Ball below surface - old rule?

[D-S]

People I know over the years seem to reference a rule, when the issue of abnormal course conditions arises, where a player gets relief ifthe entire ball is below the surface of the ground. I have never seen such a rule, obviously we now have rules re animal holes but this doesn’t refer to the ball being entirely below the surface.
Does anyone know which old rule they are referencing or is this just an old myth?

 

[Steven Rules]

I'm not aware of anything and there is certainly nothing in any Rule book that I have going back to the early 80s.

The old definition of 'holed' used to require all of the ball to be below the level of the lip of the hole. Not any more. But I don't think that is what you are talking about.

 

[rulefan]

People I know over the years seem to reference a rule, when the issue of abnormal course conditions arises, where a player gets relief ifthe entire ball is below the surface of the ground. I have never seen such a rule, obviously we now have rules re animal holes but this doesn’t refer to the ball being entirely below the surface.
Does anyone know which old rule they are referencing or is this just an old myth?

Do you mean Rule 16.3 Embedded Ball?

 

[wjemather]

People I know over the years seem to reference a rule, when the issue of abnormal course conditions arises, where a player gets relief ifthe entire ball is below the surface of the ground. I have never seen such a rule, obviously we now have rules re animal holes but this doesn’t refer to the ball being entirely below the surface.
Does anyone know which old rule they are referencing or is this just an old myth?

I've also heard people say this - and that embedded ball relief involves just rolling the ball out - but I've never seen either in the actual rules.

 

[rulie]

Go to Leith Society website and look under Rules History.

 

[D-S]

Do you mean Rule 16.3 Embedded Ball?

No, I don't believe they are referencing this rule.

They talk about getting relief if the entire ball is below the surface of the ground (this is the common denominator) - be it in a divot, a hole or a crack. It has been asked of me on a few separate occasions, which leads me to believe that there must have been something in the past or perhaps a conflation of two different rules?

 

[jim8flog]

I have a vague memory about some rule about deciding where the ball is when it has gone down a hole but this was probably about a lost ball and not having to identify it or decide exactly where it is. Also something about holes in bunkers or near to bunkers is ringing in my head.

 

[salfordlad]

A ball in an abnormal course condition is entitled to relief, entirely underground does not change that basic entitlement. However, application of relief and consideration of whether Rule 16.1a(3) applies (no relief when clearly unreasonable) can be influenced by whether a ball is underground versus not underground. This distinction can be important in unusual cases. 16.1a(3)/3 and 16.1b/1 touch on this issue.

 

[Steven Rules]

Yes but, despite the fact that the OP mentions abnormal course conditions in the second line of #1, I think he is talking more generally about a former rule or myth:

about getting relief if the entire ball is below the surface of the ground (this is the common denominator) - be it in a divot, a hole or a crack.

regardless of any connection (or not) to the current defintion of abnormal course condition.

I don't think the underlying substance of this question is about the current Rule 16.