How about a rules question?

[Mr. Bean]

I was waiting when someone would actually give a ruling but obviously in vain...

So, let us start again. What is the ruling for a ball lying in a puddle of melting ice cream? And this time serious rulings with proper references to Rules of Golf, as this is an interesting case.

[Newby]

Is the ice natural?

[Mr. Bean]

Which ice?

I was hoping people would take this seriously but I was wrong. My mistake.

[Newby]

You mentioned "a ball lying in a puddle of melting ice cream"

I was speculating on what relief he may have been able to take. If the ice is not natural then it must be an obstruction. The question is then, is it movable 15.2a(2) or 16 ?

[sui generis]

Is ice cream a natural object or an artificial object? My answer from the Definitions is that it's an obstruction.

Is the obstruction movable or immovable? My answer is "it depends."

The Definitions charge us to use them to determine if the obstruction "can be moved with reasonable effort" or

"Cannot be moved without unreasonable effort or without damaging the obstruction or the course, and otherwise does not meet the definition of a movable obstruction."

[JimmyC59]

Once you've seen that, you'll swear off meatballs forever.

[antip]

Fear not Mr Bean, I wasn't going to let this one finish without a rules discussion. It was a question that lent itself (intentionally) to both fun and an interesting rules element. Sawgrass already made a serious rules observation much earlier that I support, that it could be treated as an immovable obstruction - in the case where it cannot be fully removed so doesn't meet the definition of an MO. As a processed product it qualifies as an obstruction.

Another rules friend suggested it could be considered equivalent to saliva - which uses a 20.3 style argument - if it is not covered in the rules what is the closest fair treatment under the rules. This would mean it could be treated as an LI or temporary water (based on Loose Impediment/3).

I don't think a referee would be getting it 'wrong' with either approach although I prefer the IO version.

[Mr. Bean]

To me the closest thing in the Rules would be manufactured ice, although there is no such thing as natural ice cream. In the case of manufactured ice it would be MO (or IO, depending on the size of the cube) until it has melted into water. In the case of ice cream even melted ice cream could be considered as obstruction but this brings us to the interesting part.

Molten ice cream is a liquid, well to be absolutely precise, a dispersion, in most cases an emulsion. Also milk is an emulsion. If there is a puddle of milk on the ground would that be an obstruction? Same goes with any manufactured liquid, like coffee, tea, lemonade, beer, etc. And can a liquid / dispersion be an obstruction in the first place? This brings into the picture lots of other stuff like skin lotions, sun lotions, wet paint, etc.

I suppose the easiest way would be to treat all liquids excluding water (but including ice cream and sap) like saliva, i.e. Loose Impediment or Temporary Water.

[Dpavs]

I'd probably be on the side of treating it like a MO. I don't think you can treat it like Saliva because it is a manufactured substance whereas Saliva can be argued to be a natural substance. What I do ponder though, is can you use water to wash away the ice cream and if your ball moves during the process, simply replace it to it's original spot.

[antip]

I'd be surprised if RBs have not already ruled on interference with such non-water liquids/emulsions/gels as we are discussing - but I haven't heard an official answer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if LI/temporary water is the official answer. Any volunteers for a US-based person to call it in to our USGA friends?

[Dpavs]

I'd be really surprised if that were true... in the USGA definitions they have already indicated that -

Dew and frost are not temporary water.Snow and natural ice (other than frost) are either loose impediments or, when on the ground, temporary water, at your option.Manufactured ice is an obstructionWhich would lead me to believe that any frozen manufactured liquid substance should be treated as an obstruction.

 

[sui generis]

By Definition this "nightmare" is an obstruction. The Definitions tell us how to choose between movable and immovable, don't they?

[Mr. Bean]

I suppose you did not read my post #38..?

[Mr. Bean]

Which Definition would that be?

[Sawgrass]

???

As I would have presumed you know, the definitions of Obstruction, Immovable Obstruction and Movable Obstruction all give fine hints.

[Dpavs]

I read your post but if you are of the mind that how the rules would treat ice cream differs from how it would treat melted ice cream, then I would not agree. The fact that the product is manufactured and not natural is what I believe the controlling factor to be. If you are alluding to something else, then by all means please explain as in such case it is not apparent to me what you mean.

[Mr. Bean]

So you and Sui are of the opinion that milk is an obstruction?

[sui generis]

Don't be obtuse. A fallen tree might be a loose impediment until it's sawn up and made into a bench at which time it becomes an obstruction.

[Mr. Bean]

I wonder if Sui or Sawgrass would be kind enough to explain how ice cream is an obstruction by Definition if milk is not? As I have explained before both are suspensions and molten ice cream does not differ much if not at all from milk in its state of matter.

[Mr. Bean]

I truly do not know how I could explain it better than I already did. Sorry.

[Dpavs]

Not a problem, I think I understand your position... I just think it is wrong, so we can agree to disagree.

[Sawgrass]

State of matter? I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain how that became part of the definition of obstruction?

Surely you know that ice cream consists of ingredients beyond milk, and must be manufactured rather than simply excreted.

[Mr. Bean]

Ok, let us go deep into this and start from the chemistry of dairy products.

Milk is an emulsion milked out of a cow. At that point it is not a man made product as it has only been taken out of a cow. But on its path to consumers this emulsion is treated in various ways to form the end product that we call 'milk'. That product is no longer the same that came out of the cow but it is a manufactured product, so an Obstruction by Definition. So far so good.

Ice cream is traditionally made out of milk. So making ice cream from an Obstruction will not change its status but also ice cream is an Obstruction, that is, by your own words 'by Definition'.

So, as ice cream is made out of processed milk it must mean they both possess the same status from the RoG point of view. Thus a puddle of processed milk on the ground is an Obstruction, by your own words.

Shall I go further or are you beginning to see my point?

[Newby]

The milk I drink occasionally comes direct from a local farm ie the cow. (natural) The farm I buy it from also produces their own ice cream. (manufactured)

[sui generis]

Why is Mr Bean arguing with himself? "Shall I go further or are you beginning to see my point?"

Please don't . . . ?

[rogolf]

If manufactured ice is dumped out of a cup onto a cart path and melts, is the resulting water still an obstruction or is it temporary water?

[Sawgrass]

I think you’re beginning to see MY point, expressed early on and multiple times.

[Sawgrass]

I’d have to say that by melting manufactured ice re-becomes water, in this case temporary water — otherwise one would need proof of the heritage of two nearby puddles to determine their rules status . . . and that would be annoying.

[rogolf]

I agree, so, by melting, the obstruction has been transformed into temporary water. Why not the same for melting ice cream? (Nobody questions the composition of the manufactured ice - it contains several other components (minerals), why question the components contained in the water that forms the ice cream?)

[antip]

Manufactured ice is a bit unusual in that it entirely returns to water in the right conditions. So fully melted, it would be temporary water if that definition is met - in many situations it would only be pooled on the surface of the ground for a very brief period or even not at all. If part melted with some ice remaining, then the interference could be twofold - temporary water and MO at the player's discretion.

A patch of melted ice cream is far more likely to remain a stickly little blob (that's the extent of my chemistry knowledge) and make it's presence felt on the golf ball.