Casting a Shadow over the Line of a Putt

[iacas]

Your opponent was correct.  Rule 14-2a prohibits such action.  Specifically:

14-2. Assistance

a. Physical Assistance and Protection from Elements

A player must not make a stroke while accepting physical assistance or protection from the elements.

Further elaboration is provided in Decision 14-2/2.5--Player Positions Bag for providing shade for ball

Q.A player positions his golf bag near the teeing ground for the purpose of blocking the sunlight from the position where he tees his ball. He then makes a stroke. Is he in breach of Rule 14-2?

A.Yes. As the player was not in contact with the golf bag, he accepted protection from the elements in breach of Rule 14-2a. This answer differs from that in Decision 14-2/2 as, in that case, the player was in contact with the umbrella.

While a player may not place an object or position a person for the purpose of blocking the sunlight from his ball, he may ask a person (e.g., a spectator) who is already in position not to move, so that a shadow remains over the ball, or to move, so that his shadow is not over the ball.

I concur. And will update the second post to point out that I was wrong about this in 2006.

[Rulesman]

14-2/2.5 didn't come in until 2010 so you are excused

[iacas]

14-2/2.5 didn't come in until 2010 so you are excused

Woohoo!

I considered checking in at RulesHistory.com, but I wasn't sure they covered the Decisions (five seconds of looking says no…?), and I figured it was more likely I was wrong than that THIS specific rule had been modified in the eight piddly years between then and now.

Thanks.

[rogolf]

14-2/2.5 didn't come in until 2010 so you are excused

And came about because of a situation at The Masters when Phil Mickelson's caddie placed his bag on the 18th tee in a position to cast a shadow over the teed ball, preventing distraction.

[Fourputt]

Just because the decision hadn't yet been included in the Rules shouldn't mean that the rule didn't apply prior to 2010, should it?  I mean the rule itself was still worded the same, so the application of the rule should still be valid, even though there was no specific decision clarifying it.  If I had been part of a committee in 2006 and this came up in a claim, I might have made the same ruling without having a decision to fall back on.  It may have come down to the particular situation and how the protest was worded, but it seems to me that a player or his partner deliberately positioning a person or object to block the sun to help with making a stroke would be a fairly obvious breach of 14-2.

[rogolf]

Just because the decision hadn't yet been included in the Rules shouldn't mean that the rule didn't apply prior to 2010, should it?  I mean the rule itself was still worded the same, so the application of the rule should still be valid, even though there was no specific decision clarifying it.  If I had been part of a committee in 2006 and this came up in a claim, I might have made the same ruling without having a decision to fall back on.  It may have come down to the particular situation and how the protest was worded, but it seems to me that a player or his partner deliberately positioning a person or object to block the sun to help with making a stroke would be a fairly obvious breach of 14-2.

Hindsight is always great. However, it wasn't obvious at the time, even considering the Rules talent present at The Masters - top Rules minds of the R&A;, USGA, PGATour and European Tour).  It was discussed and concluded no breach occurred.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Just because the decision hadn't yet been included in the Rules shouldn't mean that the rule didn't apply prior to 2010, should it?  I mean the rule itself was still worded the same, so the application of the rule should still be valid, even though there was no specific decision clarifying it.  If I had been part of a committee in 2006 and this came up in a claim, I might have made the same ruling without having a decision to fall back on.  It may have come down to the particular situation and how the protest was worded, but it seems to me that a player or his partner deliberately positioning a person or object to block the sun to help with making a stroke would be a fairly obvious breach of 14-2.

Hindsight is always great. However, it wasn't obvious at the time, even considering the Rules talent present at The Masters - top Rules minds of the R&A;, USGA, PGATour and European Tour).  It was discussed and concluded no breach occurred.

And yet they still make mistakes.  Even on what should be obvious.  Like the Ernie Els case at the US Open several years ago, when he was given line of play relief for a TIO which was actually quite movable.  Your argument is strong, but not irrefutable.

[iacas]

And yet they still make mistakes.  Even on what should be obvious.  Like the Ernie Els case at the US Open several years ago, when he was given line of play relief for a TIO which was actually quite movable.  Your argument is strong, but not irrefutable.

Not sure how I'd have ruled before. Shielding someone from the sun is a slightly different thing than shielding the line from the sun, and the Rules were less clear on that before.

Doesn't really matter. We have the Decision now. There's no debate over what is right now.