Altering physical conditions

[nsxguy]

Finally heard something new today.

 

It's always windy here in South Florida. Today I played with a guy who laid down the flagstick past the hole in his line of play.

 

Run it past and hit the flagstick and it's 2 shots. He knew that.

 

So I asked him why he put the flagstick there and he told me "To block the wind from affecting my ball".

 

Welllllll, I can't see in any way, shape or form how that skinny stick could possibly affect the wind along the ground and even if it did how one would adjust for it but,,,,,,,,,, that HAS to be against the Rules, no ?

 

We discussed it a bit and I told him as much and he agreed it was probably against the Rules but then he said "But if I didn't tell you, you wouldn't know" and I said to him it didn't matter - HE would know.

 

Now I can find a lot more than this to get incensed about and since I didn't think there was a chance in the world the stick would actually help him I just forgot about and figured I'd ask here.

 

So which rule ? I looked through the interpretations and Rule 8 seems to apply but I can't quite figure out exactly why.

 

Ideas ?  

[Halebopp]

The rule conserned with preparing for and making a stroke. 🙂

Edited June 3, 2021 by Halebopp

[Colin L]

8.2b because what he is trying to do is to affect where his ball is going to end up by preventing the wind from getting to it - daft as that may seem.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Colin L

[davep043]

36 minutes ago, Colin L said:

8.2b because what he is trying to do is to affect where his ball is going to end up by preventing the wind from getting to it - daft as that may seem.

Agree, because intent counts here, more than the reality that the flag stick won't influence the wind enough to make a difference.

[antip]

Correct answer is 10.2b(5), second bullet point

. With...any other...object deliberately positioned to give protection from....wind..

 

This is the "Mike Harwood" rule, following a notorious incident at the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne years back when Harwood got his caddie to lay his golf bag to deflect the wind before he putted.

Edited June 4, 2021 by antip
minor tweak

[nsxguy]

31 minutes ago, antip said:

Correct answer is 10.2b(5), second bullet point

. With...any other...object deliberately positioned to give protection from....wind..

 

This is the "Mike Harwood" rule, following a notorious incident at the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne years back when Harwood got his caddie to lay his golf bag to deflect the wind before he putted.

 

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, antip said:

Correct answer is 10.2b(5), second bullet point

. With...any other...object deliberately positioned to give protection from....wind..

 

This is the "Mike Harwood" rule, following a notorious incident at the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne years back when Harwood got his caddie to lay his golf bag to deflect the wind before he putted.

Thanks for that.   The specificity obviously trumps my suggestion   but I'll be a bit defensive and argue that 8.2b prohibits the action as well.  Would you agree?

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, antip said:

Correct answer is 10.2b(5), second bullet point

. With...any other...object deliberately positioned to give protection from....wind..

 

This is the "Mike Harwood" rule, following a notorious incident at the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne years back when Harwood got his caddie to lay his golf bag to deflect the wind before he putted.

Thanks for that.   The specificity of that obviously betters my suggestion,   but I'll be a bit defensive and argue that 8.2b prohibits the action as well.  Would you agree?

 

(My first attempt at this post has been referred to a moderator.  I expect it's because In all innocence, where I now have "betters"  I  used the word well known in a card playing context  which also happens to be the name of the  former US President. Nice one! ) 

[Halebopp]

16 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Thanks for that.   The specificity of that obviously betters my suggestion,   but I'll be a bit defensive and argue that 8.2b prohibits the action as well.  Would you agree?

 

(My first attempt at this post has been referred to a moderator.  I expect it's because In all innocence, where I now have "betters"  I  used the word well known in a card playing context  which also happens to be the name of the  former US President. Nice one! ) 

 

While I was also drawn to 10.2 (but it was past my bedtime so I didn't dig up the rule), 8.2 does seem to cover the same issue because the wind would be affecting the place where the ball might go and come to rest after a stroke.

[antip]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Thanks for that.   The specificity of that obviously betters my suggestion,   but I'll be a bit defensive and argue that 8.2b prohibits the action as well.  Would you agree?

 

(My first attempt at this post has been referred to a moderator.  I expect it's because In all innocence, where I now have "betters"  I  used the word well known in a card playing context  which also happens to be the name of the  former US President. Nice one! ) 

That is a logical question because the principles seem very close - but I think the answer may be no, because the potential prohibition in 8.2 could be over-ridden by the specific permission provided in the second para of 10.2b(5) - "Before the stroke is made, such help or protection is allowed....".  This suggests no breach prior to the stroke, with the stroke being the trigger for the 10.2b(5) breach. But there could be some interesting questions here that may smoke out further nuances in these rules.

 

Please advise the xxxx in President xxxx. 

[rogolf]

There was a prohibition in old Decision 1-2/2.  The mapping summary says that outcome of that Decision has changed and refers to 10.2b.

[antip]

54 minutes ago, rogolf said:

There was a prohibition in old Decision 1-2/2.  The mapping summary says that outcome of that Decision has changed and refers to 10.2b.

Precisely, the change in 10.2b(5) is to limit the breach to when the ball is struck, protection before is now expressly permitted. 

[nsxguy]

6 hours ago, antip said:

Please advise the xxxx in President xxxx. 

 

Do you play "Bridge" ?

 

Consider the bid "3 no txxxx".

[Newby]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Do you play "Bridge" ?

 

Consider the bid "3 no txxxx".

Surely "3 no txxxxs"

[rogolf]

8 hours ago, antip said:

Precisely, the change in 10.2b(5) is to limit the breach to when the ball is struck, protection before is now expressly permitted. 

Can you explain that further?  Thanks.

[antip]

9 hours ago, rogolf said:

Can you explain that further?  Thanks.

Old D1-2/2 said protecting the line of putt from the wind is a penalty, period. Doesn't matter if the protection is removed before the stroke. Mapping Summary says D1-2/2 has changed, see 10.2b(5). 10.2b(5) says you cannot make a stroke with an object deliberately placed to protect from the wind, but such protection is permitted before the stroke.