Disqualification under 6.1b (2)

[DPWD1954]

Hi could I have some advice please? I played in the club midweek stableford comp with an elderly fellow member. One particular hole has a ditch at about 150 yards from the white tees. My playing partner can only carry about that distance with his driver and inevitably his drive went straight in. As we were going past the red tees I jokingly suggested he wouldn’t be able to carry the ditch even from the ladies tee. He accepted the challenge and he did just about manage to carry it. We then went on played our original balls (his after getting it out the ditch and taking a drop), collected his 2nd ball and carried on with the round. He then got a message to say he had been DQ’d under the above ruling.
Is that correct please? He wasn’t looking for any advantage, had already played from the correct (white) tee, so I think he’s been harshly treated.
Thank you

 

[GuyInLyon]

Reserve things like that for non-competition rounds.
Problem solved.

 

[rosecott]

I would have thought it a General Penalty under 5.5

 

[wjemather]

Hi could I have some advice please? I played in the club midweek stableford comp with an elderly fellow member. One particular hole has a ditch at about 150 yards from the white tees. My playing partner can only carry about that distance with his driver and inevitably his drive went straight in. As we were going past the red tees I jokingly suggested he wouldn’t be able to carry the ditch even from the ladies tee. He accepted the challenge and he did just about manage to carry it. We then went on played our original balls (his after getting it out the ditch and taking a drop), collected his 2nd ball and carried on with the round. He then got a message to say he had been DQ’d under the above ruling.
Is that correct please? He wasn’t looking for any advantage, had already played from the correct (white) tee, so I think he’s been harshly treated.
Thank you

I'd say that's a bad ruling, and should have been a general penalty (2 strokes) under 5.5a (No Practice Strokes While Playing Hole).

 

[rulefan]

It should have been a 2 stroke penalty under 5.5a

 

[DPWD1954]

Thank you guys, not sure he wants to appeal it, but I do feel a bit guilty as it was only my ribbing him that caused it.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

Im unsure what other outcome the OP would have expected and see no scope for appealing anything.

It seems clear, to me at least, that whoever witnessed the incident and reported it, seen the FC teeing off at the wrong tee. One of the options was to tee off again, given the person was in the ditch. I'd argue that once they played the ball from the ladies tee, this was now the ball in play. It should have been from the white tee so I'd also argue the ruling of a DQ 6.1b (2) is correct.

Im not sure you can declare a ball a practice ball given practice is prohibited. Unless it's established the ball is a provisional, then it is now the ball in play.

 

[wjemather]

Im unsure what other outcome the OP would have expected and see no scope for appealing anything.

It seems clear, to me at least, that whoever witnessed the incident and reported it, seen the FC teeing off at the wrong tee. One of the options was to tee off again, given the person was in the ditch. I'd argue that once they played the ball from the ladies tee, this was now the ball in play. It should have been from the white tee so I'd also argue the ruling of a DQ 6.1b (2) is correct.

Im not sure you can declare a ball a practice ball given practice is prohibited. Unless it's established the ball is a provisional, then it is now the ball in play.

If the committee has levied the penalty on such a report without seeking to establish why a ball was played from the wrong teeing ground, that's pretty poor. From committee procedures 6C (7): "Testimony of the players involved is important and should be given due consideration."

 

[Colin L]

Im unsure what other outcome the OP would have expected and see no scope for appealing anything.

It seems clear, to me at least, that whoever witnessed the incident and reported it, seen the FC teeing off at the wrong tee. One of the options was to tee off again, given the person was in the ditch. I'd argue that once they played the ball from the ladies tee, this was now the ball in play. It should have been from the white tee so I'd also argue the ruling of a DQ 6.1b (2) is correct.

Im not sure you can declare a ball a practice ball given practice is prohibited. Unless it's established the ball is a provisional, then it is now the ball in play.

Rule 6.1 is about starting a hole and you can only start a hole once. If this player had opted to take relief from the ditch by stroke and distance, he would have had to play from the white teeing area but that's only because that's where he played his previous stroke. He would not have been starting the hole and so 6.1 would not apply.

It seems to me quite simple: the Committee made a mistake and should correct it.

 

[rulefan]

Im unsure what other outcome the OP would have expected and see no scope for appealing anything.

It seems clear, to me at least, that whoever witnessed the incident and reported it, seen the FC teeing off at the wrong tee. One of the options was to tee off again, given the person was in the ditch. I'd argue that once they played the ball from the ladies tee, this was now the ball in play. It should have been from the white tee so I'd also argue the ruling of a DQ 6.1b (2) is correct.

Im not sure you can declare a ball a practice ball given practice is prohibited. Unless it's established the ball is a provisional, then it is now the ball in play.

So if a player sees a stray ball on the fairway and decides to have a go at hitting it into or over a distant pond, is this now his ball in play? Even though he then goes a few yards forward and plays his original ball?
But where do the rules say anything about declaring you are practising?

 

[williamalex1]

When taking his penalty drop couldn't he have went back as far as he liked and dropped on the ladies tee ?

 

[RichA]

Our course has recently built a driving range, a little close to one of the holes. It's not uncommon to see a few range balls as you head down the fairway.
If golfers in a comp decide to chip any balls they walk past back onto the range, purely to help out the staff, are they actually breaking a rule?

 

[chrisd]

Our course has recently built a driving range, a little close to one of the holes. It's not uncommon to see a few range balls as you head down the fairway.
If golfers in a comp decide to chip any balls they walk past back onto the range, purely to help out the staff, are they actually breaking a rule?

My understanding is that a player can knock a ball back and out of the way, but not by taking a full set up as if playing a proper golf shot

 

[rosecott]

Our course has recently built a driving range, a little close to one of the holes. It's not uncommon to see a few range balls as you head down the fairway.
If golfers in a comp decide to chip any balls they walk past back onto the range, purely to help out the staff, are they actually breaking a rule?

No.

These are not practice strokes:

• A practice swing made with no intent to strike a ball.
• Hitting a ball back to a practice area or to another player, when done solely as a courtesy.
• Strokes made by a player in playing out a hole whose result has been decided

 

[RichA]

Thank you.

 

[rulefan]

When taking his penalty drop couldn't he have went back as far as he liked and dropped on the ladies tee ?

Yes he could have done providing where he dropped satisfied the 'back on line' requirements.

But he wasn't taking relief, he was trying to see if he could hit over the ditch. Having done that he took relief correctly with his original ball. Why would he do that if he had intended the ball played from the ladies' tee to be the ball in play? If the second had been in play he would have no reason to retrieve and drop his first ball.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

Rule 6.1 is about starting a hole and you can only start a hole once. If this player had opted to take relief from the ditch by stroke and distance, he would have had to play from the white teeing area but that's only because that's where he played his previous stroke. He would not have been starting the hole and so 6.1 would not apply.

It seems to me quite simple: the Committee made a mistake and should correct it.

The player made the mistake...willingly due to a silly challenge from the OP.

The OP also has not provided any info regarding whether clarification was sought from the player in question. They may have contacted him and asked, "did you tee off at hole x from the ladies tee." The player may have simply said yes and was informed this would result in a DQ and little more said on the matter.

To suggest the Committee are at fault without much to go on regarding how they came to the decision is nuts imho.

Are people trying to suggest the OP and player that was DQ'd should feel disgruntled at the DQ? No wonder people are reluctant to get involved with the running of their clubs.

 

[Colin L]

It's not any kind of qualitative judgment on the Committee to say it made a mistake by applying an inapplicable rule to the situatio; i it's just a fact. It doesn't matter whether it did so without being in possession of all the information about what happened. It made a mistake and the penalty applied was more severe than it should have been and in fairness to the player, it should be corrected. Mistakes are made and mistakes get sorted, that's all.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

It's not any kind of qualitative judgment on the Committee to say it made a mistake by applying an inapplicable rule to the situatio; i it's just a fact. It doesn't matter whether it did so without being in possession of all the information about what happened. It made a mistake and the penalty applied was more severe than it should have been and in fairness to the player, it should be corrected. Mistakes are made and mistakes get sorted, that's all.

The penalty applied was not more severe than it should have been. You may think it is, myself, and the Committee involved apparently don't. We have limited info regarding the situation but the little we do know highlights an act which is not permitted during a competitive round.

 

[Colin L]

The penalty applied was not more severe than it should have been. You may think it is, myself, and the Committee involved apparently don't. We have limited info regarding the situation but the little we do know highlights an act which is not permitted during a competitive round.

Many things can happen during a round which are not permitted and the penalties vary, In this instance we have clear information from the OP as to what happened. The other player took up his challenge and made a stroke with a ball other than his ball in play a stroke that had no place in his proper playing of the hole. That was a practice stroke in terms of Rule 5.5a, the penalty for which is two strokes. That's it, really.