Can wrong free relief turn into unplayable?

[twrmgoat]

Player mistakenly took free relief for ‘line of sight’ from an immovable object.

But dropped within two club lengths not nearer the hole, so legal drop if had been taking an unplayable.

Player submitted card to committee to rule on. DQ for playing from wrong place or can the drop be treated as a penalty shot?

I think the latter, although ChatGPT pointing me at 14.5b(3) which I’m not sure is exact scenario. Also says committee has discretion under procedures section 8 which I can’t really see.

 

[rulie]

The Committee cannot assign unplayable to the player's actions. The player is the only person who can deem his ball unplayable.
DQ seems a severe penalty for the actions described, could have been just two penalty strokes for playing from a wrong place.
Please don't bring up AI responses in the Rules section, they invariably contain mistakes.

 

[twrmgoat]

The Committee cannot assign unplayable to the player's actions. The player is the only person who can deem his ball unplayable.
DQ seems a severe penalty for the actions described, could have been just two penalty strokes for playing from a wrong place.
Please don't bring up AI responses in the Rules section, they invariably contain mistakes.

So the intent in taking the drop matters?
And even though not corrected, and advantage gained, it can be deemed not a serious breach and just two shots penalty?

 

[doublebogey7]

So the intent in taking the drop matters?
And even though not corrected, and advantage gained, it can be deemed not a serious breach and just two shots penalty?

This is an intersting one, but as Rulie says the committee cannot turn the breach of one rule into an accetable ball drop under a different rule.

Without being there or at least seeing the drop that the player did take it is difficult to confirm whether the committee were right in assessing it as a serious breach. A serious breach occurs where the player gets a significant advantage over playing from the place they should have played from. When taking line of sight relief I would say in most cases a serious breach has occured given that the player would have had to take a shot to avoid an obstruction, but now has a clear shot to the green. The two shot penalty given for playing from a wrong place has no bearing on the decision.

 

[KenL]

The Committee cannot assign unplayable to the player's actions. The player is the only person who can deem his ball unplayable.
DQ seems a severe penalty for the actions described, could have been just two penalty strokes for playing from a wrong place.
Please don't bring up AI responses in the Rules section, they invariably contain mistakes.

If you play from the wrong place, do you not have to correct that mistake before teeing off at the next hole? @rulie

 

[doublebogey7]

If you play from the wrong place, do you not have to correct that mistake before teeing off at the next hole? @rulie

Not unless it is a serious breach.

 

[KenL]

Not unless it is a serious breach.

How is that decided?

 

[doublebogey7]

How is that decided?

This is an intersting one, but as Rulie says the committee cannot turn the breach of one rule into an accetable ball drop under a different rule.

Without being there or at least seeing the drop that the player did take it is difficult to confirm whether the committee were right in assessing it as a serious breach. A serious breach occurs where the player gets a significant advantage over playing from the place they should have played from. When taking line of sight relief I would say in most cases a serious breach has occured given that the player would have had to take a shot to avoid an obstruction, but now has a clear shot to the green. The two shot penalty given for playing from a wrong place has no bearing on the decision.

 

[Steven Rules]

There is no provision to retrospectively declare the ball unplayable.

14.5b(3) - ball put in play under rule that did not apply - would be applicable and the situation could be corrected (with applicable penalties) right up to the point that the player made a stroke to begin the next hole.

After that, it is solely a wrong place situation. Two stroke penalty, unless either the player or the Committee judges it to be a serious breach in which case it is a DQ. (Rule 14.7b)

'Serious breach' is a defined term and the Committee (and player) should refer to the factors listed in the defintion to aid their determination.

 

[salfordlad]

There is no provision to retrospectively declare the ball unplayable.

14.5b(3) - ball put in play under rule that did not apply - would be applicable and the situation could be corrected (with applicable penalties) right up to the point that the player made a stroke to begin the next hole.

After that, it is solely a wrong place situation. Two stroke penalty, unless either the player or the Committee judges it to be a serious breach in which case it is a DQ. (Rule 14.7b)

'Serious breach' is a defined term and the Committee (and player) should refer to the factors listed in the defintion to aid their determination.

I'm sure Steven won't mind, I'll add DQ applies if it was a serious breach that was not corrected, by returning and continuing play from the correct place, before making a stroke from the next hole.

 

[Steven Rules]

Quite. I had interpretted the third para of #1 as having completed the round but not yet returned the scorecard, so too late to correct the error (unless it occurred on the final hole).

 

[rulie]

It is very rare that there is a serious breach of playing from a wrong place, particularly under an action which would comply with Rule 19.

To the original poster - what was determined by the Committee to be the reason for DQ that made it more serious than the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place (Rule 14.7)?

 

[Steven Rules]

- what was determined by the Committee to be the reason for DQ that made it more serious than the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place (Rule 14.7)?

I've heard this view before, including from a reasonably well-known rules authority, that determining whether a breach is serious should be weighed against the two stroke penalty that the player has already incurred. Frankly I don't understand that view, or don't agree with it, or maybe I am am misunderstanding what the proponents are saying. I'd like to explore it further please.

The definition of serious breach includes a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account when determining if a serious breach has occurred. Those factors all relate to physical issues - difficulty of the stroke, distance from the hole, effect of obstacles on the line of play, conditions affecting the stroke. The opening sentence of the definition refers to the significance of the advantage of playing from one spot versus another.

Nowhere is there any reference to scorecard advantage or disadvantage. i.e. the fact that that the player has already incurred a two stroke penalty is not a mitigating factor or offsetting factor to be taken into account in determining the seriousness of the breach.

I'd be grateful for the views of the experts on this forum please - and you know who you are.

 

[KenL]

The serious breach thing just seems like complication for complication’s sake. It should just be a straight 2 shot penalty, which is penalty enough for playing from the wrong place.
Also remove the going back to correct it thing. A waste of time if ever there was one.
That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[Steven Rules]

If that was the case, I'd tap my ball two inches off the tee, pick it up, walk forward and put it down next to the hole and tap it in. Easy par or birdie. Every time. Where would you draw the line?

 

[KenL]

If that was the case, I'd tap my ball two inches off the tee, pick it up, walk forward and put it down next to the hole and tap it in. Easy par or birdie. Every time. Where would you draw the line?

Probably there!

 

[AliMc]

If that was the case, I'd tap my ball two inches off the tee, pick it up, walk forward and put it down next to the hole and tap it in. Easy par or birdie. Every time. Where would you draw the line?

Not at a par3 maybe, haven't read all the thread but assuming a 2 shot penalty incurred would that not be a bogey

 

[Swango1980]

If that was the case, I'd tap my ball two inches off the tee, pick it up, walk forward and put it down next to the hole and tap it in. Easy par or birdie. Every time. Where would you draw the line?

I might try this in the Club Champs, just in case there is any subjectivity in "Serious Breach", and my Committee sees it as a 2-shot penalty offence.

It may be the greatest example of using the rules to your advantage, if I end up becoming Club Champ.

 

[salfordlad]

I've heard this view before, including from a reasonably well-known rules authority, that determining whether a breach is serious should be weighed against the two stroke penalty that the player has already incurred. Frankly I don't understand that view, or don't agree with it, or maybe I am am misunderstanding what the proponents are saying. I'd like to explore it further please.

The definition of serious breach includes a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account when determining if a serious breach has occurred. Those factors all relate to physical issues - difficulty of the stroke, distance from the hole, effect of obstacles on the line of play, conditions affecting the stroke. The opening sentence of the definition refers to the significance of the advantage of playing from one spot versus another.

Nowhere is there any reference to scorecard advantage or disadvantage. i.e. the fact that that the player has already incurred a two stroke penalty is not a mitigating factor or offsetting factor to be taken into account in determining the seriousness of the breach.

I'd be grateful for the views of the experts on this forum please - and you know who you are.

All good discussion. The guidance in the book is very general and I think that is extremely meaningful in itself - the strong implication I take from that is there are sufficiently diverse views within the Ruling Bodies (I don't mean one side of the ditch versus the other, I mean all the boys and girls that take collective responsibility for agreeing, writing and then explaining the Rules) that what we have is pretty much all the agreed ground.

I can, though, point to some very useful public USGA advice, responding to a question on the USGA FB Rules site:

"Question for the rules officials around here: when playing from the wrong place in stroke play, rule 14.7 describes how to proceed depending on whether there was a ‘serious breach’ or not. The definition of ‘serious breach’ in the rules is pretty subjective, and the result could result in 2 PS vs a DQ since a lot of times the player doesn’t realize they’ve played from the wrong spot.

Can you give some examples where it is very close? Obviously picking up your ball from the rough, placing it on the lip of the hole and putting it would be a serious breach, but I’m just trying to get a grasp on where the line is to be a serious breach.

USGA Response

You've hit the nail on the head that there is some subjectivity inherent to the definition of serious breach: the Committee must make a judgment on whether the player has gained a significant advantage which means different Committees might Rule differently in similar circumstances. Because there are an infinite amount of possible infractions, it is not possible to have a definitive line of what is and is not a serious breach.

None of the following are 100% binding but are examples of general thoughts/examples from various Rules experts that lead in the right direction:

- Is two strokes enough? If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach.

-A few years back (so old Rules but similar process), JB Holmes was determined to have committed a serious breach of playing from a wrong place when he played from FARTHER away than he was supposed to because the new position allowed him to reach a par-5 green with his next stroke where the correct location required a punch out.

-Most officials would think it would have to be a very specific set of circumstances to get to a serious breach on the putting green if the right place is also on the putting green.

-Historically playing from outside a bunker when you were supposed to play from inside the bunker was a serious breach (if significantly better than stroke and distance would've been), but that's not guaranteed and given the available option to get out of a bunker now would again need to be a specific set of circumstances.

Overall, a serious breach needs to be something so significant that the Committee feels it cannot accept the player's score when played from that position - even with a two-stroke penalty. We realize many would like a "this is, this isn't" kind of list, but that's not how this Rule works as the Definition itself makes the Committee weigh a number of factors that are different in each situation in order to reach the conclusion."

 

[Steven Rules]

Thanks. With all this in mind, I'll listen more intently next time I hear a discussion of the scorecard aspects versus the physical aspects of a serious breach.

A couple of thoughts in there that I found particularly helpful:

If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach.

Overall, a serious breach needs to be something so significant that the Committee feels it cannot accept the player's score when played from that position - even with a two-stroke penalty.