• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RemyM

Rule changes for 2012

70 posts in this topic

http://www.usga.org/news/2011/October/USGA,-R-A-Announce-2012-Rules-Changes/

Far Hills, N.J. -- The United States Golf Association (USGA) and the R&A; today announced the publication of the new Rules of Golf for 2012-15.

Changes in the Rules – which for the first time have been designed, published and presented jointly by golf’s governing bodies – include exonerating a player from penalty if it is known their ball was moved by the wind after address.

Following an exhaustive, four-year review of golf’s 34 playing Rules, nine principal Rules have been amended to improve clarity and ensure penalties are proportionate. Significant changes include:

  • Ball Moving After Address (Rule 18-2b). A new exception is added which exonerates the player from penalty if their ball moves after it has been addressed when it is known or virtually certain that they did not cause the ball to move. For example, if it is a gust of wind that moves the ball after it has been addressed, there is no penalty and the ball is played from its new position.
  • Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions (Rule 13-4). Exception 2 to this Rule is amended to permit a player to smooth sand or soil in a hazard at any time, including before playing from that hazard, provided it is for the sole purpose of caring for the course and Rule 13-2 (improving lie, area of intended stance or swing or line of play) is not breached.
  • Time of Starting (Rule 6-3a). The rule is amended to provide that the penalty for starting late, but within five minutes of the starting time, is reduced from disqualification to loss of the first hole in match play or two strokes at the first hole in stroke play. Previously this penalty reduction could be introduced as a condition of competition.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Full changes:

http://www.usga.org/uploadedFiles/USGAHome/rules/rules_pg5-7_rules.pdf

Principal Changes Introduced in the 2012 Code

Rules of Golf

Definitions

Addressing the Ball

The Definition is amended so that a player has addressed the ball simply by

grounding his club immediately in front of or behind the ball, regardless of whether

or not he has taken his stance. Therefore, the Rules generally no longer provide

for a player addressing the ball in a hazard. (See also related change to Rule 18-2b)

Rules

Rule 1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering

Physical Conditions

The Rule is amended to establish more clearly that, if a player intentionally

takes an action to influence the movement of a ball or to alter physical

conditions affecting the playing of a hole in a way that is not permitted by

the Rules, Rule 1-2 applies only when the action is not already covered

in another Rule. For example, a player improving the lie of his ball is in

breach of Rule 13-2 and therefore that Rule would apply, whereas a player

intentionally improving the lie of a fellow-competitor’s ball is not a situation

covered by Rule 13-2 and, therefore, is governed by Rule 1-2.

Rule 6-3a. Time of Starting

Rule 6-3a is amended to provide that the penalty for starting late, but within five

minutes of the starting time, is reduced from disqualification to loss of the first

hole in match play or two strokes at the first hole in stroke play. Previously this

penalty reduction could be introduced as a condition of competition.

Rule 12-1. Seeing Ball; Searching for Ball

Rule 12-1 is reformatted for clarity. In addition, it is amended to (i) permit a

player to search for his ball anywhere on the course when it may be

covered by sand and to clarify that there is no penalty if the ball is moved

in these circumstances, and (ii) apply a penalty of one stroke under Rule

18-2a if a player moves his ball in a hazard when searching for it when it is

believed to be covered by loose impediments.

Rule 13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Exception 2 to Rule 13-4 is amended to permit a player to smooth sand

or soil in a hazard at any time, including before playing from that hazard,

provided it is for the sole purpose of caring for the course and Rule 13-2 is

not breached.

Rule 18-2b. Ball Moving After Address

A new Exception is added that exonerates the player from penalty if his ball

moves after it has been addressed when it is known or virtually certain that he

did not cause the ball to move. For example, if it is a gust of wind that moves

the ball after it has been addressed, there is no penalty and the ball is played

from its new position.

Rule 19-1. Ball in Motion Deflected or Stopped; By Outside Agency

The note is expanded to prescribe the various outcomes when a ball in

motion has been deliberately deflected or stopped by an outside agency.

Rule 20-7c. Playing from Wrong Place; Stroke Play

Note 3 is amended so that if a player is to be penalized for playing from a

wrong place, in most cases the penalty will be limited to two strokes, even if

another Rule has been breached prior to his making the stroke.

Appendix IV

A new Appendix is added to prescribe general regulations for the design

of devices and other equipment, such as tees, gloves and distance

measuring devices.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the interesting changes is this:

Rule 12-1. Seeing Ball; Searching for Ball

Rule 12-1 is reformatted for clarity. In addition, it is amended to (i) permit a player to search for his ball anywhere on the course when it may be covered by sand and to clarify that there is no penalty if the ball is moved in these circumstances, and (ii) apply a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a if a player moves his ball in a hazard when searching for it when it is believed to be covered by loose impediments .

This was changed in 2008 when playing of wrong ball from a hazard was changed to be free of penalty. Any idea why this new change has taken place?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the change to no penalty if your ball moves after address and you did nothing to cause it. The old/current rule was a stupid rule because the definition of address was modify to mean grounding the club/putter. So, if you never ground your club you never address the ball?  With faster greens, even on the courses we all play, balls move from wind and this makes it so much more fair between players.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Love the change to no penalty if your ball moves after address and you did nothing to cause it. The old/current rule was a stupid rule because the definition of address was modify to mean grounding the club/putter. So, if you never ground your club you never address the ball?  With faster greens, even on the courses we all play, balls move from wind and this makes it so much more fair between players.



Interesting.  The ball is played from its new position?  What about a downhill lie and the ball ends up a foot from the cup instead of 10 feet away?  Or if you are unlucky it rolls right off the green?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or in the cup?

Originally Posted by camper6

Interesting.  The ball is played from its new position?  What about a downhill lie and the ball ends up a foot from the cup instead of 10 feet away?  Or if you are unlucky it rolls right off the green?



0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by camper6

Interesting.  The ball is played from its new position?  What about a downhill lie and the ball ends up a foot from the cup instead of 10 feet away?  Or if you are unlucky it rolls right off the green?


If you didn't cause it to move, then it's nature being kind or cruel to you.  Under the previous rules, a gust of wind could have blown it at any time until you addressed the ball and it'd be your good luck.  Now the rules just recognize that in some cases it's clear that the player did not cause the movement even after address.


Originally Posted by newtogolf

or in the cup?


Again, I'd guess that it's just your good fortune.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you add a penalty stroke as specified in the case where a ball overhanging the cup falls in after it's deemed to be at rest or approx 10 seconds?

Originally Posted by zeg

If you didn't cause it to move, then it's nature being kind or cruel to you.  Under the previous rules, a gust of wind could have blown it at any time until you addressed the ball and it'd be your good luck.  Now the rules just recognize that in some cases it's clear that the player did not cause the movement even after address.

Again, I'd guess that it's just your good fortune.



0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Do you add a penalty stroke as specified in the case where a ball overhanging the cup falls in after it's deemed to be at rest or approx 10 seconds?



I actually almost said that, but it didn't seem quite right so I looked it up.  That rule (18-2 IIRC, but I'm not actually checking so I apologize if it's the wrong one) only applies if it's overhanging the cup.  In the case here (which should probably go to its own thread if we discuss it any further) that doesn't apply.  The logic of that rule wouldn't even make sense: I don't think anyone would stand around hoping for a gust to blow their ball 10 feet down a hill into the cup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by zeg

I actually almost said that, but it didn't seem quite right so I looked it up.  That rule (18-2 IIRC, but I'm not actually checking so I apologize if it's the wrong one) only applies if it's overhanging the cup.  In the case here (which should probably go to its own thread if we discuss it any further) that doesn't apply.  The logic of that rule wouldn't even make sense: I don't think anyone would stand around hoping for a gust to blow their ball 10 feet down a hill into the cup.



But what if it's a gusty day and you mark the ball on the lip instead of putting out,  hoping when you put it back that the wind would blow it in.  I can see all kinds of problems with this rule.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smoothing the sand/soil in a hazard at any time is a strange rule to me that could be taken advantage at in local club competitions by the uninformed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by deasy55

The smoothing the sand/soil in a hazard at any time is a strange rule to me that could be taken advantage at in local club competitions by the uninformed.

So long as folks realize they cannot improve their lie.  If I'm in a competition and I see a guy take a rake into the bunker and start raking anywhere near his ball before he takes his shot, I would certainly be suspicious, and would call him on it.  The intent, as I understand it, is to allow someone who didn't get out of a bunker on his first shot to rake his first area, then proceed to his new position in the bunker without penalty. Or perhaps to rake his footprints in walking to his ball, then exiting from the bunker in another place after his shot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by camper6

But what if it's a gusty day and you mark the ball on the lip instead of putting out,  hoping when you put it back that the wind would blow it in.  I can see all kinds of problems with this rule.

You have a very vivid imagination.

I think this rule change is long overdue and can't imagine any problems at all. Not in my wildest dreams.

The rule change solves a problem.  It doesn't create problems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by camper6

But what if it's a gusty day and you mark the ball on the lip instead of putting out,  hoping when you put it back that the wind would blow it in.  I can see all kinds of problems with this rule.


That situation really has no relationship to the new rule.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by camper6

But what if it's a gusty day and you mark the ball on the lip instead of putting out,  hoping when you put it back that the wind would blow it in.  I can see all kinds of problems with this rule.

As zeg pointed out this has nothing to do with new rules. Here are (unchanged) decisions from (new) decisions book:

20-3d/1

Placed Ball Rolls into hole

Q. A replaces his ball on the putting green three feet from the hole. As he is about to address the ball, it rolls into the hole. Should the ball be replaced or is A deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke?

A. the answer depends on whether the ball, when replaced, came to rest on the spot on which it was placed before it started rolling. if it did, A is deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke. if not, A is required to replace the ball (Rule 20-3d). however, if the ball had been overhanging the hole when it was lifted, the provisions of Rule 16-2 would override those of Rule 20-3d.

16-2/0.5

Ball overhanging hole is lifted, cleaned and Replaced; Ball then falls into hole

Q. After an approach shot, a player’s ball is overhanging the hole. the player walks up to the hole without unreasonable delay and notices that there is mud on the ball. the player marks the position of the ball and lifts it. he then cleans the ball and replaces it. the ball remains on the lip of the hole for about five seconds and then, as the player is preparing to tap it into the hole, the ball falls into the hole. What is the ruling?

A. Under Rule 16-2, if a ball falls into the hole after it is deemed to be at rest, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke and he shall add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole. in this case, when the player marked the position of the ball it must have been at rest. the ball must be considered to have been at rest when it was replaced; otherwise, it would

have to be replaced again (Rule 20-3d). Accordingly, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke

and must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who decides that the player didn't cause the ball to move?  In case of dispute I guess the referee, who probably didn't see the the event, will decide.  I think this rule change is going to be a problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I wonder who decides that the player didn't cause the ball to move?  In case of dispute I guess the referee, who probably didn't see the the event, will decide.  I think this rule change is going to be a problem.


I don't see how this particular rule is any more open to abuse than the myriad other situations where the integrity and honesty of the player is relied upon.  A rules official would presumably gather all the available evidence, interview the player and any witnesses, etc, and make a ruling.  The same thing would happen if there were a dispute over whether a player kicked his ball prior to address.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries