Golfer Makes Mark in Dew, Wipes Away - Penalties?

[Phil McGleno]

That thread turned into a small train wreck-But it did raise the question about what a player is to do if he lays his club down, it leaves a line, and then what does he do?

Leaving the line there is against the rules.-But so is wiping it away. Or is it not in the area of his stance or swing? But it has to be, so what is the penalty?

• What is the penalty if he leaves the line and plays the shot?-Just the one under 8-2 right?
• What is the penalty if he leaves a line-But wipes it all away before he plays the shot? 13-2?

Is it just two strokes if he does either of those things? It is not four because penalties often do not stack like that plus he did not make a stroke in the second case with the line there.

Tagging @Martyn W, @Asheville, @iacas, @Rulesman.

[DaveP043]

I read a lot of the "train wreck", but didn't post there.  In reply to the specific question raised here, I agree that its at worst a single penalty, not two different infractions.

However, I'm not completely convinced that leaving the line in the dew should be a penalty.  In my opinion, this goes to the intent of the player.  The player is specifically allowed to lay a club down to assist in alignment, as long as he picks up the club before making a stroke.  His intent, in this case, is to use the club as an alignment aide, not to make a line in the dew.  The last part of 8-2.a talks about intent.  

Quote

Any mark placed by the player or with his knowledge, for the purpose of indicating the line of play, must be removed before the stroke is made.

He didn't intentionally make a mark, it was incidental to a specifically permitted action.  To remove the dew is specifically prohibitted.  Again, I'm not convinced that leaving the line in the dew violates the rules, since it wasn't made with the intent of indicating the line of play.

[Asheville]

If I'm refereeing one morning and a player says to me, "Hey, watch this guy. He lays a club down on the dewey grass before every shot, picks it up and hits his shot." I am certain there will be further inquiries made and should I find that he's intentionally making a mark and not removing it, there will be consequences. Most likely the quiet word in his ear will be, "Don't do that again." 

[Hacker James]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

 

 To remove the dew is specifically prohibitted.  Again, I'm not convinced that leaving the line in the dew violates the rules, since it wasn't made with the intent of indicating the line of play.

removal of dew is not prohibited under the exception to 13-2. Regarding intent, there would be no way of knowing, you would either have to give benefit of the doubt, or assume there was intent in which case a penalty could be imposed. OTOH, having a dew line 20 inches long to aim at a target 450 yards away is not going to affect the outcome in any appreciable way. "just hit the damned ball". 

[Hacker James]

By now I would assume those interested would have looked it up. In any case, here is a link to both a simplified explanation and the actual rule(s).  ( I really am surprized at myself for looking it up, but curiosity got the best of me)

 

http://golf-info-guide.com/golf-rules/golf-rule-13-ball-played-as-it-lies/

[iacas]

I likely* penalize either way. Two strokes.

Either he made a mark and hit the shot with it still there, which is in violation of 8-2, or he wiped the mark away before hitting, which violates 13-2. I'm assuming he's not on the teeing ground.

* If there's such a faint line that it's not really discernible, like maybe two inches of a line near the grip end or something is all that had dew, I'd not penalize. There's some subjectivity here as to whether the "mark" the player makes is substantial enough.

I disagree with you, @DaveP043, in the intent issue. He knowingly did something that caused a mark to be placed. This isn't a player haphazardly flicking an acorn out of the way a little and it happens to sit on his line 10 feet ahead. He's expressly doing something that causes a mark to be made.

The rules don't often consider intent, because that would require mind-reading. It more often considers actions and the results of those actions.

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

removal of dew is not prohibited under the exception to 13-2.

In most cases, removal of dew is in violation. The exceptions are just that: exceptions.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I disagree with you, @DaveP043, in the intent issue. He knowingly did something that caused a mark to be placed. This isn't a player haphazardly flicking an acorn out of the way a little and it happens to sit on his line 10 feet ahead. He's expressly doing something that causes a mark to be made.

The rules don't often consider intent, because that would require mind-reading. It more often considers actions and the results of those actions.

I agree that intent isn't often a factor, yet the rule in this case specifically says that a mark made by the player "for the purpose of indicating the line of play" must be removed before the stroke.  Based on that wording, the player's "purpose", his intent, is a factor in this situation.  I think a pattern of behavior could be indicative of his intent.  If he always laid a club down, dew or not, and then picked it up, I'd suggest that making the mark was not his intent.  If he only laid a club down in a spot where it left a mark, I'd say that he did intend to make a mark.  

Just now, DaveP043 said:

I agree that intent isn't often a factor, yet the rule in this case specifically says that a mark made by the player "for the purpose of indicating the line of play" must be removed before the stroke.  Apparently a mark made for a different purpose, or accidentally, can remain.  Based on that wording, the player's "purpose", his intent, is a factor in this situation.  I think a pattern of behavior could be indicative of his intent.  If he always laid a club down, dew or not, and then picked it up, I'd suggest that making the mark was not his intent.  If he only laid a club down in a spot where it left a mark, I'd say that he did intend to make a mark.  

 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree that intent isn't often a factor, yet the rule in this case specifically says that a mark made by the player "for the purpose of indicating the line of play" must be removed before the stroke.

I see this one as pretty simple: the mark isn't removed before the stroke is made, and the mark was made in the commission of the act that indicated the line of play.

The rules penalize the player in many cases regardless of intent. Accidentally step on or kick your ball during a search? Penalty. Accidentally push down too much in the rough and your ball moves? Penalty. Accidentally hit your golf cart with your shot? Penalty. Etc.

This one's pretty cut and dry to me.

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Based on that wording, the player's "purpose", his intent, is a factor in this situation.

That's why he put the club there. If he casually tosses down a club two feet outside of his ball and it happened to land parallel or perpendicular to his line of play, I wouldn't penalize that. His intent here was to help indicate his line of play.

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think a pattern of behavior could be indicative of his intent.  If he always laid a club down, dew or not, and then picked it up, I'd suggest that making the mark was not his intent. If he only laid a club down in a spot where it left a mark, I'd say that he did intend to make a mark.

I know what you're saying, but I disagree - the player can reasonably understand that putting a club down in dewy grass is going to leave a mark that's going to remain throughout the stroke. If he always lays a club down, he should be smart enough not to do it in the dew.

[acerimusdux]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

In most cases, removal of dew is in violation. The exceptions are just that: exceptions.

Yes, while rule 8 requires knowledge or intent, rule 13-2 doesn't. So I think regardless of intent, the player has violated 13-2, by removing dew. 

Of course there is going to be some incidental removal of dew by the player in the course of taking his stance, lightly grounding his clubhead, etc. But that is all fairly covered by the exceptions to 13-2. 

But there is no exception permitting a player to remove dew in the area of his stance while temporarily placing an alignment aid. So I would say the player has already violated 13-2 by leaving the initial mark. I would suggest he should wipe the mark away to avoid also violating 8-2. I don't think this would be a second violation, as I think you can only assess one rule 13-2 violation for that stroke. 

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

So I would say the player has already violated 13-2 by leaving the initial mark.

Interesting. I see what you're saying.

[Buckeyebowman]

Sorry, but I find most of the above examples ludicrous. Flopping clubs around in sloppy dew? I can't imagine it! However, if I'm at one of those "stick up the wazoo" clubs where it's cart path only, and I have to stroll out to my ball carrying a few clubs, I'll use a tee or ball mark repair tool to prop the grips up out of the wet grass, and will position the clubs perpendicular to my intended line of swing.

Then again, a marker perpendicular to the line of swing could be thought of as just as much of a alignment aid as one parallel, couldn't it?

[iacas]

13 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Then again, a marker perpendicular to the line of swing could be thought of as just as much of a alignment aid as one parallel, couldn't it?

Yes.

I'm not sure what's ludicrous about the above examples. You've never seen someone put a club down at their feet to help them align? If there's dew, they can leave a line.

[acerimusdux]

 

Quote

 

13-2/0.5

Meaning of "Improve" in Rule 13-2

Q.Rule 13-2 prohibits a player from improving certain areas. What does "improve" mean?

A.In the context of Rule 13-2, "improve" means to change for the better so that the player creates a potential advantage with respect to the position or lie of his ball, the area of his intended stance or swing, his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or the area in which he is to drop or place a ball. Therefore, merely changing an area protected by Rule 13-2 will not be a breach of Rule 13-2 unless it creates such a potential advantage for the player in his play.

 

I guess there might be a question here as to whether removing the dew is really an improvement. If it's removed where the player is actually going to stand, then removing it might help him get better footing, creating an advantage.

But if it's in front of where he is standing, between his feet and the ball, is there any potential advantage?

Suppose a player takes a practice swing in the area of his stance, brushing the ground, and removes some dew. Is that a potential violation of 13-2?

I'm thinking if removing dew were being called that strictly, I would be able to find some examples of it. But I can't, really. On the other hand, I do notice pros rarely take practice swings near the ball (never mind laying down alignment aids), they usually take practice swings behind the ball. Maybe the way the rule is written is one reason it would at least be prudent to do nothing in the area of the stance other than take a stance and lightly ground the clubhead.

 

[DaveP043]

15 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

 

I guess there might be a question here as to whether removing the dew is really an improvement. If it's removed where the player is actually going to stand, then removing it might help him get better footing, creating an advantage.

But if it's in front of where he is standing, between his feet and the ball, is there any potential advantage?

Suppose a player takes a practice swing in the area of his stance, brushing the ground, and removes some dew. Is that a potential violation of 13-2?

I'm thinking if removing dew were being called that strictly, I would be able to find some examples of it. But I can't, really. On the other hand, I do notice pros rarely take practice swings near the ball (never mind laying down alignment aids), they usually take practice swings behind the ball. Maybe the way the rule is written is one reason it would at least be prudent to do nothing in the area of the stance other than take a stance and lightly ground the clubhead.

 

I think the description in the rules, "the area of his intended stance or swing," does include the area between his feet and the ball, so removing the dew from that area is almost certainly a penalty, whether there's actually an advantage gained or not.  

On the other hand, your suggested interpretation makes sense in one way.  Consider a player who drops a club for alignment, and then picks it up and realizes belatedly that he's made a mark.  As long as he doesn't remove the dew from the area actually within his intended footprints, he won't gain any advantage.  Allowing him to remove that mark by removing some of the dew would allow him to correct an unintentional result of a specifically permitted action without penalty.  

Its certainly a convoluted argument, and unlikely to hold up, but it does make just a bit of sense.

 

[acerimusdux]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I think the description in the rules, "the area of his intended stance or swing," does include the area between his feet and the ball, so removing the dew from that area is almost certainly a penalty, whether there's actually an advantage gained or not. 

I think even those things explicitly forbidden in 13-2 are allowed, so long as there is no potential advantage. Rule 13-2 has a list of actions you can't take (including removing dew, also including replacing divots, pressing down sand, pressing a club on the ground, etc,) and things that can't be improved by those actions (including the area of the stance, also including the line of play).

For our purposes here, the rule can be read as "A player must not improve or allow to be improved....the area of his intended stance or swing....by removing dew, frost or water".  But it seems you have to meet all three criteria for it to be a violation.

Under the clarification in decision 13-2/0.5 for example, it says that if you smooth footprints in a bunker 5 yards in front of your ball in your line of play, this would likely create a potential advantage if done before a short shot out of that bunker, but likely not before a long shot out of a fairway bunker. Likewise for replacing a divot in the line of play.

So it seems there is some flexibility under 13-2 for subjectively deciding whether the specific circumstances result in a potential advantage. I'm not sure what the potential advantage is here, unless you use the circular reasoning that the player has gained an advantage by avoiding a penalty under 8-2.

Edited January 2, 2017 by acerimusdux

[iacas]

4 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

I think even those things explicitly forbidden in 13-2 are allowed, so long as there is no potential advantage.

The rule reads as such:

A player must not, in (these areas), do (these things), unless it's an example of (these other things).

It's a matter of degrees. If you "remove" some dew by walking near your ball or soling your club on the ground a foot behind the ball because that's where you grip the club, that's not really "removing dew." That's just a matter of incidental removal, not an act specifically intended to "remove" dew.

4 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

For our purposes here, the rule can be read as "A player must not improve or allow to be improved....the area of his intended stance or swing....by removing dew, frost or water." But it seems you have to meet all three criteria for it to be a violation.

There aren't really three criteria. There are two - the first defines the forbidden area, the second the forbidden actions. The third part is a list of exceptions, which have to do with severity (of either the action or the location, or both). Can you remove a little dew (maybe you want to use it to wet your towel) ten yards ahead of your ball when you have 140 yards to the flag? Probably, because it's unreasonable that you'd, what, putt the ball to get it there? Now, if you have a pitch shot, ten yards ahead might be where you intend to land the ball, and it may be a violation.

4 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

Under the clarification in decision 13-2/0.5 for example, it says that if you smooth footprints in a bunker 5 yards in front of your ball in your line of play, this would likely create a potential advantage if done before a short shot out of that bunker, but likely not before a long shot out of a fairway bunker. Likewise for replacing a divot in the line of play.

It's a matter of severity (of the action and location).

4 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

So it seems there is some flexibility under 13-2 for subjectively deciding whether the specific circumstances result in a potential advantage. I'm not sure what the potential advantage is here, unless you use the circular reasoning that the player has gained an advantage by avoiding a penalty under 8-2.

This topic has more to do with whether making a line to indicate the Line of Play (8-2) in the dew is illegal, I think.

And on that, again, I stand by what I wrote earlier in the thread. I would most likely penalize if I felt that it was done to help align to the line of play. If the player out of force of habit put a club down, maybe I don't penalize just because this one time he happened to be in a dewy area. Likewise if the mark is small and he doesn't seem to adjust anything.

It's somewhat subjective, yes.

[acerimusdux]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

The rule reads as such:

A player must not, in (these areas), do (these things), unless it's an example of (these other things).

No, it says:

"A player must not improve or allow to be improved" (these areas) by doing (these things), however there is no penalty in (these exceptions).

Nothing under 13-2 is penalized unless it is an improvement (or in the language of the decisions, "creates a potential advantage"). 

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

This topic has more to do with whether making a line to indicate the Line of Play (8-2) in the dew is illegal, I think.

And on that, again, I stand by what I wrote earlier in the thread. I would most likely penalize if I felt that it was done to help align to the line of play.

Yes, but I think we agree that under 8-2 the player may avoid the penalty if the mark is "removed before the stroke is made". I'm saying even if he removes dew in the process, there is no penalty under 13-2 unless doing so creates a potential advantage.

So I think it would be possible for the player to avoid a penalty here by wiping away the mark, though it might be reasonable to warn the player that he is risking a penalty under 13-2 by removing dew in the area of the stance. And if there is any doubt about whether the player has created an advantage, I think that is generally resolved against the player.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

No, it says:

"A player must not improve or allow to be improved" (these areas) by doing (these things), however there is no penalty in (these exceptions).

Nothing under 13-2 is penalized unless it is an improvement (or in the language of the decisions, "creates a potential advantage").

You're not getting what I'm saying.

Doing those things causes the improvement if it's a big enough action. I condensed it down. You can sole your club several inches behind the ball when gripping it and then move it up to its address position (i.e. remove some dew), but you can't sweep away all the dew behind your ball (removal of far too much dew), even if it doesn't necessarily create an advantage, because it creates a potential advantage.

2 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

Yes, but I think we agree that under 8-2 the player may avoid the penalty if the mark is "removed before the stroke is made". I'm saying even if he removes dew in the process, there is no penalty under 13-2 unless doing so creates a potential advantage.

Given the amount of dew he's removing, and from the area of his stance, I think it creates a potential advantage (surer footing, perhaps).

2 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

So I think it would be possible for the player to avoid a penalty here by wiping away the mark, though it might be reasonable to warn the player that he is risking a penalty under 13-2 by removing dew in the area of the stance. And if there is any doubt about whether the player has created an advantage, I think that is generally resolved against the player.

So we're back again at damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Not that this situation comes up all that often. Most golfers don't put the club down at their feet, on the ground, and of those who do, they aren't playing in the dew that often. There comes a point when the hypothetical mixed with what everyone agrees is some subjectivity became a pointless exercise as everyone invariably sees things or defines things a little differently. Without those in common and different subjectivities, again, pointless.