Mark, from Michigan told me about a course there that has a hole that has an island fairway and a green that is just over the water from it. The course has ball drops situated so that you can top your tee shot into the water, go to the island and drop on the ball drop, shank your next shot into the hazard and drop at a ball drop that is across the water near the green, chip up and one putt for your 6.
One of my favorites was one at a course in Pennsylvania. The course had a hole with a pond that started about 80 yards from the green and was about 40 yards across. On the green side was a sign that said, “Ball Drop for Women only.” So, Michelle Wie could drop across the water, but an 80-year-old, 35 handicap Joe Hack couldn’t.
On the third hole at Riviera, Phil Mickelson hit his tee shot into a spectator pavilion to the left of the fairway. When tournaments are held, especially PGA Tour events, many buildings, trashcans, TV tripods, grandstands, TV towers and the like are constructed that would normally not be on the golf course. These items are known as Temporary Obstructions. If a TO is movable, it would be moved, but most of these are Temporary Immovable Obstructions or TIOs.
If he is front of the TIO and it interferes with his stance or area of intended swing. In that case, relief is granted in the same way it would be from a normal immovable obstruction.
But, if he is in the TIO, behind it or within one-club length of being behind it he has intervention. At that point, the player finds the point equi-distant from the hole where the TIO is no on his line. Then, he measures one club-length. That is the nearest point of relief. He then measures one more club-length. He must drop between the nearest point of relief and that point.
Phil had intervention. His nearest point of relief was next to a tree, but he was able to drop in a place that gave him a swing and he eventually saved par.
This is a very simple description of TIOs. The USGA has a group of examples that they provide us before any championship.
One thing the USGA as adopted after seeing the R&A do it, is to put in dropping zones in front of many TIOs around greens. The player who has intervention must go to the dropping zone if he wants relief. This speeds up play considerably.
Padraig Harrington was penalized at last year’s Masters Tournament for his ball moving on the putting green after he had addressed it. Thanks to reader Mike for sending me this link. In it, David Rickman says that Rule 18-2b might be changed in 2012. As it reads now, once you’ve addressed the ball, you are responsible for any movement. The only way out is to “un-address” it by marking and lifting it.
Rickman discusses a couple of possiblities. One where you are only penalized if your club is still grounded behind the ball and the other where Rule 18-2b is eliminated and we just go by 18-2a which says that if you caused it to move you are penalized. A similar change was made in 2004 when 18-2c was removed from the rule. That rule penalized you if you moved a loose impediment within one club-length and the ball later moved. Any ball movement after a loose impediment is moved now is only penalized if the movement caused it (18-2a).
I’d prefer getting rid of the rule entirely. The only problem I have with that is if the player isn’t sure if he caused the ball to move or not, he would be in doubt about whether to replace it or not. Here are the choices (in stroke play):
- You cause the ball to move and you replace it – 1 stroke -18-2
- You cause the ball to move and you don’t replace it – 2 strokes – 18 – general penalty
- You didn’t cause the ball to move and you don’t replace it – no strokes
- You didn’t cause the ball to move and you do replace it – 2 strokes – 18 – general penalty
Perhaps Rule 18 should also be changed to say that if the player had addressed it and it subsequently moved, the ball would always be replaced, regardless of what caused it to move. While they’re at it, why not include the cases where the ball had been lifted and placed or replaced? That would eliminate a lot of things like balls rolling into the hole or a water hazard after being placed on a steep spot.
Of course, if the player is unsure, he could, in stroke play, play two balls under 3-3.
Another interesting local rule is this one found at a club in Northern California.
What is wrong with this? Well, first if the fence marks the boundary, it is in the hazard. If they don’t want it to be in the hazard, they should simply add a yellow line or yellow stakes behind it.
Second, obviously there is no free relief from an obstruction for fear of getting hit on the rebound. At least they make you go straight backwards.
I love the chicken wire at the bottom to stop the ball from going into the hazard.
Today while visiting a club, we were given a Local Rule sheet used for their Invitational.
The 15th hole is a dogleg left par 5, while the 16th hole is a dogleg right par 4 running in the opposite direction and wraps around the outside of the 15th. The club did not want to have an in-course out of bounds so they came up with the following local rule:
It is prohibited to intentionally hit a shot from Hole #16 toward the fairway of Hole #15. A ball inadvertently hit toward and coming to rest on the area of Hole #15 must be struck toward the area of Hole #16 on the next shot. Penalty is disqualification of the player for Hole #16.
I assume that this must be a four-ball event so they are saying that if you do this your ball can’t count. That isn’t possible under the Rules if it stroke play. Where does “the area of Hole #15″ start and end? When playing toward the “area of Hole #16″, must it be sideways or can you go for the green?
All this because they don’t want an in-course OB.
As I come across other interesting local rules I’ll put them up here. If you find one, please send it to me.
One reason I don’t consider the entire Ping Eye 2 groove issue to be a big deal is that for the last 20 years, the same clubs were legal by exception. The statement that is in Appendix II has been part of a Decision US/4-1/100 for the past 20 years. Any player could have used the Eye 2’s with “non-conforming” grooves the entire time. Now, suddenly a bunch of players think it is cheating to do so.
Dave Tutelman, who commented on an earlier thread, has done a much better job of laying out the history of this than I ever could have done.
The hardest rules quiz of the year is now available at the Metropolitan Golf Association’s website. They will publish the answers a month or so.
Ike Grainger was one of the great volunteers for the USGA serving as President and chairman of the Rules of Golf Committee. This article from the old Golf Journal tells some interesting rules stories that were new to me. The USGA has since created the Ike Grainger Award that is given to those with 25 years of volunteer service to the USGA. I’m half way. I hope I make it.
