RoG and penal offences question

[Paul Schmitz-Josten]

Hi everybody,

in the German newsgroup we are discussing the status of ant hills on the
golf course.

Imagine a ball coming to rest on any part of an ant hill. While Dec. 23/5
declares ant hills as removable loose impediments, there is general legal
protection in Germany for all wildlife including ant populations which
prohibits any action destroying or even damaging their homes, i.e. hills,
without good reason, and I fear that a game of golf doesn't count here.

So, we must not hit the ball on the hill and we must not remove the hill
for legal reasons, although we are granted a right to do so by the RoG for
an undisturbed stroke.

Does it comply with the RoG to declare any ant hill a GUR and take a free
drop? Is there any option second to an "unplayable" declaration, accepting
a penalty stroke?

More generally, I'd like to know if there is any general clause in the
rules which gives relief from strokes which would cause penal offences,
or will an unplayable be the ultima ratio?

Ciao,

Paul

[david s-a]

Post by Paul Schmitz-Josten
Hi everybody,
in the German newsgroup we are discussing the status of ant hills on the
golf course.
Imagine a ball coming to rest on any part of an ant hill. While Dec. 23/5
declares ant hills as removable loose impediments, there is general legal
protection in Germany for all wildlife including ant populations which
prohibits any action destroying or even damaging their homes, i.e. hills,
without good reason, and I fear that a game of golf doesn't count here.
So, we must not hit the ball on the hill and we must not remove the hill
for legal reasons, although we are granted a right to do so by the RoG for
an undisturbed stroke.
Does it comply with the RoG to declare any ant hill a GUR and take a free
drop? Is there any option second to an "unplayable" declaration, accepting
a penalty stroke?
More generally, I'd like to know if there is any general clause in the
rules which gives relief from strokes which would cause penal offences,
or will an unplayable be the ultima ratio?
Ciao,
Paul

Hi Paul,

Given the nature of the national legal protection of the anthills I
would suggest that gives them the same status as 'Environmentally
Sensitive Areas'....where prohibition of play is governed by other than
the RoG. This is addressed in the RoG (App 1,-B -2b). In order that the
sanctity of the RoG is preserved an appropriate relief procedure
relevant to the RoG should be introduced by Local Rule....in other words
antihills in general should be declared as GUR (Play prohibited), and
thus providing the appropriate relief procedure. Not only a penalty
available under the RoG.....but perhaps a more gruesome penalty will
arise under the national legislation!

cheers
david

[Paul Schmitz-Josten]

Post by david s-a
Given the nature of the national legal protection of the anthills I
would suggest that gives them the same status as 'Environmentally
Sensitive Areas'....where prohibition of play is governed by other than
the RoG. This is addressed in the RoG (App 1,-B -2b). In order that the
sanctity of the RoG is preserved an appropriate relief procedure
relevant to the RoG should be introduced by Local Rule....in other words
antihills in general should be declared as GUR (Play prohibited), and
thus providing the appropriate relief procedure. Not only a penalty
available under the RoG.....but perhaps a more gruesome penalty will
arise under the national legislation!

Thanks for the pointer - this will be the "right" way.

OTOH, does a player have a chance for a committee decision "in equity" to
his favour if he would take relief from such mini-habitat?

Can such local rule be imposed by the national golf union, i.e. the DGV in
Germany?

Is my impression correct that there is nothing provided in the rules which
would give a general relief from illegal action?
Maybe, safety thoughts from the Etiquette section and the Spirit of Golf
should be enough?

Ciao,

Paul

[david s-a]

Post by Paul Schmitz-Josten

Post by david s-a
Given the nature of the national legal protection of the anthills I
would suggest that gives them the same status as 'Environmentally
Sensitive Areas'....where prohibition of play is governed by other than
the RoG. This is addressed in the RoG (App 1,-B -2b). In order that the
sanctity of the RoG is preserved an appropriate relief procedure
relevant to the RoG should be introduced by Local Rule....in other words
antihills in general should be declared as GUR (Play prohibited), and
thus providing the appropriate relief procedure. Not only a penalty
available under the RoG.....but perhaps a more gruesome penalty will
arise under the national legislation!

Thanks for the pointer - this will be the "right" way.
OTOH, does a player have a chance for a committee decision "in equity" to
his favour if he would take relief from such mini-habitat?
Can such local rule be imposed by the national golf union, i.e. the DGV in
Germany?
Is my impression correct that there is nothing provided in the rules which
would give a general relief from illegal action?
Maybe, safety thoughts from the Etiquette section and the Spirit of Golf
should be enough?
Ciao,
Paul

Paul,

I think you would find that the Committee is obliged to make provision
for relief in terms of the Rules of Golf if it wishes a player to
proceed and complete his round 'legally'. If no such Local Rule is
imposed then the Committee must take some responsibility for their
players actions which ignore the national legislation......furthermore
they must impose appropriate penalties under the RoG if the player acts
without the authority of the RoG. (ie picks up his ball in play etc).
Obviously there is no 'general' relief from such mini-habitats, a Local
Rule must be specific and be in accordance with the policies of the
Ruling bodies......there are a variety of declarations a Committee can
make about such a mini-habitat which enable relief in accordance with
the RoG.....whether free of penalty or not!

cheers
david

[Paul Schmitz-Josten]

Post by david s-a
I think you would find that the Committee is obliged to make provision
for relief in terms of the Rules of Golf if it wishes a player to
proceed and complete his round 'legally'. If no such Local Rule is
imposed then the Committee must take some responsibility for their
players actions which ignore the national legislation......

Thinking it over, I'd put the responsibility to oblige to governmental laws
to the players. Even if the R&A decision states "you may put the anthill
away", golfers aren't free from their duties as members of their country or
as visitors.

Post by david s-a
furthermore
they must impose appropriate penalties under the RoG if the player acts
without the authority of the RoG. (ie picks up his ball in play etc).
Obviously there is no 'general' relief from such mini-habitats, a Local
Rule must be specific and be in accordance with the policies of the
Ruling bodies......there are a variety of declarations a Committee can
make about such a mini-habitat which enable relief in accordance with
the RoG.....whether free of penalty or not!

Glad that I'm not in such Committee! <g>

Ciao,

Paul