2016 Rules & Decisions

[Rulesman]

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2015/October/The-RandA-and-USGA-release-2016-edition-of-Rules-of-Golf.aspx

[Abu3baid]

Cool stuff.. I'm glad they continue to try and make the rules better..  I like the one about not pr resuming that the player caused the ball to move, but wouldn't it still be hard to prove that an outside agent did?

I also like how they changed forgetting to add penalty strokes as an extra 2 stroke penalty, as it always seemed silly that they would get disqualified if they didn't even know they broke the rules..

i guess there is always room for improvement as the game evolves..

[Fourputt]

Cool stuff.. I'm glad they continue to try and make the rules better..  I like the one about not pr resuming that the player caused the ball to move, but wouldn't it still be hard to prove that an outside agent did?

I also like how they changed forgetting to add penalty strokes as an extra 2 stroke penalty, as it always seemed silly that they would get disqualified if they didn't even know they broke the rules..

i guess there is always room for improvement as the game evolves..

 You are misreading the change involving returning an incorrect score.  The 2 stroke penalty only applies to a situation where the player could not know that he had incurred a penalty, it doesn't absolve him from breaking the rules due to ignorance of the rules.  

If a player's ball is moved by an outside agency when it is out of the player's sight and he then plays the ball as it lies but is informed by an outside source after returning his scorecard that he played from a wrong place, he would not be disqualified.  However, if he was aware that the ball was moved, but did not know that he needed to replace it before he played, he would not have that safety net because he should have known the rule.  

In one case he played from a wrong place through ignorance of the situation, in the the other case it was through ignorance of the rules.  Ignorance of the rules is still treated in the same manner as it always has been.

 

[Dormie1360]

 You are misreading the change involving returning an incorrect score.  The 2 stroke penalty only applies to a situation where the player could not know that he had incurred a penalty, it doesn't absolve him from breaking the rules due to ignorance of the rules.  

If a player's ball is moved by an outside agency when it is out of the player's sight and he then plays the ball as it lies but is informed by an outside source after returning his scorecard that he played from a wrong place, he would not be disqualified.  However, if he was aware that the ball was moved, but did not know that he needed to replace it before he played, he would not have that safety net because he should have known the rule.  

In one case he played from a wrong place through ignorance of the situation, in the the other case it was through ignorance of the rules.  Ignorance of the rules is still treated in the same manner as it always has been.

 

Actually that's not what the new rule says.  See this new decision.

 

6-6d/6 Omission of Penalty on Returned Score Card Discovered Before Close of Competition

Q. A competitor returned a score lower than actually taken for the 12th hole due to failure to include a penalty incurred when he removed an out of bounds stake that interfered with his stance. If this is discovered before the close of competition, is the competitor disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6d?

A. The competitor is disqualified if he knew that he had incurred a penalty for removing the out of bounds stake but failed to add the penalty to his score. If the competitor did not know that removing the stake resulted in a penalty, the Exception to Rule 6-6d applies. The competitor incurred the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-2 and the Committee must also add the additional two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 6-6d to the competitor’s score on the 12th hole. (New)

 

I skimmed through the changes, I think there are a lot of good changes.  26-2 as previously written was a mess, I always thought the change in 2012 concerning 18-2 needed help, and they've got rid of the "line for putting", which just confused everyone.

Also seems like we have a kinder, gentler governing body.  

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Dormie1360

[Fourputt]

Actually that's not what the new rule says.  See this new decision.

 

6-6d/6 Omission of Penalty on Returned Score Card Discovered Before Close of Competition

Q. A competitor returned a score lower than actually taken for the 12th hole due to failure to include a penalty incurred when he removed an out of bounds stake that interfered with his stance. If this is discovered before the close of competition, is the competitor disqualified for a breach of Rule 6-6d?

A. The competitor is disqualified if he knew that he had incurred a penalty for removing the out of bounds stake but failed to add the penalty to his score. If the competitor did not know that removing the stake resulted in a penalty, the Exception to Rule 6-6d applies. The competitor incurred the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-2 and the Committee must also add the additional two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 6-6d to the competitor’s score on the 12th hole. (New)

 

I skimmed through the changes, I think there are a lot of good changes.  26-2 needed help, I always thought the change in 2012 concerning 18-2 needed help, and they've got rid of the line for putting, which just confused everyone.

If that's true, then I don't like it at all.  This would essentially eliminate the application of Rule 6-1, and that is supposed to be a prime tenet in the player's responsibilities.   I find that to be an unacceptable escape clause that releases the pro from ever being properly penalized for being too lazy to learn the rules of his trade.  Two strokes just isn't enough to balance the scales.

[Fourputt]

After some additional thought, I like this new change even less than I thought.  I guess that all a player has to do is to say that he didn't know that what he did was against the rules or that it incurred a penalty, and he gets away with just two strokes, even if he's lying through his teeth.  This could open up a can of worms somewhere down the road in the "win at all costs" society we live in.

[Abu3baid]

 You are misreading the change involving returning an incorrect score.  The 2 stroke penalty only applies to a situation where the player could not know that he had incurred a penalty, it doesn't absolve him from breaking the rules due to ignorance of the rules.  

If a player's ball is moved by an outside agency when it is out of the player's sight and he then plays the ball as it lies but is informed by an outside source after returning his scorecard that he played from a wrong place, he would not be disqualified.  However, if he was aware that the ball was moved, but did not know that he needed to replace it before he played, he would not have that safety net because he should have known the rule.  

In one case he played from a wrong place through ignorance of the situation, in the the other case it was through ignorance of the rules.  Ignorance of the rules is still treated in the same manner as it always has been.

 

I didn't even know that if an outside agency moved my ball without me knowing it, and I played the ball then there would be a penalty on me for doing so.. I'm sorry, this sounds silly to me.. Why in the world would I ever get penalized for an outside agency moving my ball and me not knowing about it??

The other comments have been addressed by @Dormie1360

[Rulesman]

I didn't even know that if an outside agency moved my ball without me knowing it, and I played the ball then there would be a penalty on me for doing so.. I'm sorry, this sounds silly to me.. Why in the world would I ever get penalized for an outside agency moving my ball and me not knowing about it??

The other comments have been addressed by @Dormie1360

There is no such penalty.

18-1/3  Player Unaware Ball Moved by Outside Agency Does Not Replace Ball

Q.In stroke play, a player's ball was moved by an outside agency. Neither the player nor his caddie was aware that his ball had been moved, so the player played the ball without replacing it. He then learned that his ball had been moved. What is the ruling?

A.As it was not known or virtually certain that the ball had been moved by an outside agency when the player played the ball, he proceeded properly and incurred no penalty - see the Note to Rule 18-1.

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Rulesman

[ColinL]

I didn't even know that if an outside agency moved my ball without me knowing it, and I played the ball then there would be a penalty on me for doing so.. I'm sorry, this sounds silly to me.. Why in the world would I ever get penalized for an outside agency moving my ball and me not knowing about it??

The other comments have been addressed by @Dormie1360

You wouldn’t be.  If you do not know that your ball has been moved by an outside agency you will obviously play on. In effect because you didn’t know it had happened, it didn’t happen.  This is not new.  See the Note to Rule 18-1 and also Decision 18-1/3

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-1-3

If it is established (e.g. from players in another group who saw what happened) that unknown  to you your ball was moved by an outside agency,  you must replace the ball and carry on without penalty.

If it is established after you play the ball, your stroke stands and you carry on without penalty because at the time of making the stroke you didn’t know that it had been moved.  Again see the Note to Rule 18-1.  Also Decision 18-5/3

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-5-3

 

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by ColinL

[Abu3baid]

There is no such penalty.

18-1/3  Player Unaware Ball Moved by Outside Agency Does Not Replace Ball

Q.In stroke play, a player's ball was moved by an outside agency. Neither the player nor his caddie was aware that his ball had been moved, so the player played the ball without replacing it. He then learned that his ball had been moved. What is the ruling?

A.As it was not known or virtually certain that the ball had been moved by an outside agency when the player played the ball, he proceeded properly and incurred no penalty - see the Note to Rule 18-1.

 

You wouldn’t be.  If you do not know that your ball has been moved by an outside agency you will obviously play on. In effect because you didn’t know it had happened, it didn’t happen.  This is not new.  See the Note to Rule 18-1 and also Decision 18-1/3

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-1-3

If it is established (e.g. from players in another group who saw what happened) that unknown  to you your ball was moved by an outside agency,  you must replace the ball and carry on without penalty.

If it is established after you play the ball, your stroke stands and you carry on without penalty because at the time of making the stroke you didn’t know that it had been moved.  Again see the Note to Rule 18-1.  Also Decision 18-5/3

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-5-3

 

 

Yeah, I didn't think so.. Rick mentioned that in his response, and that's why I thought it was strange.. Maybe I misunderstood what he was trying to say to me though.

[Dormie1360]

Some more initial observations/opinions.

http://www.farbtalk.com/

Edited October 27, 2015 by Dormie1360

[Dormie1360]

After some additional thought, I like this new change even less than I thought.  I guess that all a player has to do is to say that he didn't know that what he did was against the rules or that it incurred a penalty, and he gets away with just two strokes, even if he's lying through his teeth.  This could open up a can of worms somewhere down the road in the "win at all costs" society we live in.

 

I need some time to digest the changes, but I'm not really worried about the rule change giving us more cheaters.  Cheaters will always cheat.  I know some.  I don't think the rule will change will turn honest golfers into dishonest golfers.  Remember it's 2 strokes plus the original penalty, so at least 4 strokes in most cases.  Also, who are we really talking about.  Low level amateur events, club competitions, etc., that's where you will most likely find dishonest golfers.  This change affects the window from when the card is returned until  the results of the competition are announced.  I think most times someone cheating will get caught, or a question on a procedure will get decided, prior to the score card getting returned....or not at all.  Also, if it's obvious that someone is cheating, there is always DQ under 33-7.

Having said all that, it is a surprising change for me.  Not so much that I think it's necessarily a bad change, but being responsible for the correctness of your score, including knowing all the rules, has been a "foundation" for a long time.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Dormie1360

[Fourputt]

So I guess I screwed up big in my first reaction, but I'm still glad that they didn't completely take the guts out of 6-1.

Where this new Rule is quite harsh, however, is that the penalty can add up.  There is no penalty limitation. The new Exception to Rule 6-6d reads, "In such circumstances, the competitor incurs the penalty prescribed by the applicable Rule and an additional penalty of two strokes for each hole at which the competitor has committed a breach of Rule 6-6d."  For example, a player fails to include a penalty for grounding his club in a hazard because he didn’t know that was a Rule.  It actually occurred on three separate occasions.  In that case, the player incurs a two-stroke penalty on each of the 3 occasions (let’s say holes 4, 10 and 16).  He also incurs an additional two-stroke penalty for EACH of the 3 occasions of signing an incorrect card.  So in the end the player suffers TWELVE penalty strokes for his ignorance of the Rules.  This is probably where the Rules of Golf Committee can argue that they aren’t actually going soft on ignorance.

[mvmac]

Good summary of the changes.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/new-rules-golf-focus-anchor-ban-simplicity/

While most of the attention during the current four-year update cycle has been focused on the impending ban on anchoring during a stroke (Rule 14-1b), which was announced in May 2013, the overall theme of the most recent edition is simplicity.

“We continually look at ways we can improve and clarify the Rules of Golf,” said David Rickman, the R&A’s executive director of rules and equipment standards. “The R&A and the USGA collaborate closely and we consult with our respective national and international advisory members to produce a code of rules that is relevant to all golfers around the world.”

The most significant change may have been to Rule 18-2b. A player is no longer deemed to have caused a golf ball to move after address, and rules officials will take a more nuanced look at possible violations to consider other factors, such as the amount of time taken after a golf club is grounded and the ball moves.

The rule was adjusted in 2012 to consider the possibility of wind moving a golf ball, and a one-stroke penalty will be applied only when the facts show that the player caused the ball to move.

The USGA and R&A also added a “limited” exception to Rule 6-6d and the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard.

A player will no longer be disqualified for returning a lower score for a hole than actually taken as a result of failing to include penalty strokes that the player was not aware of when he signed his scorecard.

The best example of this is Camilo Villegas who was disqualified from the 2011 Hyundai Tournament of Champions after violating Rule 23-1 (moving a loose impediment that might influence the movement of his golf ball). The violation wasn’t discovered until after Villegas signed his scorecard.

Under the new edition, Villegas would have been assessed a two-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard but would have been allowed to continue playing in the event.

Similarly, D.A. Points was disqualified from the 2014 AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am for using a training aid, a spongy green ball he uses to keep his arms “connected,” during the second round.

Under an edition to Rule 14-3, the violation for a first use of an “artificial device or equipment” will now be a two-stroke penalty. The penalty for a second breach of the rule will continue to be disqualification.

Among the litany of changes, however, next year’s ban on anchoring will continue to dominate the conversation in rule circles in the immediate future. Although most PGA Tour players have already made the transition to a non-anchored putter, like Adam Scott who arrived at this month’sPresidents Cup with a standard-length model, there are still a few holdouts – like Tim Clark – who will have to make the change after Jan. 1.

[dkolo]

Does the change to the impermissible equipment rule extend to players using non-conforming clubs? I'm thinking specifically of a case like Matt Every who DQed himself after accidentally using a 4 iron that was bent during play the day before but which he forgot to replace with a conforming club.

[Rulesman]

Damage Prior to Round
A player may use a club damaged prior to a round, provided the club,
in its damaged state, conforms with the Rules.
Damage to a club that occurred prior to a round may be repaired
during the round, provided the playing characteristics are not changed
and play is not unduly delayed.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 4-3c:
See Penalty Statement for Rule 4-1 or 4-2.

PENALTY FOR MAKING STROKE WITH CLUB IN BREACH OF
RULE 4-1 or 4-2:
Disqualification.

[Dormie1360]

4-4c/1 Excess Club Declared Out of Play Before Round

Q. Shortly before the start of a round, a player discovers that he inadvertently has 15 clubs in his golf bag. He declares one of the clubs out of play to his opponent, marker or fellow-competitor and begins the round. Is the player subject to penalty?

A. No. In these narrow circumstances (i.e. the discovery was made shortly before the round, the player had 15 clubs, having the extra club was inadvertent and the player declared one of the clubs out of play), for the purposes of applying Rule 4-4a, the player is not considered to be carrying the club or to have selected the club for play, even though it is physically in his possession. If possible, the player should seek to highlight the club that is out of play by setting it apart from the other clubs, such as by placing it on the floor of his golf cart or turning it upside down in his golf bag. In any other circumstances (e.g. the player carries more than 15 clubs, etc.), the player is in breach of Rule 4-4a. (Revised)

I'm glad the RB's changed this one.  I'm sure many golfers have done the above, not realizing it did not absolve them from a penalty.

[Fourputt]

4-4c/1 Excess Club Declared Out of Play Before Round

Q. Shortly before the start of a round, a player discovers that he inadvertently has 15 clubs in his golf bag. He declares one of the clubs out of play to his opponent, marker or fellow-competitor and begins the round. Is the player subject to penalty?

A. No. In these narrow circumstances (i.e. the discovery was made shortly before the round, the player had 15 clubs, having the extra club was inadvertent and the player declared one of the clubs out of play), for the purposes of applying Rule 4-4a, the player is not considered to be carrying the club or to have selected the club for play, even though it is physically in his possession. If possible, the player should seek to highlight the club that is out of play by setting it apart from the other clubs, such as by placing it on the floor of his golf cart or turning it upside down in his golf bag. In any other circumstances (e.g. the player carries more than 15 clubs, etc.), the player is in breach of Rule 4-4a. (Revised)

I'm glad the RB's changed this one.  I'm sure many golfers have done the above, not realizing it did not absolve them from a penalty.

I agree. This has sparked some discussions in the past, and it's a good addition.  I'd call this one sort of a "pace of start" rule to help keep things moving off the first tee.