The Rules of Golf are tricky! Thankfully, we’ve got the guru. Our Rules Guy knows the book front to back. Got a question? He’s got all the answers.
I am hoping you can clarify Rule 23.8 – the restriction on a player standing behind their partner when stroke is played. At my club, we inform all foursomes match competitors that any breach of this rule will result in the general penalty being applied. Yet when you watch the Ryder Cup, Solheim Cup or that televised Parent-Child tournament, you sometimes see a player clearly stand directly their partner to get a read on how the putt moves. Can this rule be excluded from the playing conditions? – Ken Shaw, New Zealand
Ken, we haven’t seen what you have been, at least in the Ryder Cup and Solheim Cup, but your query is a chance to elucidate some related issues.
The restriction on being in the standing-behind position has a start time and a stop time. A player is allowed to be in this position for any reason before their partner starts taking their stance, and for any reason other than helping their partner’s aiming up until the stroke is made.
Again, in neither the Ryder Cup nor the Solheim Cup have we seen a partner in breach of Rule 23.8 or Rule 10.2b(4) given the requisite timelines. (We’ve seen plenty of horrible fan behavior, yes, but not that.)
Now, you may well have seen these Rules excluded in the parent-child event, the PNC Championship, which is a two-person scramble. Officially, no, you can’t just throw out a Rule of Golf; that said, scrambles are just a different beast and already toss aside any number of Rules, so there’s been general acceptance that 23.8 and 10.2b(4) just get excluded/ignored in scrambles.
Should the USGA or R&A ever put on a Scramble Championship, which might happen should hell freeze over, perhaps that would change.
For more partner-related guidance from our guru, read on …
Upon reaching our drives, my playing partner and I found that our golf balls were touching and perfectly lined up toward the hole. My ball was in front, so I marked it. His approach produced a massive divot; to replace my ball in its original spot would have meant being in this newly created divot. I claimed I was entitled to a free drop, he said I wasn’t. Who was right? – Brick Rigden, Parkville, Mo.
In a word, neither.
Under Rule 14.2d, you were entitled to relief but not a drop.
When you lifted for interference, you were required to replace the ball … but when the lie of a ball to be replaced is altered, you must replace it in a specific way. Namely, by replacing it on the nearest spot with a lie most similar to the original lie that’s within one club-length of said spot, no nearer the hole and in the same area of the course.
