Ball deflected into hole

In Stroke play the FC does have the option to elect to play first rather than mark his ball under 22-2.

Would this also be the case, when a player ist requested, to move the ball marker aside?
 
What if the stationary ball is knocked into the hole and the moving ball stops dead in the stationary balls place- theoretical in this highly unlikely event of course
 
What if the stationary ball is knocked into the hole and the moving ball stops dead in the stationary balls place- theoretical in this highly unlikely event of course

Same as if stationary ball was knocked elsewhere and moving ball 'stops dead'. Both balls are now in the same spot, so spot 'marked' and both balls played from there - probably sensible that moving ball gets played first, as least amount of faffing about required.

In Stroke play the FC does have the option to elect to play first rather than mark his ball under 22-2.
Would this also be the case, when a player ist requested, to move the ball marker aside?
I don't believe so.

Rule 22 is about a Ball interfering with play, not a Ball Marker. Likewise/in equivalence, there is no Penalty for hitting a Ball Marker!
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by McFade View Post
Quote Originally Posted by palindromicbob View Post
In Stroke play the FC does have the option to elect to play first rather than mark his ball under 22-2.
Would this also be the case, when a player ist requested, to move the ball marker aside?

I don't believe so.

Rule 22-2 is about a Ball interfering with play, not a Ball Marker. Likewise/in equivalence, there is no Penalty for hitting a Ball Marker!

In this context we are dealing with 22-2 and a ball interfering with play, rather than creating a possible penalty for striking it on the green.

Whilst there is no penalty for striking a ball marker it can certainly interfere with play and as such a player should be able to request it's movement if he requires by a simple analogy to the ball under 22-2.

extending this to the situation if the player prefers to play rather than move the marker doesn't seem very hard - even easier when you consider that he could simply replace the ball first; when now requested to move it he elects to play directly under 22-2. Furthermore, if he simply replaced the ball and played if requested to move his marker he wouldn't be liable for any penalty anyway.
 
Would this also be the case, when a player ist requested, to move the ball marker aside?

As foxholes has said the rule 22 only applies to a ball.

Rule 20-1 recommends that a ball marker should be moved to the side in the event that it interfere with play, stroke or stance of another player. But this is a recommendation rather than requirement.

In the event that an FC refuses to move a marker that is on the line of another player they could be at risk of DQ under rule 33-7 for a serious breach of etiquette.
 
The ball marker is also a movable obstruction which the player could remove, but it would be a mean spirited kind of golf that could come to that.
 
As foxholes has said the rule 22 only applies to a ball.

Rule 20-1 recommends that a ball marker should be moved to the side in the event that it interfere with play, stroke or stance of another player. But this is a recommendation rather than requirement.

In the event that an FC refuses to move a marker that is on the line of another player they could be at risk of DQ under rule 33-7 for a serious breach of etiquette.

On reflection, I believe that (apart from there being no penalty for striking it) a Ball Marker is pretty much equivalent to a ball so, while, unlike a ball, not specifically mentioned in The Rules, I would expect that the same would apply to a Marker as a Ball - if requested to move it, the option to Putt first instead would be available. If nothing is moving, there is no restriction on a Player replacing a marked ball.
 
Top