I guess that the following is sort of 'laws pertaining to snakes' ... in a long-shot sort of way ... cheers ...
NAPLES DAILY NEWS (Florida) 13 August 03 From rakes to snakes, Reilly's wrong (Jon Ebert) {Excerpts}
Readers: Last week I began a series of columns in regard to an article written by a senior writer for Sports Illustrated named Rick Reilly. Throughout his article, Reilly criticizes The Rules of Golf and, therefore, the people who created them whom he refers to as "lumps of dandruff," but offers no constructive improvements.
Here are more of his ramblings.
…
Finally, the dead snake. I don't know where he came up with this one, but again, he's dead wrong. A dead snake, as defined by The Rules of Golf, is considered to be a "loose impediment," which is a natural object like a stone or rock, a leaf, a branch and so on. Loose impediments are not fixed or growing, and as long as they're not in a hazard, they may be removed without penalty (Rule 23-1, not Decision 23-6.5).
Next Reilly states that the rules do not permit a player to remove a live snake. This simply is not true. A live snake is defined as an "outside agency." In other words, it's not part of the match, or in stroke play, the competitor's side. The Rules of Golf also cover this situation. You have every right, without penalty, to move a live snake, or chase it away, if you're so inclined. If not, and you feel it's a dangerous situation, Decision 1-4/10 gives the player the option of dropping a ball, without penalty, on the nearest spot not nearer the hole which is not dangerous.
In my opinion, these are good rules and their purpose is for the safety of the players.
Next week I'll continue clarifying more of Rick Reilly's bits of misinformation on The Rules of Golf.
From rakes to snakes, ...
