Ball moved in the process of address

[cookelad]

During our match yesterday against another club, one of our guys moved his ball on the green while addressing a putt, he believed it wasn't a penalty if he replaced the ball but suggested that they play on with 2 scores in mind 4up or 3up and get a ruling at the end.
Obviously the first port of call was the pro who agreed with our player that there was no penalty as long as the ball was moved in the process of addressing the ball an was replaced, quoting rule 18 iii, when I was shown the rule it seemed a bit grey but I could see why it could be interpreted this way, but still think it was bad ruling.
He won the match from the 3up position anyway, but can any of the rules aficionados clarify?

 

[Fyldewhite]

First question to answer is did the ball move? It's defined in the rules and if it just wobbles and stays in the same place it hasn't moved and no penalty. I assume (hope) that the pro was interpreting the events along these lines when he said no penalty. If it does move (ie comes to rest in a different spot) then it is a penalty and replace the ball.

Also, in matchplay you need to agree at the time, not "play with two scores".

 

[Foxholer]

Here's my take!

Once it has been determined that the ball did actually move - as opposed to simply oscillating and coming to rest in the same place it started:

Depends on whether the player caused it to move or it moved because of an outside influence (as opposed to an Outside Agency).

If Player caused it to move, then 1 shot penalty and ball should be replaced. If known or virtually certain that player didn't cause it to move, then no penalty and play it from where it (now) lies.

The slight complication in this case is that the Rules state 'after the player has addressed the ball' whereas the OP mentions 'during address'! I'd suggest that unless the player can identify the cause of the movement, then he would be deemed to have moved it.

Another issue is that if the player did not move the ball, then it should have been played from where it ended up. By lifting and putting it back to the original position, the player has breached 18-2 (i), so 1 shot Penalty and by not replacing it has played from a wrong place (R20) which is loss of hole!

I will, however gladly accede to more experienced Rules bods, as I am sure this situation will have come up quite often!

 

[Colin L]

By saying the "player moved the ball" I take it that Cookelad is saying that the player clearly caused the ball to move. It does not matter whether he had addressed the ball or not, it is, as said above a 1 stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced. If the ball was not replaced, the player loses the hole.

If the pro really said there is no penalty for moving a ball in the process of addressing it, he is wildly off beam. Was he thinking of moving the ball in the process of marking it, I wonder? Which Rule was he quoting, Cookelad? There isn't an 18 iii. What you describe is very straightforward - and fully covered in Rule 18-2. You cause your ball to move other than in a few specific situations - you are penalised.

By wrongly playing a second ball, this player played a wrong ball and loses the hole for that, or he had already lost it for playing from a wrong place by failing to replace the moved ball. It just depends which he did first. Not his finest hour, then.

Have a look at Rule 2-5 for what do to if there is doubt or disagreement in matchplay as to how to proceed. Essentially, the player must do what he thinks is right and if his opponent disagrees he must make a claim to be decided afterwards by the Committee.

 

[duncan mackie]

......... there was no penalty as long as the ball was moved in the process of addressing the ball an was replaced, quoting rule 18 iii, when I was shown the rule it seemed a bit grey but I could see why it could be interpreted this way, but still think it was bad ruling.
/QUOTE]

1. There is no 18 iii. Rule 18-3 deals with opponents, their caddies or equipment and decision 18/3 deals with a ball in a tree.
2. You are permitted to touch the ball in the act of addressing it
3. If you cause it to move you are required to replace it and get a 1 stroke penalty.

 

[Tashyboy]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
Also, in matchplay you need to agree at the time, not "play with two scores".

without opening a can of worms and going off topic most of the lads I play with would not know the ruling on this and if that's the case how can you agree on whether to play on with the score 3 up or 4 up if your not sure.

i actually thought with all four agreeing to play with two scores was quite gentlemanly, until further confirmation from the pro. The fact he may or may not of got it wrong is now the subject of this topic. Why do you need to come to an agreement at that time?

cheers guys[/FONT]

 

[atticusfinch]

First, by agreeing to wait to make a claim the players may have breached rule 1-3 and be disqualified. Read rule 2-5 about timely claims and how to proceed.

 

[Colin L]

First, by agreeing to wait to make a claim the players may have breached rule 1-3 and be disqualified. Read rule 2-5 about timely claims and how to proceed.

1-3? How can two players who did not know how to proceed under the Rules be said to waive a rule? You can hardly agree to set aside a Rule unless you know what the Rule is you are setting aside.

 

[atticusfinch]

They knew enough to know there was a potential penalty in what they did. They resolved it by agreeing not to figure out until after the match was over...in other words they agreed to not file a timely claim. They may not have known the term for what they did, but they knew the rule was there. In my view that is enough to breach 1-3.

I have always thought the rbs created another monster when they found in a case that ignorance of a rule means 1-3 cannot be breached. I am not inclined to let them off too easily. If a player knows enough to be cautious about calling a penalty he knows enough to be held accountable for agreeing to waive them even if he cannot quote chapter and verse. Not an easy question made more difficult by another instance where we have to get into the mind of the player.

 

[cookelad]

So another grey area arises! Just read 2.5 so 1 players says there's no penalty opponent says this is a penalty therefore makes a claim before teeing off on the next tee, correct so far? No representative of the committee is available immediately or in a reasonable time so continued without delay seems to satisfy rule 2.5 to me? At the first opportunity a representative of the club (the pro)was consulted, what else could be done? Our player knew he was either 3 up or 4 up depending on the final ruling but said he and his opponent played as if the score was down to 3 as if he'd lost the hole.

I don't think anyone was agreeing to waive a rule, the opponent made his claim on the green and an agreement couldn't be reached over who was correct and a representative wasn't there nor could be found to confirm either way.

 

[duncan mackie]

So another grey area arises! Just read 2.5 so 1 players says there's no penalty opponent says this is a penalty therefore makes a claim before teeing off on the next tee, correct so far? No representative of the committee is available immediately or in a reasonable time so continued without delay seems to satisfy rule 2.5 to me? At the first opportunity a representative of the club (the pro)was consulted, what else could be done? Our player knew he was either 3 up or 4 up depending on the final ruling but said he and his opponent played as if the score was down to 3 as if he'd lost the hole.

I don't think anyone was agreeing to waive a rule, the opponent made his claim on the green and an agreement couldn't be reached over who was correct and a representative wasn't there nor could be found to confirm either way.

no grey area that I can see - you seem to have summed it up well in this post (and those that say you can' continue with 2 scores' need to review the rules of a claim situation; that's exactly what you do when you can't agree).

 

[Colin L]

I'm sorry I misunderstood the OP and read it to mean the player had played a second ball. If I've got it right this time, he replaced the ball, holed out with it and accepted that the doubt (play as it lay/replace, penalty/no penalty) needed to be resolved by someone in authority later on in order to get the correct outcome of that hole. There is no problem with that. The only agreement the players made was to carry on and get the matter resolved later because of the uncertainty about how to proceed which is a proper course of action in terms of 2-5. Agreeing to waive rule (3-1) just doesn't come into it.

It isn't a matter of getting a ruling after the match is over; it's about getting a ruling before it's over in order to reach the correct outcome of the match. In this case the only question was whether the player won by 3 or 4 holes; in another case where a player was 1 up after 18 holes and a claim against him was upheld, the state of the match would be all square and therefore not over: the players would need to go to the 19th

 

[atticusfinch]

I think the proper procedure is for the player to chose what is the correct procedure and then let his opponent make a claim. the claim may not be resolved till later but by agreeing to defer any decision by the player until the match was over is a waiver of the rule requiring a timely claim. The net result may be the same but one follows the rules and the other doesn't. JMHO.

 

[cookelad]

Who was the pro who did something similar a few months back?

 

[Foxholer]

I think the proper procedure is for the player to chose what is the correct procedure and then let his opponent make a claim. the claim may not be resolved till later but by agreeing to defer any decision by the player until the match was over is a waiver of the rule requiring a timely claim. The net result may be the same but one follows the rules and the other doesn't. JMHO.

That seems to be the 'proper' procedure to me - a subtle, but important, difference from the 'lets find out later' aggreement. Then all that needs to happen is for the 'authority' to actually make the correct ruling - which in this case was way off! Lucky it didn't matter in this case!

 

[delc]

During our match yesterday against another club, one of our guys moved his ball on the green while addressing a putt, he believed it wasn't a penalty if he replaced the ball but suggested that they play on with 2 scores in mind 4up or 3up and get a ruling at the end.
Obviously the first port of call was the pro who agreed with our player that there was no penalty as long as the ball was moved in the process of addressing the ball an was replaced, quoting rule 18 iii, when I was shown the rule it seemed a bit grey but I could see why it could be interpreted this way, but still think it was bad ruling.
He won the match from the 3up position anyway, but can any of the rules aficionados clarify?

If a player causes the ball to move in the act of addressing it, it must be replaced and a one stroke penalty added. Rule 18-2b. In matchplay any doubt as to correct procedure is covered by Rule 2-5.

 

[rulefan]

If a player causes the ball to move in the act of addressing it, it must be replaced and a one stroke penalty added. Rule 18-2b. In matchplay any doubt as to correct procedure is covered by Rule 2-5.

This was answered in post #2.

 

[Colin L]

I think the proper procedure is for the player to chose what is the correct procedure and then let his opponent make a claim. the claim may not be resolved till later but by agreeing to defer any decision by the player until the match was over is a waiver of the rule requiring a timely claim. The net result may be the same but one follows the rules and the other doesn't. JMHO.

The player proceeded in the way he thought was correct but was himself was in doubt about being right. The players agreed to refer the matter to the Committee and then to adjust the state of the match according to the ruling. That is what Rule 2-5 is for. It is obviously worded to cater for a disagreement, but how can we turn that against players who are both in doubt and decide amicably to refer to the Committee? Are you seriously suggesting that we disqualify two players who conduct themselves in a friendly, sporting manner and agree to proceed in a way that R2-5 allows? There is no substantive difference between R2-5 being invoked in the course of a disputed procedure and being agreed to in the course of shared doubt.

As to agreeing to waive the requirement to make a timely claim, that makes no sense to me at all. These players decided on the referral to the committee on the putting green where the doubt arose i.e. before teeing off on the next hole. That is timely.

 

[Foxholer]

Are you seriously suggesting that we disqualify two players who conduct themselves in a friendly, sporting manner and agree to proceed in a way that R2-5 allows? There is no substantive difference between R2-5 being invoked in the course of a disputed procedure and being agreed to in the course of shared doubt.

As to agreeing to waive the requirement to make a timely claim, that makes no sense to me at all. These players decided on the referral to the committee on the putting green where the doubt arose i.e. before teeing off on the next hole. That is timely.

That wouldn't actually involve a DQ imo - as there is not actually a 'waiver of the rule requiring a timely claim (I was going to comment, but the rest made so much sense to me). It would simply mean that any 'claim' had not been 'timely' so would be rejected.

If the players knew that that was a requirement, then they could amicably select the most likely outcome that one of them is happy to use, risking a Loss of Hole penalty if wrong, and agree that the 'sufferer' make a claim against that. That way, the procedural requirements required by The Rules have been fulfilled and the deferment to proper authority has also been achieved - which, I believe, is what AF was suggesting.

The question really is, I believe, whether discussing the issue before teeing off on the next tee and agreeing to seek a decision from a 'higher authority' is actually 'making a claim'. If it is, then no problem as they have complied with the rule. If not, then there is an issue with how you deal with that particular hole and I believe it must be handled as if there was no rule breach - equivalent (identical even) to a non-timely claim - because that is what it is. I think that it is enough to be deemed 'making a claim', but others may disagree - AF's the lawyer, but it's pro bono work !

The situation really is a disagreement! It's just that the correct procedure isn't known by either party!

 

[atticusfinch]

These players decided on the referral to the committee

Contained in this artfully crafted phrase is "agreement to defer making a claim."

Are you seriously suggesting that we disqualify two players who conduct themselves in a friendly, sporting manner

Yes. I know of no exception to 1-3 for sporting agreements. All breaches of the rules are done in a sporting manner. I am philosophically opposed to making rulings based on players' motives or state of mind or my concept of fairness unless the rule clearly requires it. (I am in a camp that used to be called hardliners.)

I don't disagree that this probably happens all the time and a local committee would not DQ the players, but the purpose of this board is to apply the rules to facts presented, not look for ways to support erroneous rulings or misconceptions about the rules. IMHO