Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusfinch
Because there is a fine line. Address is as close as the player can get to the ball when playing. It is the most likely time when he may cause the ball to move and if he does it may not be perceptible. Some cases may be obvious to all,but some may not. The difficulty of determining if the player caused it to move is considerable and this rule takes the uncertainty out. Years ago many othere rules were what I call "no fault" rules. The player was penalized whether he caused the infraction or not....if a forbidden thing happened, he paid for it. Now some of those have been changed and I think it makes things more difficult....now the potential for arguments about causation
get people on edge and may not resolve the issue. No fault is the cleanest way to go. As long as everyone plays by the same rule, why should it matter if it is frustrating or unfair.
This rule has been on the books for a long time. I wouldn't look for a change.
|
That almost explains it, save for the fact that "hovering" the club mitigates fault and that in itself can present a cause for argument. The obvious reason for this is that it is quite possible to hover a club (let's say a putter) in such a manner as to have the sole of the club barely touching the tops of the grass blades (which by rule is not grounding). And since the grass on a putting green can be as short as 3/32 of an inch, it would be virtually impossible to either prove or disprove that a player was indeed holding the club above the grass rather than resting it upon the grass.
Secondly, the entire concept of hovering discriminates against those players who do not feel comfortable holding a club off the ground at address. Why should a person be forced to alter their routine or habitude in order to avoid a potential penalty while others who
are accustomed to hovering a club needn't alter their setup at all?
Personally, I think the whole "hovering" debate could be rendered moot if the rules regarding address were simply changed to read that once a person assumes a stance over a ball, they are then deemed to have addressed. With such a modification, the the argument of whether one hovers or grounds a club is irrelevant. That would simplify things, in my opinion, and it would at least serve to render all players susceptible to the wind, not just those who ground their club.
-JP