Ball holed out while ball of fellow-competitor or opponent is still in the hole

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,219
Visit site
My 'not on' the course being not part of the course is wrong. Clearly branches overhanging the boundary of course are part of the course even if the tree they are from is not.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Now that I've actually had a think about it (tea break from gardening!) I would have a different justification for clearing the earth out the hole but much the same procedure to get there. Going to think a little longer before committing though!
 

eagles

Newbie
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3
Visit site
Could anybody point me to the rule or decision re. following situation :
Player A holes out but leaves his ball in the hole.
Subsequently Player B holes out by putting from the green; by doing so his ball obviously hits the ball of Player A while this is in the hole. (Both balls end up / are “at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of it is below the level of the lip of the hole”, that is not the point).
My reading of the rules of golf is that no penalty is incurred, in matchplay (one can even hit the ball of the opponent while it is on the green, without penalty) nor in strokeplay (the ball of fellow-competitor Player A is holed out, hence no longer his ball in play, hence has become an outside agency, hence no penalty ).
But…would anybody agree with some members of my club, who are convinced that in strokeplay Player B does incur a 2 strokes penalty in this case? And which rule justifies this?
Or…is there a ruling by which I hopefully can easily kill this misinterpretation of the rules?

Last sentence should more correctly read as: "Or... is there a DECISION by which etc" - hope this was clear.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
The problem with convincing someone that they have invented a rule is that the rule does not, of course, exist. We can't therefore give them a reference to anything specific. What we can say is a) there is no such rule and if you think there is, you give me a reference to it; and b) here, step by step, is why it is perfectly ok within the rules that do exist for this to happen. Try challenging those people at your club to reference a specific rule and be ready to astound them with the explanations in this thread - the ball in the hole is not in play ......etc. There's no Decision.

Go sock it to them!
 

MashieNiblick

Tour Winner
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
3,710
Location
Berkshire
Visit site
Now, let's have some fun in this realm of the hypothetically improbable. Some prankster comes along and almost fills the hole with earth. Your pitch wedges between the flagstick and the side of the hole but the ball is still above the rim. You walk up and take the flagstick out carefully to allow your ball to drop, but it can't because of the earth. Your ruling, ladies and gentlemen? (Duncan, hold back!)

Ok here's my take. Filling up the hole with soil means the hole no longer conforms and the hole has therefore been damaged.

Decision 16-1a/6 Damaged Hole; Procedure for Player says

"Q. Prior to putting, a player discovers that the hole has been damaged. What is the proper procedure?

A. If the damage is not clearly identifiable as a ball mark, then:
(a) If the damage is such that the proper dimensions of the hole have not been changed materially, the player should continue play without repairing the hole. If he touches the hole in such circumstances, a breach of Rule 16-1a occurs.

(b) If the proper dimensions of the hole have been changed materially, the player should request the Committee to have the hole repaired. If a member of the Committee is not readily available, the player may repair the damage, without penalty.

If a player repairs a materially damaged hole when a member of the Committee is readily available, he incurs a penalty for a breach of Rule 16-1a. (Revised)"

As the player has already putted and would have holed out had the hole been the correct depth I think in equity (Rule 1-4) the player should be deemed to have holed out and may repair or have the hole repaired in accordance with the procedure in Decision 16-1a/6.

I did think that maybe the stroke should be replayed once the hole had been repaired but that might disadvantage the player.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,219
Visit site
Urban myths do deserve their own thread - but one misconception I heard from a lady member I was playing with was interesting.

I noticed how she was taking an inordinate length of time teeing up - but I said nothing. Then on one hole I noticed she's tee'd it up in front of the markers - and pointed this out to her. She apologised as she new that rule - but said that it was just soooo difficult to get the tee peg on the line. What line? I asked. The line between the markers - she replied. I told her about the teeing area there is 'behind' the line. This was completely new to her as she'd been taught by other ladies that you had to tee up on the line. Oh well. She doesn't any more.

Also she'd been taught how to mark the ball - but didn't realise she couldn't touch the ball after she'd replaced it unless it was marked. Again - oh this was something the ladies always do...

And therein lies the problem with playing 'lax' rules when playing friendly. In time, unless you are careful, the relaxation 'for fun' transmutates itself into 'a rule' - or an allowable thing to do,
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Time, I guess, to offer an answer to my own question. As I said, it was just a daft thought that came to mind, not a quiz-type question I already knew the answer to.

The first possible applicable rule to come to mind is 23-1: "any loose impediment may be removed without penalty." Loose soil is a loose impediment on the green. You are permitted to touch your line of putt when removing a loose impediment. I can't think of anything to prohibit clearing out the hole on those grounds but may be missing something. D16-1a-6 seems a secure justification for removing the soil unless a member of the Committee is to hand but I'd rather go with the simpler approach.

Chains are off, Duncan!
 
Top