Correcting an error

[Canfordhacker]

This happened in my group today, in a comp.

Player tees off, ball heads to right side of fairway, where there is a telegraph pole. Comments made about the strange kick left when it lands.

Ball found shorter than usual, in middle of fairway. Look at the big creosote mark, must have come off the telegraph pole.

Hits next shot.

thinks, hmmm, did they change the local rule saying replay shots that hit overhead wires. Check scorecard. Yes they did, it also now includes supporting poles.

Goes back to tee and hits again.

Was that the correct thing to do? If so, how many shots have now been played? if not what should have been done?

 

[Canfordhacker]

Medal round by the way. And the local rule states " A ball striking any power line or supporting post MUST be disregarded..."

 

[Crow]

Depends how seriously you're taking it.
He should have played a second ball from the tee with no penalty, but now he's played the first ball you could argue that he's played a wrong ball and incurs the 2 shot penalty for that and should go back to the tee and play again, which will be his third shot.

 

[Canfordhacker]

It was a club competition, so taking it seriously.

 

[wjemather]

This happened in my group today, in a comp.

Player tees off, ball heads to right side of fairway, where there is a telegraph pole. Comments made about the strange kick left when it lands.

Ball found shorter than usual, in middle of fairway. Look at the big creosote mark, must have come off the telegraph pole.

Hits next shot.

thinks, hmmm, did they change the local rule saying replay shots that hit overhead wires. Check scorecard. Yes they did, it also now includes supporting poles.

Goes back to tee and hits again.

Was that the correct thing to do? If so, how many shots have now been played? if not what should have been done?

Assuming it is known or virtually certain that the pole was hit... Rule 14.7 applies. General penalty (2 strokes) for playing from the wrong place, and the error must be corrected by playing from the correct place (any strokes at the original ball do not count). Additionally, since the error has attempted to be corrected, the incident must also be reported to the committee before returning the scorecard - failure to do so is a DQ.

If unsure about the correct ruling, both balls could have been played out and the committee would then make a decision.

 

[Colin L]

Assuming it is known or virtually certain that the pole was hit... Rule 14.7 applies. General penalty (2 strokes) for playing from the wrong place, and the error must be corrected by playing from the correct place ......

There's an interesting question in this. By considering it to be a wrong place error, you are seeing the ball, having hit the pole as still being the ball in play. Alternatively, one could say that having hit the pole, the ball is rendered out of play and that it is therefore a wrong ball. The outcomes in terms of penalty and action are the same except that with a wrong ball it isn't necessary to report the correction. ?

 

[Colin L]

On further thought, as the ball has not been lifted, is not out of bounds and has not been substituted, it is still in play. It doesn't meet any of the criteria for a ball in play to become out of play.

I seem to be giving you all an insight into my old brain slowly churning its way to a conclusion. Thinking out loud is probably not a good idea.

 

[wjemather]

There's an interesting question in this. By considering it to be a wrong place error, you are seeing the ball, having hit the pole as still being the ball in play. Alternatively, one could say that having hit the pole, the ball is rendered out of play and that it is therefore a wrong ball. The outcomes in terms of penalty and action are the same except that with a wrong ball it isn't necessary to report the correction. ?

According to the explanation in Model Local Rule E11, it would be considered playing from the wrong place rather than playing a wrong ball; and since it's location is presumably some distance away from where it should have been played (EDIT: and significantly nearer the hole), it would be a serious breach, hence the need to replay from the correct place.

 

[Colin L]

According to the explanation in Model Local Rule E11, it would be considered playing from the wrong place rather than playing a wrong ball; and since it's location is presumably some distance away from where it should have been played, it would be a serious breach, hence the need to replay from the correct place.

As you see, I've reached the same conclusion. It just takes time these days.

 

[Canfordhacker]

Thanks gents, was looking for validation. I reached the conclusion that it had been played from the wrong place, was a potential serious breach and the correction needed reporting. General penalty and disregard the first two shots played.

 

[salfordlad]

According to the explanation in Model Local Rule E11, it would be considered playing from the wrong place rather than playing a wrong ball; and since it's location is presumably some distance away from where it should have been played, it would be a serious breach, hence the need to replay from the correct place.

There is clear guidance that this ball has been played from a wrong place in 11.1b/1.

 

[YandaB]

According to the explanation in Model Local Rule E11, it would be considered playing from the wrong place rather than playing a wrong ball; and since it's location is presumably some distance away from where it should have been played, it would be a serious breach, hence the need to replay from the correct place.

Can I ask a bit more about your conclusion of it being a serious breach please (I am trying to learn here, not criticise,I don't always find this easy!)? You have said that it is a serious breach because it is "presumably some distance away", whereas having just tried to understand the rules it says "significant advantage". I would assume that the comparison would be with where the ball could end up with the second shot off the tee that did not yet taken place which given the OP said was "shorter than usual", which to me sounds like a disadvantage not advantage? Can you elaborate on that please?

I think that I understand that either way they must get a penalty (playing from wrong place/ignoring local rule) and it is only one General Penalty (2 penalty strokes) because it was the same incident (1.3.c.4 Single Act - playing the ball was both a wrong ball and igoring local rule at the same time).

 

[wjemather]

Can I ask a bit more about your conclusion of it being a serious breach please (I am trying to learn here, not criticise,I don't always find this easy!)? You have said that it is a serious breach because it is "presumably some distance away", whereas having just tried to understand the rules it says "significant advantage". I would assume that the comparison would be with where the ball could end up with the second shot off the tee that did not yet taken place which given the OP said was "shorter than usual", which to me sounds like a disadvantage not advantage? Can you elaborate on that please?

I think that I understand that either way they must get a penalty (playing from wrong place/ignoring local rule) and it is only one General Penalty (2 penalty strokes) because it was the same incident (1.3.c.4 Single Act - playing the ball was both a wrong ball and igoring local rule at the same time).

The assessment is made between playing from the correct place (i.e. the tee) and playing from the wrong place (i.e. where the ball lay in the fairway).

 

[YandaB]

The assessment is made between playing from the correct place (i.e. the tee) and playing from the wrong place (i.e. where the ball lay in the fairway).

Thank you, seems a little odd as (ignoring penalties) the one on the fairway is the second shot and the one on the tee is the first shot so it's not really comparing things that are the same but I live and learn

 

[Canfordhacker]

And I was about 180 yards up the fairway!!!!

I made par with the second ball, so was happy with the double bogey, if a little annoyed with myself.

 

[wjemather]

Thank you, seems a little odd as (ignoring penalties) the one on the fairway is the second shot and the one on the tee is the first shot so it's not really comparing things that are the same but I live and learn

Ah, the key thing to remember is that the original stroke does not count - the ball must be replayed - so the next stroke (whether from the correct place, i.e. tee, or wrong place, i.e. fairway) is effectively the first shot (or third, including penalties).

 

[YandaB]

Ah, the key thing to remember is that the original stroke does not count - the ball must be replayed - so the next stroke (from tee or fairway) is effectively the first shot (or third, including penalties).

Thank you, looking at it from that perspective makes much more sense

 

[salfordlad]

Assessment of "is it a serious breach?" is not a straightforward issue. And it is subjective - it is what the Committee considers to be a significant advantage. The definition of Serious Breach states:

In stroke play, when playing from a wrong place could give the player a significant advantage compared to the stroke to be made from the right place.
In making this comparison to decide if there was a serious breach, the factors to be taken into account include:
The difficulty of the stroke,
The distance of the ball from the hole,
The effect of obstacles on the line of play, and
The conditions affecting the stroke.
The concept of a serious breach does not apply in match play, because a player loses the hole if he or she plays from a wrong place.

Here's some guidance from the USGA responding to the question 'can you give some examples where it is very close?':

"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]

Assessment of "is it a serious breach?" is not a straightforward issue. And it is subjective.....

Here's some guidance from the USGA

Thanks for those USGA notes and for reaffirming that this is not an easy area of the rules to interpret.

The definition of 'serious breach' and Rule 14.7b only require that playing from a wrong place COULD give the player a significant advantage compared to the stroke to be made from the right place. There is no requirement that the potential significant advantage is actually realised.

My own approach to judging whether or not a serious breach may have occurred is to look at it from a double negative perspective.

If the stroke from the wrong place would be **similar** to the stroke from the right place - then 'not a serious breach'.

If the similarities diverge - and in my view they don't need to diverge by much - then it is not 'not a serious breach'. i.e. it is a serious breach.

(**similar** means simliar distance to the hole, similar effect of obstacles on the line of play, similar conditions affecting the stroke (i.e. lie, stance, swing, line of play), same area of the course, silmilar difficulty of the stroke.)