Golfer Makes Mark in Dew, Wipes Away - Penalties?

[acerimusdux]

 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

Yes, but there has to be a reason it could be a potential advantage. In the case of dew behind the ball, I would think the club on the downswing could contact behind the ball, and the presence or absence of dew could thus have some influence on the interaction with the turf. So I understand that one.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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).

Suppose he positions his feet for his actual stroke not in the area that was wiped away. Is it still a "potential" advantage because he could have put his feet in that area? Is this the distinction you are making above between advantage and potential advantage?

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Yeah, maybe. I was thinking the answer to Phil's question above "what a player is to do if he lays his club down, it leaves a line, and then what does he do" might be that he should wipe it away, if there's a chance of avoiding a penalty by doing so.

But I was also thinking he could wipe away an area between his feet and the ball without impacting his potential footing. However, I guess if he wipes just a narrow corridor, then you still have something that could potentially be an indicator of the line, so it maybe gets hard to wipe an area that he couldn't have possibly stood.

 

[iacas]

Potential is vague on purpose. Maybe less dew will refract less might back into his eyes for all we know.

Remove dew and you're under suspicion.

This isn't a very likely scenario.

[Asheville]

This is all I dew need to know. 

R8-2a says, in part, "Any mark placed by the player . . . for the purpose of indicating the line of play, must be removed before the stroke is made."

[Hatchman]

Well darn if I dew, darn if I don't.  Been watching this caused action.  Guess I'll still be able to use the putting line in the dew from a previous putter because I didn't cause the action.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Hatchman

[iacas]

1 hour ago, GLFTPS said:

I wrote to the USGA. The reply said that a mark in the dew would violate 8-2a. I was wrong. Sorry. Take care.

This was originally posted in this thread, just above @Hatchman's post. I moved it (you can click on the arrow top-right in the quote to go to the original post) to the other "pre-shot routine/alignment" thread here:

As I said there, good on you @GLFTPS to admit your error.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 1/3/2017 at 6:00 PM, Hatchman said:

Well darn if I dew, darn if I don't.  Been watching this caused action.  Guess I'll still be able to use the putting line in the dew from a previous putter because I didn't cause the action.

Yes, you can! And that's about the only time I like dew! It allows you to see the line on the green very well! Otherwise, I don't care to be a dewsweeper!

[Rulesman]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:40 PM, GLFTPS said:

I wrote to the USGA. The reply said that a mark in the dew would violate 8-2a. I was wrong. Sorry. Take care.

Did your question relate to the player placing his club without thought to the line that would be left behind 

or to his doing it knowingly

or does not make any difference?

[bkuehn1952]

15 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Did your question relate to the player placing his club without thought to the line that would be left behind 

or to his doing it knowingly

or does not make any difference?

I tried to set the scenario that the player frequently laid the club down and in this single instance there was dew and a mark.  The USGA responses typically don't respond to multiple questions or provide very expansive answers, which is too bad. Here is my original email:

There has been a lot of discussion about a scenario.  Here is the full picture:

 

Player A often lays his club down on the ground (not the green) to help his alignment.  He always removes the club prior to making his stroke.  This action is specifically permitted by Decision.  During an early morning round he laid his club on the ground, aligned himself and then removed the club.  A line was clearly visible in the dew. Rule 8-2 states a player must remove any mark indicating his line of play.  Rule 13-2 prohibits improving one's area of stance by removing dew.

 

So, if the player removes the mark in the dew by scuffing the ground with his feet, is he in breach of 13-2?  If he only removes dew where he does not stand and not near his ball, is he deemed to have not improved the area of his stance, swing and lie?  Or is he allowed to leave the mark in the dew since it was not his intent to leave the line, if was just an incidental occurrence to his otherwise permitted action?

 

[Rulesman]

2 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I tried to set the scenario that the player frequently laid the club down and in this single instance there was dew and a mark.  The USGA responses typically don't respond to multiple questions or provide very expansive answers, which is too bad. Here is my original email:

There has been a lot of discussion about a scenario.  Here is the full picture:

 

Player A often lays his club down on the ground (not the green) to help his alignment.  He always removes the club prior to making his stroke.  This action is specifically permitted by Decision.  During an early morning round he laid his club on the ground, aligned himself and then removed the club.  A line was clearly visible in the dew. Rule 8-2 states a player must remove any mark indicating his line of play.  Rule 13-2 prohibits improving one's area of stance by removing dew.

 

So, if the player removes the mark in the dew by scuffing the ground with his feet, is he in breach of 13-2?  If he only removes dew where he does not stand and not near his ball, is he deemed to have not improved the area of his stance, swing and lie?  Or is he allowed to leave the mark in the dew since it was not his intent to leave the line, if was just an incidental occurrence to his otherwise permitted action?

 

Thanks.

 

[bkuehn1952]

I just got 3rd hand that at a Rules seminar the "dew" mark question came up.  It was reported the instructor stated that wiping out the dew line was not a breach of 13-2 as long as the dew near and in front/back of the ball was not removed or disturbed.

This whole thing falls under my "Just don't do it" category.  Don't lay my club down as an alignment aid when playing at all and certainly don't do it when there is dew on the ground. 

[Asheville]

Decision 13-2/35 Removal of Dew or Frost is useful.

[Rulesman]

7 hours ago, Asheville said:

Decision 13-2/35 Removal of Dew or Frost is useful.

So the substantive rule re leaving a mark is overridden by the prohibition on removing dew? I am not convinced.

[Asheville]

18 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

So the substantive rule re leaving a mark is overridden by the prohibition on removing dew? I am not convinced.

The line must be removed.

[Rulesman]

7 hours ago, Asheville said:

The line must be removed.

I agree but your mentioning 13-2/25 suggests that it can't. What exception are you using?

[Asheville]

6 hours ago, Rulesman said:

I agree but your mentioning 13-2/25 suggests that it can't. What exception are you using?

D13-2/35 suggests that removal of dew immediately behind or to the side of the ball is the breach.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Asheville said:

D13-2/35 suggests that removal of dew immediately behind or to the side of the ball is the breach.

The same decision says that removal of dew from his line of play is also a breach, if the removal creates a potential advantage.  Whether the area between a player's feet and the ball is included within his "line of play" has been discussed earlier, I think it probably is included.  However, removal of dew in this area, not close to the ball, and not under the player's feet, doesn't seem to me like it would create a potential advantage.  He's not influencing contact with the ball, and he's not influencing the stability of his stance.  @bkuehn1952, did your response from the USGA also address a possible violation of 13-2 for a player who "erases" the line in the dew?

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, Asheville said:

D13-2/35 suggests that removal of dew immediately behind or to the side of the ball is the breach.

If the dew mark must be obliterated if it is not behind or to the side of the ball but must be if it is.

So the substantive rule re leaving a mark is overridden by the prohibition on removing dew?

But don't the rules say that a prohibitive rule is overruled by another rule which is permissive?

[bkuehn1952]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

  @bkuehn1952, did your response from the USGA also address a possible violation of 13-2 for a player who "erases" the line in the dew?

No, they only addressed the presence of the line after picking the club up.  Their response was that the line was a breach if not removed.  From my experience, the USGA tends to hone in on a single question and won't typically answer a series of queries.