Competition result dispute.

[Slab]

Gents I'm missing something here, please help:

"Equipment" is anything used, worn, held or carried by the player or the player's caddie, except:

• any ball that the player has played at the hole being played, and
• any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of the ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped.

Note 1: A ball played at the hole being played is equipment when it has been lifted and not put back into play.




'Any' ball played at the hole is not equipment as per the definitions

The note 1 from the rules definitions that is there to re-assign a ball as equipment doesn't say any ball played at the hole is equipment when lifted, it says 'A' ball (which I take to mean any ball in play) 'A' ball cant be two balls can it? (they cant both be in play anyway)

I cant see how it can be equipment again unless its put back into play or put into a golf buggy

 

[Jacko_G]

Gents I'm missing something here, please help:

"Equipment" is anything used, worn, held or carried by the player or the player's caddie, except:

• any ball that the player has played at the hole being played, and
• any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of the ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped.

Note 1: A ball played at the hole being played is equipment when it has been lifted and not put back into play.




'Any' ball played at the hole is not equipment as per the definitions

The note 1 from the rules definitions that is there to re-assign a ball as equipment doesn't say any ball played at the hole is equipment when lifted, it says 'A' ball (which I take to mean any ball in play) 'A' ball cant be two balls can it? (they cant both be in play anyway)

I cant see how it can be equipment again unless its put back into play or put into a golf buggy

That's the way I see it. It ceased to be in play the moment the original ball was found in the cabbage.

 

[rulefan]

I think you are missing backwoodsman's point completely.

As you say, once the original ball has been found the provisional is no longer a ball in play. Had the player hit that the Rules are clear that it's also not his equipment.

However, once the ball has been lifted it regains its status as his equipment.

Which leave the question as to whether the situation of the other player picking it up and throwing it to one side results in the ball regaining status as his equipment, or being considered abandoned.

This is further confused by the player having requested to FC to pick it up (stated) and whether the player was aware that the FC had thrown it to one side.

I don't agree with the statement that the ball can't be considered abandoned - it is nothing like a club; somewhere higher up the value chain than a tee peg but that's all. It's relatively common practice to use a pickup as a provisional so that if you find your original but put the provisional elsewhere you can just leave it (well I do it all the time....).

So it's status regarding ball in play is clear - it isn't.

By the natural interpretation of the wording of the various rules the ball returned to the status of equipment when the player requested his FC to lift it.

Whether that is still the case when the FC throws it to one side or not is uncertain - if a player throws away a ball it surely ceases to be his equipment?

Whilst I would seek a specific ruling from the R&A were it to happen at our club I now suspect that they would rule that if it was the players intention to recover the ball then it must be considered his equipment and a penalty applied (here).

(Backwoodsman will no doubt confirm, or deny, that this is indeed the question he's asking :thup:

Isn't all this possible confusion the reason for 19-5/5?

Rule 19-5 does not apply because the provisional ball was not in play.

Rule 19-2 does not apply because the provisional ball is not the equipment of the player - see Decision 18/7.

In equity (Rule 1-4) and by analogy to Rule 19-5a, the player shall play the ball as it lies and no penalty is incurred except that, in stroke play, if both balls lay on the putting green prior to the stroke, the player incurs a penalty of two strokes.

 

[backwoodsman]

Duncan had the gist of my query.

The provisional ball is "not equipment" only until it is lifted & taken out of play - once it's lifted it ceases to be covered by the exemption to the definition of equipment of "any ball played". Pick it up and it becomes the players equipment again. Both Note 1 to the definition of equipment, and Decision 18/7 make that clear.

My query really related to whether the ball could be considered abandoned? Does that fact that a PP/FC/Opponent picked it up and dropped it to one side, mean the ball is now lying there as an "ownerless pickup". Immediately it was picked up, it became the player's equipment again. So at what point does it stop being so? When the PP/FC who picked it up dropped it again? When the player decides to walk on & ignore it? Or something else?

A genuine query, as in my mind I'm struggling not to regard it as still being the player's "property" - and therefore still his equipment.

 

[rulie]

19-5/5

Apologies - my earlier post just said 19-5.

Thanks, that was what I had thought. It's an equity and analogy Decision, and sometimes you needed to be there when it was written to totally understand it!

 

[user2010]

@GBH, Next time, tell the FC to just put the ball in his pocket. It would've saved an awful lot of grief if he had.:thup:

 

[duncan mackie]

Isn't all this possible confusion the reason for 19-5/5?

Rule 19-5 does not apply because the provisional ball was not in play.

Rule 19-2 does not apply because the provisional ball is not the equipment of the player - see Decision 18/7.

In equity (Rule 1-4) and by analogy to Rule 19-5a, the player shall play the ball as it lies and no penalty is incurred except that, in stroke play, if both balls lay on the putting green prior to the stroke, the player incurs a penalty of two strokes.

Yes, in the sense that it deals with the changed status of the provisional ball.

However, what we have here is the continuation whereby the ball being lifted would appear to bring it back within the application of 19-2?
Is the subsequent action of the FC in discarding it relevant?
Is whether the player sees this subsequent action relevant?
Is the players intention with regard to the ball relevant ie if he considers it abandoned?

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Yes, in the sense that it deals with the changed status of the provisional ball.

However, what we have here is the continuation whereby the ball being lifted would appear to bring it back within the application of 19-2?
Is the subsequent action of the FC in discarding it relevant?
Is whether the player sees this subsequent action relevant?
Is the players intention with regard to the ball relevant ie if he considers it abandoned?

I have found out today that my OP was not quite correct. The 'winner' apparently did not ask the FC to pick up the provisional. Once the original ball had been found the FC picked it up and threw it off the green of his own volition. Does this change anything?

 

[rulie]

I have found out today that my OP was not quite correct. The 'winner' apparently did not ask the FC to pick up the provisional. Once the original ball had been found the FC picked it up and threw it off the green of his own volition. Does this change anything?

Just confirms that it was an abandoned ball and there is no penalty involved.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Just confirms that it was an abandoned ball and there is no penalty involved.

Thanks and to everyone else for the replies.

I was playing with one of the committee today and showed him the thread. He had started off by saying it was a penalty under 19-2 but had changed his mind after reading it.

 

[duncan mackie]

I have found out today that my OP was not quite correct. The 'winner' apparently did not ask the FC to pick up the provisional. Once the original ball had been found the FC picked it up and threw it off the green of his own volition. Does this change anything?

In my view yes; the ball can no longer be considered lifted and remains covered by the exception ie it isn't the players equipment.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

The comp has finally been closed and the result stands. I'd like to think that the replies on here helped to achieve the correct answer.

 

[IanM]

So, sense and the correct decision prevails and I’m left wondering about the folk reporting it in the first place.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

To be honest, they were probably only protecting the rest of the field as they believed there should have been a penalty. It was an unusual situation and did need clarifying.

 

[rulie]

To be honest, they were probably only protecting the rest of the field as they believed there should have been a penalty. It was an unusual situation and did need clarifying.

Nice, positive approach!