Intentional Moving of Loose Impediment in Hazard

Question
QUESTION: An opponent in a stroke play event asked his opponents if he could move a broken tree (about 8"-12" in diameter) which was lying in the woods at 45 degree angle between his ball and the hole (about 20 yards away) and only 3" from the tree.  The tree broke clean in a recent storm.  His opponents were not informed that the tree and the ball both laid in the same hazard and agreed as long as long as the tree could be moved without moving the ball it would be ok.  The player moved the tree, and played his shot to the green.  At this time it was discovered by one of the opponents that the tree and ball were in the hazard.  The rules states there is a 2 stroke penalty for this breach but it does not state that the ball should be replaced and the impediment replaced as is required if an immovable object rests on a loose impediment in a hazard and the ball is moved during the removal (without penalty).  Therefore, the player's scored was recorded as a 6.  If the player would have gone to the drop area, he most likely would have scored a 5 assuming he did not remove the tree.  

In twist of fate, the player appealed the penalty on the grounds that he relied on the opinion of his opponents and the penalty was removed and this was upheld due to some precedent and he was given his original score (4) without penalty.   It did not seem right that the player should be able to benefit from his own ignorance of his situation (not knowing he was in a hazard or not knowing that he could not move a loose impediment in a hazard).  One of the opponents suggested 2 balls be played but this was not done.

Thanks,

Gary



ANSWER: Hello Gary,  Right or wrong, the ruling given by the committee stands once the competition is closed (results posted and announced).  I don't agree with the ruling as there are too many instances to mention in which a player was unaware of his breach of a rule and subsequently penalized.

Although you didn't mention the precedent, the only reason that could justify what transpired is if the hazard was so poorly marked it made it difficult to know if one's ball was in it.

This is one for the USGA to answer and if you write for a decision, I'd be interested to hear what they say.

Fairways and Greens,

John
www.golfnutts.com

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: John, thanks for the prompt response.  I am in total agreement with your response including the closure of the situation.  My only concern was that the witnesses were not aware of the reversal until after the results were posted.

The only thing that I heard was that some other non-witness opponent  showed the Head Pro (serving as committee chairman)some precedent for "opinions" on rules (not "advice" on play) given by opponents.  I will try to get more information on this and then pass it on to you.

With regard to the marking, it actually could not be more clear because it was marked with a bold red fresh line the day before the event.  The only ironic twist on this is that the area was not well marked in the past and the player and the witnesses (I was one) did not notice it because we entered the hazard area from a cart path directly into the wooded area. When we got back to the green we had to cross directly over the markings and this is when the breach was discovered.  However, we have all played this hole a hundred times before and have always played the area as a hazard.  But for some reason, no one even thought about the ball being in a hazard when the question was raised by the player.  I felt bad for him (he is a friend) but I had an obligation to "protect the field" and made the call.  The opinions that the witnesses gave were based on the ball not being in a hazard.  Our collective error was not in "not knowing the rule" but rather in "not knowing the situation".

Finally, suppose the breach was discovered before playing his ball.  Does he then play the ball out and add 2 penalty strokes or does he replace the "loose impediment" and then proceed with a 2 stroke penalty?  I can think of situations where it would be advantageous to take a 2 stroke penalty rather than return to a teeing or drop area if the ball is not playable from within the hazard with the impediment in place. Sometimes it is the incorrect (but good faith) attempt to correct a breach that is worse than the breach itself.  

Thanks again,

Gary  

Answer
Gary:  I think you'll find that proceeding based upon the opinion of another player is like getting legal advice from your dentist.  You proceed at your own risk.  I do recall several instances of professionals being informed of rules breaches on a prior round of an ongoing event and being disqualified the next day or the day after.  All because they were unaware of a breach or unaware their actions were not in keeping with the rules.

Once the player lifts a loose impediment in a hazard he incurs the 2-stroke penalty.  At that point it really doesn't matter what he does with the impediment.  I can imagine situations that would benefit a player more by taking the 2-stroke penalty as you describe rather than by exercising the other options.  Can't say it would have ever occurred to me before now but it's probably something I'll remember.

Keep me posted,

John