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.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

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.

It was a local professional & ex-Tour player

 

[mikejohnchapman]

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.

The irony is that they don't use them currently on the greens. Possibly a next step. Not sure they would use them during hours of play.

 

[D-S]

Sorry to take this slightly away from rules, but when we were in Portugal one of the courses had a large sit on Toro fairway mowers set up as robot mowers with no one on board (quite unnerving to see such a large machine trundling around on its own). This was retro fitted so presumably you could do exactly the same with a greens mower but, as mentioned, not sensible to do with players on the green.

 

[PaulMdj]

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.

Does it make any difference that the robotic mower is “moving” ie, when the putt is taken the mower’s position is not an issue, but because the mower has now moved and has come in to contact with the ball it changes it’s definition or how it is looked at.

 

[Steven Rules]

It makes no difference whether the mower is stationary or moving. In this scenario, all that matters is that the ball is on the putting green when it is played and the movable obstruction is on the putting green when the ball hits it.

Where the stationary/moving status is important is in relation to another ball on the putting green.

If a ball played from the putting green hits another ball at rest on the putting green, and both balls were on the putting green prior to the stroke, the first ball is played as it lies, the second ball is replaced on it's original spot, and a two stroke penalty applies to the first ball. (Addendum for completeness and accuracy - two stroke penalty in stroke play, no penalty in match play.)

If a ball in motion played from the putting green accidentally hits another ball in motion on the putting green, the stroke must be replayed without penalty.

 

[Steven Rules]

Sounds like a hypothetical scenario that will likely never ever happen

The robotic mower might be a remote possibility, but the same principle would apply if the ball played from the putting green hit any number of far more plausible movable obstructions on the putting green (e.g. a towel, a club other than the club used to make the stroke, a golf bag), or another player (other than the person attending the flagstick) on the putting green, or a bird on the putting green.

 

[salfordlad]

The Director for Rules Education at the USGA has guided thus for this type of scenario: if an object is both outside influence and a movable obstruction (as is the case here), it needs to be treated as a movable obstruction as that is the more specific definition. [Aside, some objects can meet multiple definitions simultaneously.]
This stroke must be replayed, per 11.1b(2), as some others have noted.