9 Ball Played as It Lies; Ball at Rest Lifted or Moved

[Mark82]

In a recent match my opponent hit a drive nicely onto the fairway and then proceeded to run his ball over with his sparkly new remote control trolley.

The ball was not lost and not moved while looking for it, nor did not it move under an outside influence - he ran over the ball and it moved a foot or so. He replaced the ball and said no penalty but 9.4b says

Penalty for Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move
If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke.

There are however 4 exceptions which i find quite hard to follow. In simple terms the chap ran over and moved his ball on the fairway with his trolley - is this a penalty or does one the the exceptions apply?

9.4b says deliberately and he said it was an accident uuummm tricky one.....

 

[Orikoru]

Are you suggesting he deliberately moved the ball forward with his trolley?? If not I don't know what the issue is.

 

[rulie]

Let's cut to the chase. It's a one stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced.

 

[Colin L]

Mark - none of the exceptions applies which mens it's not really tricky. Orikuru - whether it was deliberate or not is irrelevant. Notice that Rule 9.4b says, "If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke". It's a list of three things the player is not allowed to do: 1) lift his ball (which is obviously a deliberate action); 2) deliberately touch his ball at rest (which is explicitly a deliberate action); and 3) cause his ball to move (which could be an accidental or a deliberate action). None of the Exceptions applies which brings you to the chase which Rulie cut to: one stroke penalty and replace the ball.

 

[Cake]

Penalty for Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move
If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke.

I can see how this can be misinterpreted... I think it would be clearer if it was worded like this:

Penalty for Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move
If the player causes his ball to move, or lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest, the player gets one penalty stroke.

As then it is clearer that the only element of the rule that is subject to ‘deliberately’ is the touching the ball bit.

 

[Colin L]

Interesting that you would find that clearer. All that it involves is a different ordering of the items in the "list". The sentence structure is unchanged.

 

[Cake]

Interesting that you would find that clearer. All that it involves is a different ordering of the items in the "list". The sentence structure is unchanged.

I agree it technically changes nothing about the list, I can just see that someone may extend the qualifier of ‘deliberately’ to items after the one it directly pertains to, whereas they are unlikely to extend it to include items before it in the list... thereby increasing the chances of someone getting the ruling wrong with the way it is worded as is.

Reminds me of the software design joke:
Partner of a programmer sends them to the supermarket with the instruction “Can you pick up a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs can you get 12”... the supermarket has eggs, so the programmer returns with 12 loaves of bread.

Where there is ambiguity or chance for misinterpretation it inevitably will happen

 

[rulefan]

My old mantra.

If
Then
Else

 

[Foxholer]

My old mantra.

If
Then
Else

Just as long as there is no 'Not' in amongst 'Or's or 'And's!!

As for the original question....Your chain was being pulled! 1 Stroke Penalty & Replace ball - as per Colin's post!

 

[Colin L]

Just as long as there is no 'Not' in amongst 'Or's or 'And's!!

As for the original question....Your chain was being pulled! 1 Stroke Penalty & Replace ball - as per Colin's post!

..... and Rulie's previous chase cutting one.

 

[Orikoru]

Mark - none of the exceptions applies which mens it's not really tricky. Orikuru - whether it was deliberate or not is irrelevant. Notice that Rule 9.4b says, "If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke". It's a list of three things the player is not allowed to do: 1) lift his ball (which is obviously a deliberate action); 2) deliberately touch his ball at rest (which is explicitly a deliberate action); and 3) cause his ball to move (which could be an accidental or a deliberate action). None of the Exceptions applies which brings you to the chase which Rulie cut to: one stroke penalty and replace the ball.

It depends how you read that sentence. When I read 'deliberately touches the ball or causes it to move', my understanding would be that 'deliberately' still applies to the 'causes it to move' part. That is what makes it ambiguous. In this example, the accusing player might read the rule and say "you caused your ball to move so it's a penalty", while the accused could read the same rule and argue "I didn't deliberately cause it to move" - and they would reach an impasse.

 

[Orikoru]

I agree it technically changes nothing about the list, I can just see that someone may extend the qualifier of ‘deliberately’ to items after the one it directly pertains to, whereas they are unlikely to extend it to include items before it in the list... thereby increasing the chances of someone getting the ruling wrong with the way it is worded as is.

Reminds me of the software design joke:
Partner of a programmer sends them to the supermarket with the instruction “Can you pick up a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs can you get 12”... the supermarket has eggs, so the programmer returns with 12 loaves of bread.

Where there is ambiguity or chance for misinterpretation it inevitably will happen

Correct. Similar to what I was saying, the word 'deliberately' in the current rule could be understood to apply to everything that follows it.

It's almost more a question of language than a question of the rule itself.

 

[Colin L]

It depends how you read that sentence. When I read 'deliberately touches the ball or causes it to move', my understanding would be that 'deliberately' still applies to the 'causes it to move' part. That is what makes it ambiguous. In this example, the accusing player might read the rule and say "you caused your ball to move so it's a penalty", while the accused could read the same rule and argue "I didn't deliberately cause it to move" - and they would reach an impasse.

"Deliberately touches the ball or causes it to move" is only part of the statement crucially overlooking how "or" is used. In the context of the full statement it's very clear that deliberately applies only to "touches the ball."

 

[Orikoru]

"Deliberately touches the ball or causes it to move" is only part of the statement crucially overlooking how "or" is used. In the context of the full statement it's very clear that deliberately applies only to "touches the ball."

Well I don't agree. If I was on the course and looked up that rule, I would come away from it thinking you had to deliberately move the ball for it to be a penalty.

It reminds me of the handball law in football, if you actually read it that's also full of little ambiguous phrases that could be interpreted two ways as well. That's why there's always so much confusion and they have to keep rewriting it, as they have done for this season.

If you wanted it to be absolutely 100% clear with no ambiguity, you'd have to write it like this:

"If the player;
1. lifts his or her ball
2. deliberately touches his or her ball at rest
3. causes his or her ball to move
-the player gets one penalty stroke."

 

[Colin L]

If you wanted it to be absolutely 100% clear with no ambiguity, you'd have to write it like this:

"If the player;
1. lifts his or her ball
2. deliberately touches his or her ball at rest
3. causes his or her ball to move
-the player gets one penalty stroke."

Which is exactly how it is structured. As is the title of 9.4b.

 

[Orikoru]

Which is exactly how it is structured.

No it isn't. I could very easily read the current rule as being equivalent to:

"If the player;
1. lifts his or her ball
2. deliberately touches the ball or causes it to move
-the player gets one penalty stroke."

Where the whole of point 2 is encompassed by the word deliberately.

I'm not saying you're incorrect in what the rule intends to say. I'm just saying that the way it is written, surely you can understand how two fellows on the golf course reading the rule may easily misinterpret it in the manner I've suggested? A written rule should be completely free of ambiguity, and it is not.

 

[BubbaP]

Not relevant to the OP, but I'd prefer this part to be re-worded:

the player gets one penalty stroke

That's a whole other debate though!

 

[rulefan]

I agree with Orikoru, it's a classic case of too many or too few 'or's without separation. It just causes confusion.

 

[rulie]

However, the player in the original post incurs a penalty of one stroke.

 

[Colin L]

No it isn't. I could very easily read the current rule as being equivalent to:

"If the player;
1. lifts his or her ball
2. deliberately touches the ball or causes it to move
-the player gets one penalty stroke."

Where the whole of point 2 is encompassed by the word deliberately.

I'm not saying you're incorrect in what the rule intends to say. I'm just saying that the way it is written, surely you can understand how two fellows on the golf course reading the rule may easily misinterpret it in the manner I've suggested? A written rule should be completely free of ambiguity, and it is not.

I'm confident in what the rule does say and that it doesn't say what you say it can say, if you get what I'm saying. That doesn't mean it is as clear and as easily understood as it should be. A sensible writer reviews what he has written when he finds that it is being misunderstood even if it is "correct" and in view of what you're saying I'd would go along with there probably being a need here for a revision of the wording.

However, as Rulie says, it's nonetheless a penalty for the OP's opponent. It isn't a case for the defence that a player misunderstood the wording of the rule even if the wording needs rather closer reading and teasing out than is ideal.