Casual Water On Green / Ball On Apron

[adamselbow]

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone could definitively clear up a recent event that happened in a comp I was playing with one of my partners. Course in the UK was very damp and during a competition round we had some heavy rain which caused a couple of puddles on greens etc. All was fine until we got to 17, a long par 4 and my partners approach has finished on the apron of the green. Immediately after the apron there was essentially a puddle between the apron and the hole on the green (the puddle all but reached this particular side of the hole from this angle). We had a quick discussion on whether he had to play through the puddle or could move his ball no nearer the hole and not onto the green to find a dry line to the hole. The comp was a qualifier stableford but under winter rules allowing you to lift the ball and clean etc. So he moved the ball for a dry line as it was only a few feet around the puddle and seemed the most sensible thing to do with the proviso that we confer with the pro shop after completing the round. One of the pro's believed it was a 2 shot pen for incorrectly marking and putting the ball back in a different place whilst the other believed it could be moved due to line of sight etc. He did take a 2 shot penalty in the end but we haven't since had a unequivocal answer of what the correct thing to do is. Can anyone here help?

Thanks

A

 

[atticusfinch]

R. 25-1(a): If the player's ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an abnormal ground condition on the putting green intervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

Ball on the fringe...sorry no interference. See R.20 for penalty.

 

[backwoodsman]

As per Atticus' answer, the ball was not on the green, so no relief because of the puddle on the line of play. You say winter rules were in operation, so lifting the ball was ok, but it was put back in the wrong spot, so was played from a wrong place - which equals a two shot penalty.

But ... the score only stands (including the penalty shots) provided the player had not gained a significant advantage by playing from the wrong place. I'd suggest that playing from a spot where the puddle didn't intervene on the line did gain the player a significant advantage. So he should have replayed the shots from the right place using a second ball and then reported it to the committee for adjudication. I suspect the OPs partner/FC didn't, so probably should be disqualified?

 

[adamselbow]

As per Atticus' answer, the ball was not on the green, so no relief because of the puddle on the line of play. You say winter rules were in operation, so lifting the ball was ok, but it was put back in the wrong spot, so was played from a wrong place - which equals a two shot penalty.

But ... the score only stands (including the penalty shots) provided the player had not gained a significant advantage by playing from the wrong place. I'd suggest that playing from a spot where the puddle didn't intervene on the line did gain the player a significant advantage. So he should have replayed the shots from the right place using a second ball and then reported it to the committee for adjudication. I suspect the OPs partner/FC didn't, so probably should be disqualified?

Thanks Gentlemen, it definitely has some shades of grey and interpretation. Obviously the 2 shot pen stands whatever but will be refer the decision on whether an advantage was gained via the competition committee, as it stands his score wasn't affecting any places and he went up by 0.1 but we all play this game on the basis we are doing the right thing and trust each other to do so. Thanks again for your opinions.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks Gentlemen, it definitely has some shades of grey and interpretation. Obviously the 2 shot pen stands whatever but will be refer the decision on whether an advantage was gained via the competition committee, as it stands his score wasn't affecting any places and he went up by 0.1 but we all play this game on the basis we are doing the right thing and trust each other to do so. Thanks again for your opinions.

As you said the water stretched to very close to the hole. As an accurate chip over the hole would have been very difficult, IMO a clean line putt would be a serious breach.

However, his better choice of action would have been to play two balls under Rule 3-3 and check with the committee later.

3-3 is often the best tool a player has but so badly underutilised.

 

[atticusfinch]

A wrong place is easy to determine. Significant advantage not so much. One good argument I have heard is whether the new place is "materially different" from the old. Generally I would say any new location that avoids the difficulty (water in line) is materially different. (Changes in grass, slope and other things might qualify too.)

 

[adamselbow]

As you said the water stretched to very close to the hole. As an accurate chip over the hole would have been very difficult, IMO a clean line putt would be a serious breach.

However, his better choice of action would have been to play two balls under Rule 3-3 and check with the committee later.

3-3 is often the best tool a player has but so badly underutilised.

Didn't even consider 3-3, a great suggestion and removes anything contentious in the moment. Will definitely try to remember that in future. Thanks.