Ball in Motion on Green Hits Robotic Mower

[mikejohnchapman]

A group of us attended a rules quiz recently at a club which has deployed a fleet of robotic mowers. Several questions referred to interaction with mowers - most of which were pretty obvious. However, one related to a putt on a green hitting a mower and going into the hole. The answer was it was holed. The logic being the mower was an outside influence and the ball should be played as it lies (IE in the hole).

My instinctive answer was the shot should be replayed without penalty but try as I might I cannot find any definitive answer in the rules.

I appreciate we are getting into "ask the umpire on TMS" territory here but with robotic mower becoming ever more popular it did make me wonder.

Anybody got any experience of something like this?

 

[backwoodsman]

I'd suggest that 11.1b(2) confirms your belief that the stroke should be re-played

 

[nickjdavis]

I'd suggest that 11.1b(2) confirms your belief that the stroke should be re-played

mmm....not convinced its that clear cut.

the Robotic Mower is either an "outside influence" or a "movable obstruction"....I'm not sure it can be both but I can see arguments either way as to which one it should/could be.

In the former case then play the ball as it lies...i.e. its holed; but in the latter then yes the shot should be replayed.

 

[rulie]

mmm....not convinced its that clear cut.

the Robotic Mower is either an "outside influence" or a "movable obstruction"....I'm not sure it can be both but I can see arguments either way as to which one it should/could be.

In the former case then play the ball as it lies...i.e. its holed; but in the latter then yes the shot should be replayed.

Did you look at the definition of outside influence, part of which says, "any natural or artificial object or anything else, except for natural forces"?
Would it be different if the ball had hit a mower being driven by a person?
But then, definition of obstruction also says "golf carts, mowers, cars and other vehicles"
Perhaps confirm with the R&A.

 

[Viewer]

Why so complicated? It’s just play it as it lies

 

[backwoodsman]

mmm....not convinced its that clear cut.

the Robotic Mower is either an "outside influence" or a "movable obstruction"....I'm not sure it can be both but I can see arguments either way as to which one it should/could be.

In the former case then play the ball as it lies...i.e. its holed; but in the latter then yes the shot should be replayed.

Reading the definitions, I'd say that things can be both - ie all movable obstuctions are outside influences. (But not all outside influences are movable obstructions). And the definition of 'movable obstruction' specifically mentions 'mowers'.

 

[Steven Rules]

It would be nice to say that 11.1b(2) is as plain as day, but this is one that the authors have over-complicated. I have made my own little precis of this Rule to try and de-complicate it.

The correct answer is to replay the stroke. Who was in charge of the questions and answers and suggesting the opposite?

The mower is a movable obstruction and doesn't fall into the exception categories at the second bullet point (i.e. club used to make the stroke, ball-marker, ball at rest, flagstick).

The mower is simultaneously an outside influence.

 

[nickjdavis]

It would be nice to say that 11.1b(2) is as plain as day, but this is one that the authors have over-complicated. I have made my own little precis of this Rule to try and de-complicate it.

The correct answer is to replay the stroke. Who was in charge of the questions and answers and suggesting the opposite?

The mower is a movable obstruction and doesn't fall into the exception categories at the second bullet point (i.e. club used to make the stroke, ball-marker, ball at rest, flagstick).

The mower is simultaneously an outside influence.

So how do you reconcile the "conflict" between the two definitions as to how to proceed when the ball bounces off the mower and goes in the hole (for a stroke played from the green)....how did the "movable obstruction clause " gain precedence if you like, over "the outside influence" in your decision making as a referee?

Really interested to hear the "thought process" in this one where, to my mind, folk could easily get into an argument on course about the outcome.

 

[nickjdavis]

Why so complicated? It’s just play it as it lies

its a bit difficult when the ball is in the hole which was the scenario outlined in the OP.

 

[Steven Rules]

So how do you reconcile the "conflict" between the two definitions as to how to proceed when the ball bounces off the mower and goes in the hole (for a stroke played from the green)....how did the "movable obstruction clause " gain precedence if you like, over "the outside influence" in your decision making as a referee?

Really interested to hear the "thought process" in this one where, to my mind, folk could easily get into an argument on course about the outcome.

There is no conflict. It is just written in a way that can be hard for the casual observer to follow.

The first sentence provides general guidance to play the ball as it lies:

If a player’s ball in motion played from the putting green accidentally hits the player or an outside influence, the ball must normally be played as it lies.

Then the second sentence (which starts with the word 'But' in bold letters) goes on to list a number of items where the first sentence doesn't apply and the stroke needs to be replayed:

But if it is known or virtually certain that the ball in motion hit any of the following on the putting green, the player must replay the stroke...

As I said in my previous post, the mower is a movable obstruction that fits the exceptions of the second sentence.

The overall structure of this Rule is a dog's breakfast problmatic. The first sentence makes a sweeping general statement. But then the second sentence and the three main bullet points introduce some exceptions. And then within the three bullet points, the sub-bullet points list exceptions to the exceptions.

 

[Neilds]

Slightly different slant on this question - why would a club be using a robotic mower on the greens? They are not suitable for the close cut that is required on a green so I cannot think of any reason why a club would use them on a green.

 

[Swango1980]

Slightly different slant on this question - why would a club be using a robotic mower on the greens? They are not suitable for the close cut that is required on a green so I cannot think of any reason why a club would use them on a green.

I was thinking the same thing. And I was also wondering that even if robotic mowers were used on greens, why would a player be making a putt when it was anywhere near their line of putt?

Sounds like a hypothetical scenario that will likely never ever happen, but makes a fun talking point for some. Golf quizes love to invent weird outcomes to golf rules.

 

[Orikoru]

In Happy Gilmore he has to putt when there's a fallen camera tower in his way, and he just gets on with it, so I'd imagine if you ping one in off a lawnmower it just counts as holed.