Taking relief from cart path - Part II

[LBH]

Hi Gary,

In a recent tournament, a fellow competitor (in another foursome) took a relief from a cart path. When his relief was taken, his competitors observed that he didn't take proper relief from the cart path because the back of his feet were still on the edge of the cart path (I was explained that something like 5-10% of his shoes were over the cart path but no direct contact).

Should this competitor have encountered a penalty for taking improper relief?

Thanks

[Gary Hill]

Yes.

The player would incur a penalty of two strokes unless a serious breach of the Rule had occurred, in which case he would be disqualified.

[LBH]

Again, that's what I thought. Now, since he didn't mark down his penalty (wrote down a birdie 4 instead of a bogey 6), this would automatically mean a disqualification, correct? What about the competitors who saw it happen and did nothing about it? Should they be disqualified as well for failing to report the incident to the Comittee?

[Gary Hill]

Technically, there is no such thing as automatic disqualification.
The Committee has to gather the facts and make a ruling.

Was the player actually on the path?
How many people saw this?
What does the player say?

Did the fellow-competitors bring this to the attention of the player?
Did they assume the player would report this to the Committee?
Did the fellow-competitors agree not to report the incident or were they just unclear as to the Rule?

It is not quite as simple as "everybody is disqualified".

And yes, If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he shall be disqualified.
(just ask Mark Roe or Jesper Parnevik)

[LBH]

The player was not on the path (no direct contact) but if you draw an imaginary line upwards from the edge of the cart path, his feet would cross that line. The fact is the cart path is about 6 inches below the ground where the player was standing. His ball was on the edge of the rough right next to the cart path. So to take relief, he "climbs" those 6 inches onto the rough to his NPF so his feet don't touch the path anymore.

All three of his fellow competitors saw the "incident" along with their caddy (for those who had one). They didn't report the incident to the Comittee because they were unsure of the ruling and, since the cards were already signed, they didn't want to get disqualified but they told the player about it. The player didn't report the incident because he thought he didn't deserve a penalty because the sole of his shoes didn't touch the cart path...

[Gary Hill]

Sorry. I should have made it more clear that my questions were just sample questions that the Committee might ask in the gathering of facts.

I cannot make an actual ruling on this specific case with only the information presented and certainly not without getting information from all the participants. Furthermore, the event is over and this particiular penalty (Rule 24-2b) cannot be applied retroactively.

Hypothetically speaking, if you refer to the original thread where I described finding the NPR, you will notice that if the player has found the correct NPR then it would be impossible for his feet to be "hanging over" the cart path.

If the sunken cartpath is bordered by 4x4's and the player is standing on the 4x4's, then he is still be interfered with by the cartpath.
If the sunken cartpath is not bordered by wood and he is standing on his tip-toes to prevent his heels from touching the cartpath, he is also still being interfered with by the cartpath.
So, without actually seeing where the incident took place, I cannot think of any way that the player would be able to comply with Rule 22-2b and have his feet "hanging over" the cartpath.

As to the fellow-competitors:
Fellow-competitors are not policemen on the course. The responsibility for returning the proper score rests with only the player.
Having said that, the fellow-competitors are responsible for "the protection of the field".
A fellow-competitor is not required to follow a player around to make sure the player doesn't move his ball, but, on the other hand, he is required to report Rules violations that he sees.

I don't believe there was an agreement to waive the Rules. Rather, the players were ignorant of the Rules

The incident seems to be simply a classic case of the players not knowing the Rules and not knowing what to do in a doubtful situation.

This could have been prevented very easily.

1. Any one of the fellow-competitors could have politely said:
"I don't believe you are allowed to stand there, but I am not sure. Perhaps playing two balls in this situation would be appropriate."
PLEASE don't approach the player with: "YOU CAN'T DO THAT"

2. Any one of the participants could have raised the matter with the Committee BEFORE returning the scorecards.
You hand your scorecard to "someone". That "someone" is a Committee member.