13-2. Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing,

[hackzaw]

Had opening day tourny today. Going down the 18th, I was under a pine tree. The limbs were about 3 feet in the air. I backed into the tree to the point where I could take a few practice swings. My swing was restricted on both the backswing and follow through. During my practice swings, I definitely made contact with the limbs in each of these directions, but I didn't hit it hard enough to break any limb. After all, I was just punching it back into position, so I was just doing a 7:30 backswing and a 2:30 follow through.

Well, my FC says right after my practice swings that he's got to call a penalty on me. He said he saw some tree material fall off (pine needles/maybe a pine cone), and as such I was improving my area of swing.

First off, I accept the rules, and I admire him for calling a ruling where he saw fit. Lot's of other people that felt a penalty should be assessed may have not said anything. That said, I don't believe I gained an unfair advantage from my actions. I don't believe I "improved my area of intended swing".

But none of that matters. A few pineneedles fell to the ground and I got assessed a 2 stroke penalty. Harsh in my opinion. Our pro said that if you were 15 feet away from your ball where you took practice swings and broke something off, the same penalty assessment applies.

What does improving "area of intended swing" mean? Where I was taking my practice swings was not the same area as the actual swing.

(I know I sound like a whiner, and maybe I am at this exact moment in time, but those two strokes were harsh!!)

[jvincent]

Our pro said that if you were 15 feet away from your ball where you took practice swings and broke something off, the same penalty assessment applies.

I am nearly 100% sure your pro is wrong.

Picture the following scenario. Your ball is in the deep rough. You move several feet away and take practice swings in the rough that is similar to your lie. You have not improved your lie or the area of your intended swing so you are OK.

Your FC was correct, because you knocked stuff off the tree in the area where you were going to be making your stroke, you get assessed the penalty.

[gbower]

This one could be a tough call but this decision may help. From the sounds of it your pro was wrong in his thinking. If you were taking your practice swings away from the ball and the pine needles weren't in the area of your intended swing I don't see a problem. I'm sure a couple of others will voice an opinion on this one.

--------------

13-2/22 Knocking Down Leaves with Practice Swing

Q. A player's ball lies near a tree or bush. The player takes a practice swing near his ball and knocks down leaves in the area of his intended swing. Is this a breach of Rule 13-2?

A. The answer depends on whether the area of the intended swing is improved. In some cases, the knocking down of a number of leaves would not improve the area of the intended swing as the player still has to swing through a number of remaining leaves when making his stroke. In such circumstances, there would be no breach of the Rules. In other cases, the knocking down of one leaf might improve the area of the intended swing, in which case there would be a breach of Rule 13-2.

If a player has improved the area of his intended swing by knocking down a leaf or a number of leaves, he cannot avoid penalty under Rule 13-2 by subsequently changing the area of his swing when he actually makes the stroke.

[AAA]

To support to gbower's reply, you cannot breach 13-2 if you are taking a practice swing away from the area where your intended swing is or will be.
The rules is about 'Improving lie, area of intended stance or swing, or line of play' only.

[Chambokl]

So is it fair to say that Hacksaw shouldn't have been penalized... knocking down a few needle doesn't necessary improve his lie... as for the pine cone...

[hackzaw]

I brought this up in the proshop when we were discussing the ruling. I know for certain that I didn't make my shot any easier by whatever was knocked off the tree. I was punching out from under the tree, and after my practice swings, I still had tree limbs with pineneedles and pinecones on the limbs in my actual swing. My punchout was not made any easier (in my opinion of course, but I'm objectional about it)

I find the decision interesting the way they word it, such that you if you knock off leaves in your practice swing, and provided you still have leaves in your actual swing, then you're not penalized.

So who makes the final call on things like this? The player or the FC who called the ruling on me? I say my swing WAS NOT improved. What if the FC says he thinks my swing WAS improved?

[AAA]

I find the decision interesting the way they word it, such that you if you knock off leaves in your practice swing, and provided you still have leaves in your actual swing, then you're not penalized.

Not necesarily. If the leaves you knocked off caused the branch to move up out of your line of swing then you have improved it and get the penalty. If the branch is still in your line then you are ok.

So who makes the final call on things like this? The player or the FC who called the ruling on me? I say my swing WAS NOT improved. What if the FC says he thinks my swing WAS improved?

Your FC is not a referee or rules official. You must make an honest judgment. If they have a problem with that, they must report it to a rules official or committee member at the end before the competition closes.

[hackzaw]

AAA - good advice and thanks for responding. In my honest opinion, I believe I did not improve my swing (or anything else). In fact, I personnally didn't see or hear anything drop, and there wasn't anything laying on the ground that isn't normally there. After my FC said he'd have to call a penalty on me for knocking stuff off the tree, I actually had to ask what fell.

I would not penalize myself in this scenario. Now unfortunately, this was yesterday. Before I signed my scorecard, we went to the proshop and discussed the issue with our Assistant Pro. He pulled out the rules book, but not the decisions book. They said the penalty applied after reviewing the wording in the rules book. Now, I think I have a fair disagreement with the ruling, but it's taken until now to shed light on it.

Do I DQ myself for signing an incorrect card (unfairly because I had received incorrect advice from the proshop)? It's a one day event, so I don't know exactly when the competition closes.

[AAA]

You cannot be DQd for returning a score higher than you actually scored. However the Committee should review the 'ruling' made by the pro. If they support your view they should correct your score.

[gbower]

There would be a number of things to consider and one is, how far away was you FC? If he was on the other side of the fairway he may not have had a great view. I think the way you describe it, nothing was improved and a penalty should probably not have been assessed. This becomes a "he says, you say" and more than likely a rules official will end up siding your way if it was just a couple of needles that fell. If it was a pine cone or two they would probably rule against you. I'm sure you would know if you knocked down a pine cone.
I know that our club does have a decisions book in the pro shop and it's been referenced more than once in the last couple of years so it may be a good investment for them.

[AAA]

If it was a pine cone or two they would probably rule against you.

It would depend on the size of the branch and its 'bendiness'.

[PapaPat]

I know that our club does have a decisions book in the pro shop and it's been referenced more than once in the last couple of years so it may be a good investment for them.

Good stuff guys. This business about knocking down a leaf or in this case some pine needles is one of the most widely held misconceptions. And, the fact that it it fostered and sustained by a Pro, is all too common. Most of the misunderstandings held by members at my club originate in the ProShop.

I find it interesting that we should even be talking about whether or not there is a Decision Book in the ProShop. In the case of my club, the Pros pull out a rule book and several other books with titles like Ken Green's 1987 Golf Rules Made Easy and huddle. An outdated Decision Book is kept on the shelf in the General Manager's office. This in a day and age when USGA lays everything out for you so nicely on line. Now if the USGA could just put up all the indexing information contained in the actual Decision Book.

[hackzaw]

I'm sure there was an up to date RCGA Decisions book in the back office. It just wasn't brought out when we were discussing the ruling. Last year, our course had a Rules seminar put on by the RCGA. It was quite good, and everyone that attended got a rules book and a decisions book.

I've brought the issue to the attention of the Committee and they are going to review. When discussing the issue with the committee, he commented that if it was a pine cone that fell, then maybe it's a different story. Now I didn't see or hear any pine cone fall, but even if it did, the pine cone I allegedly knocked off was in my "practice swing plane" which is 8-12 inches away from my real swing plane. I would have had other pine needles/pine cones in that plane.

The FC watching was about 20 yards away if that makes any difference.

All I'll add is that, the original shot was a pretty simple punch out from under the tree. After my practice swing, I still had a pretty simple punch out. No easier, no harder. So if my shot was not easier, how can it be argued that I improved the swing? I've got a sneaking suspicion that the fact I allegedly knocked off a pine cone that the penalty will remain.

[AAA]

From what you say your FC said, I can't see the Committee would have any grounds to uphold a penalty. There has to be some evidence the the swing area was actually improved.