Ball not removed from cup

[Franco]

In today's qualifying Stableford, all players were on the green. Player A sank his putt, but did not remove the ball from the cup. Player B, who believed the cup was empty, then sank his ball, so there were two balls in the hole. Player B gave himself a two shot penalty for striking the first ball. I (player C) said that I thought the first ball was dead, so no penalty. I cannot find the rule dealing with this. Please can someone point me in the direction?

 

[atticusfinch]

In today's qualifying Stableford, all players were on the green. Player A sank his putt, but did not remove the ball from the cup. Player B, who believed the cup was empty, then sank his ball, so there were two balls in the hole. Player B gave himself a two shot penalty for striking the first ball. I (player C) said that I thought the first ball was dead, so no penalty. I cannot find the rule dealing with this. Please can someone point me in the direction?

When the first ball was holed it was no longer in play and was just a movable obstruction/outside agency. no penalty for striking it. See defs and R 19-1.

If the second ball did not come to rest below the lip of the hole then it was not holed.

 

[rulie]

In today's qualifying Stableford, all players were on the green. Player A sank his putt, but did not remove the ball from the cup. Player B, who believed the cup was empty, then sank his ball, so there were two balls in the hole. Player B gave himself a two shot penalty for striking the first ball. I (player C) said that I thought the first ball was dead, so no penalty. I cannot find the rule dealing with this. Please can someone point me in the direction?

As above, no breach of any Rule.

Another Rules myth - please help eliminate it!!! (It's like the "Rule" that there is a penalty for keeping score with a pencil that has an eraser on it.) Perhaps we should have a thread on Rules myths? It might be entertaining.

 

[BubbaP]

Just put 'myths' in the search box and you will find a couple

 

[rulefan]

From the USGA website.


Rules FAQ

Holing Ball While Another Ball is in Hole

Q.Is it a breach of a Rule for a ball to be holed while another ball is at rest in the hole?

A.No.

Both balls are holed (see Definition of "Holed") and there are no penalties incurred by either player.

It is a breach of Etiquette for the first player to leave his ball in the hole if the second player has asked him to remove it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

...no problem unless (for whatever reason) the 'cup' is not deep enough, or there is detritus at the bottom of it, that means all of the second ball is not beneath the rim of the cup?

But that doesn't feel right because consecutive hole-outs from distance could happen and it would be distinctly unfair on the second player if his ball was deemed to be 'not holed-out'. I am assuming that the rules would permit either of the players to 'mark' the position of the second ball (on the circumference of the hole closest to that ball - it will inevitably be touching the side of the hole at some point), and then remove the first ball. And in replacing the second ball it of course drops into the hole. I guess that's how that would work.

 

[Franco]

Thank you all for the info. In the cause of eradicating myths I have let player B know that there is in fact no penalty, along with the rule and definition. I have a feeling that he would prefer not to be made aware and I will move down the list of those with whom he likes to play a round of golf!!

 

[woody69]

Why on earth would anyone think this was a penalty?! What happens if someone holes out from over 200 yards on a par3 and then someone does the same thing. "No sorry, it's not a hole in one because the guy before you got there before you and couldn't be bothered to walk the 200 yards to take his ball out the cup, 'just in case'"?!?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ah yes - but the rules of golf often tend to cover the most outrageous and apparently ludicrous and unlikely scenarios. But in this case it's the other way around.

 

[duncan mackie]

Ah yes - but the rules of golf often tend to cover the most outrageous and apparently ludicrous and unlikely scenarios. But in this case it's the other way around.

Not sure what you mean? Woody's logic is exemplary, and is exactly why we have many rules the way we have as well as exceptions when the bizarre is counter to an embedded principle.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I fully agree with woodys analysis. I am simply saying that if something seems ludicrous to penalise a player for doing - that is not a good guide as to whether it is a rule break or not.

An example.

Player A is just off the green and about to play. Player B has played on and is close to the hole - so goes to ball, marks it and picks it up. Then steps a yard to the side of the flag waiting to take it out after Player A has played on. Player A plays and holes out - hitting flag on way in. Player A incurs two stroke penalty in stroke play and loss of hole in match play as he did not ask Player B to stand aside - Player B being deemed to be attending the flag. Appears ludicrous for Player A to suffer this penalty? Yes. But someone will come up with the scenario (albeit extreme or rare) that determines that the rule has to be as it is.

 

[Foxholer]

...In the cause of eradicating myths I have let player B know that there is in fact no penalty, along with the rule and definition....

This was the proper thing to do!

...I have a feeling that he would prefer not to be made aware and I will move down the list of those with whom he likes to play a round of golf!!

This would seem to be 'illogical'! But perhaps another example of 'nowt as funny as folk'!


And remember that there is a procedure whereby a decision can be obtained after the round. So it's not a case of 'we have to decide now, so i'll take the hit!'!

 

[rulie]

Thank you all for the info. In the cause of eradicating myths I have let player B know that there is in fact no penalty, along with the rule and definition. I have a feeling that he would prefer not to be made aware and I will move down the list of those with whom he likes to play a round of golf!!

You eliminated two strokes from his score and he's not happy?

 

[atticusfinch]

Many penalties become easier to understand when you accept that the rules do not punish bad behavior but compensate for potential advantages that might be gained in certain situations. They may seem to disadvantage a given player (and thus a penalty in his eyes) but taken with the entire match they help eliminate the potential advantage gained by the player's conduct or situation.

It's not mathematically precise or logical or geared to compensate for actual advantages, but it is the best solution after 400 years of experience.

 

[Region3]

I've found it a lot easier to live with rules that don't appear logical by changing the way I think about them.

I think I probably read it on here.

"The rules are not designed to treat everyone fairly, they are designed to treat everyone the same."

 

[rulefan]

Another worthwhile quote:

Since few violations are of the deliberate sort, it is obvious that the word “penalty”
is not used in the Rules in its sense of being punishment.
The word “adjustment” would be more appropriate.

 

[chrisd]

Thank you all for the info. In the cause of eradicating myths I have let player B know that there is in fact no penalty, along with the rule and definition. I have a feeling that he would prefer not to be made aware and I will move down the list of those with whom he likes to play a round of golf!!

A situation occurred during my 4bbb match last weekend which I mentioned to one of the opponents so that he didn't repeat it in the future. He is a fairly regular player in our games. It was abundantly clear from his reaction that, however nicely I put it, he didn't want to be told and that he didn't see the pettiness of having to know rules as that important

 

[Franco]

Exactly that.

 

[duncan mackie]

I fully agree with woodys analysis. I am simply saying that if something seems ludicrous to penalise a player for doing - that is not a good guide as to whether it is a rule break or not.

An example.

Player A is just off the green and about to play. Player B has played on and is close to the hole - so goes to ball, marks it and picks it up. Then steps a yard to the side of the flag waiting to take it out after Player A has played on. Player A plays and holes out - hitting flag on way in. Player A incurs two stroke penalty in stroke play and loss of hole in match play as he did not ask Player B to stand aside - Player B being deemed to be attending the flag. Appears ludicrous for Player A to suffer this penalty? Yes. But someone will come up with the scenario (albeit extreme or rare) that determines that the rule has to be as it is.

Woody already has - it's simple logic!

If the flag stick is attended does a player get penalised if his ball strikes it? Yes.
Is there a definition of what is deemed attending the flag? Yes (the above requires it)

The question of whether a player should suffer a penalty isn't the issue in looking logically at situations!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Woody already has - it's simple logic!

If the flag stick is attended does a player get penalised if his ball strikes it? Yes.
Is there a definition of what is deemed attending the flag? Yes (the above requires it)

The question of whether a player should suffer a penalty isn't the issue in looking logically at situations!

Not disagree at all with anything you or woody have said. I mentioned this example for one reason alone. And @chrisd mentioned it above.

In a match a couple of weeks back - I was off the green and chipping. One of my opponents was standing close to the flag waiting to take it out - I had not asked for it to be attended. I said to him that I needed to ask him to move. He looked at me somewhat bemused. I explained why. I could tell that he didn't really believe me as he thought the situation of me getting penalised if I hit the flag would be ludicrous - and he didn't like being told that he didn't know the rule.

His logic was that it would be ludicrous for me to be penalised if I hit the flag from off the green - and (not knowing the rule) he concluded that as it was so ludicrous there could be no rule pertinent to him standing where he was.