other guys answered that well.  But as a hypothetical, you take 2 clubs to the tee box, you set the head of the club you aren’t using at the same place as the guy put the tee as a reminder for swing path.  Now based on the rules discussed above, this would be a rules violation, but how would playing partners now this was the intent?  To me a tee, ball marker, alignment stick would be obvious, but laying club or head cover would be less obvious.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, NJBigFish22 said:

So I am not going to get into the debate about which rule is correct, I think the other guys answered that well.  But as a hypothetical, you take 2 clubs to the tee box, you set the head of the club you aren’t using at the same place as the guy put the tee as a reminder for swing path.  Now based on the rules discussed above, this would be a rules violation, but how would playing partners now this was the intent?  To me a tee, ball marker, alignment stick would be obvious, but laying club or head cover would be less obvious.

 

I am not quite sure what you are asking.

 

The intent is easily discovered by asking the player. If he did it intentionally it is a breach. If the placement of the excess club was not deliberate there is no breach.

 

That is how I see it.

[lchang]

Perhaps the answer to this is obvious given the types of people in this forum, but I'll ask anyway:  how tolerant would you be in a casual four-ball matchplay match if your friend on the other team did this on every tee box?  After-round drinks and bragging rights (across a multi-round ryder-cup-style team match) on the line.  

[jimbo123]

25 minutes ago, lchang said:

Perhaps the answer to this is obvious given the types of people in this forum, but I'll ask anyway:  how tolerant would you be in a casual four-ball matchplay match if your friend on the other team did this on every tee box?  After-round drinks and bragging rights (across a multi-round ryder-cup-style team match) on the line.  

In a casual match I tend to be very…casual.  Most of my casual playing partners don’t know much about the rules and aren’t strict on themselves and I have zero interest in butting in, I just want to see them have a good time.  I really don’t care how careful they are with drops, for instance. 
 

However, something about this would annoy me. It’s just so blatant and gives a huge advantage (I know because I’ve used exactly this technique in practice).  

[jimbo123]

4 hours ago, NJBigFish22 said:

So I am not going to get into the debate about which rule is correct, I think the other guys answered that well.  But as a hypothetical, you take 2 clubs to the tee box, you set the head of the club you aren’t using at the same place as the guy put the tee as a reminder for swing path.  Now based on the rules discussed above, this would be a rules violation, but how would playing partners now this was the intent?  To me a tee, ball marker, alignment stick would be obvious, but laying club or head cover would be less obvious.

Agree with @Mr. Beanthat you could just ask.  Just wanted to add that the trick here is to put the object really very close to the ball, almost where you risk hitting it, so you have to fight the wrong swing path.  No way would someone put another club there accidentally and then not move it once they realised. 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, lchang said:

Perhaps the answer to this is obvious given the types of people in this forum, but I'll ask anyway:  how tolerant would you be in a casual four-ball matchplay match if your friend on the other team did this on every tee box?  After-round drinks and bragging rights (across a multi-round ryder-cup-style team match) on the line.  

 

The answer is most obvious: you either follow the Rules or you don't. If the latter, there is no limit how many Rules of Golf you breach.

 

But, it is no longer golf, it is a walk in the park carrying golf equipment.

[lchang]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

The answer is most obvious: you either follow the Rules or you don't. If the latter, there is no limit how many Rules of Golf you breach.

 

But, it is no longer golf, it is a walk in the park carrying golf equipment.

 

I guess I've always been a bit ambivalent on this absolutist point of view.  But even for the school that dislikes "these nit-picky rules that don't offer an advantage"..... this one doesn't qualify, amirite?!?!  This is indeed something that's super helpful and illegal!

[NJBigFish22]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I am not quite sure what you are asking.

 

The intent is easily discovered by asking the player. If he did it intentionally it is a breach. If the placement of the excess club was not deliberate there is no breach.

 

That is how I see it.

You pretty much answered, but i would guess there aren’t enough people that would know enough about the rules to ask if it was placed intentionally.

[jimbo123]

1 hour ago, lchang said:

 

I guess I've always been a bit ambivalent on this absolutist point of view.  But even for the school that dislikes "these nit-picky rules that don't offer an advantage"..... this one doesn't qualify, amirite?!?!  This is indeed something that's super helpful and illegal!

Your question was a good one. Don’t be derailed by “it’s not golf” responses; that’s not even correct.  You asked about a match and are free to overlook your opponent’s rules breaches as you please (just be careful not to make an agreement about it).   
 

I love knowing and playing by the rules but have also had very unpleasant experiences on the course when people I’m with have viewed things differently.   Navigating that is not always easy and it’s helpful to see how others deal with tricky situations.  

[antip]

5 hours ago, lchang said:

Perhaps the answer to this is obvious given the types of people in this forum, but I'll ask anyway:  how tolerant would you be in a casual four-ball matchplay match if your friend on the other team did this on every tee box?  After-round drinks and bragging rights (across a multi-round ryder-cup-style team match) on the line.  

If an unusual behaviour like this is consistently repeating, there is good reason to question it. That can bring some communication challenges but if you are playing match play you best be prepared for that. Of course, someone can use the tee marker for this purpose legally, but the flat ones would be much safer than the chunky ones. 

[jimbo123]

edit

Edited July 22, 2021 by jimbo123

[lchang]

3 hours ago, antip said:

If an unusual behaviour like this is consistently repeating, there is good reason to question it. That can bring some communication challenges but if you are playing match play you best be prepared for that. Of course, someone can use the tee marker for this purpose legally, but the flat ones would be much safer than the chunky ones. 

 

I actually told him, "You can use an imperfection on the tee box and set up your ball anywhere you want in relation to that."  (I was right, yes?)  And he responded, "I've tried that, but I need a bright tee or ball marker to really help me."  🤦‍♂️

[jimbo123]

30 minutes ago, lchang said:

 

I actually told him, "You can use an imperfection on the tee box and set up your ball anywhere you want in relation to that."  (I was right, yes?)  And he responded, "I've tried that, but I need a bright tee or ball marker to really help me."  🤦‍♂️

I might be wrong, but I think they can go so far as to create an imperfection on the ground in the teeing area - 6.2b(3).  
 

At least they left you in no doubt whatsoever that they were gaining an advantage 🙂 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, jimbo123 said:

I might be wrong, but I think they can go so far as to create an imperfection on the ground in the teeing area - 6.2b(3).  

 

As you are not allowed to use an artificial mark creating a mark on the ground deliberately would be circumventing the Rule and a breach. You are allowed to use any mark already on the ground, even a tee someone left there and place your ball in a position to gain help from that mark/tee but you are not allowed to create/place marks of your own.

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

Your question was a good one. Don’t be derailed by “it’s not golf” responses; that’s not even correct.  You asked about a match and are free to overlook your opponent’s rules breaches as you please (just be careful not to make an agreement about it).   

 

My answer was perfectly correct as Ichang asked how tolerant I would be. I would not be tolerant and would not overlook such breaches giving an opponent unfair advantage.

[jimbo123]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

As you are not allowed to use an artificial mark creating a mark on the ground deliberately would be circumventing the Rule and a breach. You are allowed to use any mark already on the ground, even a tee someone left there and place your ball in a position to gain help from that mark/tee but you are not allowed to create/place marks of your own.

Does permission over prohibition not apply here? 

[Mr. Bean]

54 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Does permission over prohibition not apply here? 

 

I have this feeling that if something is specifically forbidden then it is forbidden and no general permission can override that.

[jimbo123]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I have this feeling that if something is specifically forbidden then it is forbidden and no general permission can override that.

Interesting.   I’m sure you’re right since you usually are, but I’ll confess that comment leaves the rules pretty unintelligible to me.  Ah well.  First world problems haha. 

[antip]

2 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

Does permission over prohibition not apply here? 

 

The permission is for something different than the prohibition, so that is not relevant to this situation.

There is a limited exception to 8.1a(3) enabled by 6.2b(3) and affirmed by 8.1b(8). But that exception is limited by 6.2b(3) to actions that improve CATS. The placing an object/making a mark for the ulterior motive in the OP (breach of 10.2b(3)) is not related to improving CATS, so 6.2b(3) does not apply.

[jimbo123]

6 minutes ago, antip said:

 

The permission is for something different than the prohibition, so that is not relevant to this situation.

There is a limited exception to 8.1a(3) enabled by 6.2b(3) and affirmed by 8.1b(8). But that exception is limited by 6.2b(3) to actions that improve CATS. The placing an object/making a mark for the ulterior motive in the OP (breach of 10.2b(3)) is not related to improving CATS, so 6.2b(3) does not apply.

Gotcha.  I had considered that and thought it would have counted as improving CATS but can easily see that it might not.  Thanks.