Doubt as to procedure

[pavany]

A player as per rules of golf announces that he wishes to take the permitted preferred lie for his second stroke. The marker expresses doubt that player cannot do that. The player argues and then says he will put two balls into play and let the committee decide and then completes the hole with two balls. Since the doubt to procedure was raised by the marker, what is the ruling as per 3-3b?

 

[One Planer]

Isn't prefered lies subject to comitte approval and advised to the player before the round starts?

If players have bene advised that prefered lies are in place then why would your partner object?

The only exception I can think is a ball being off the fairway?

 

[doublebogey7]

But it is still the player that is doubtful as to the correct procedure. Otherwise they would continue as they felt fit without any risk.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I assume this is linked to the OPs ealier thread.

Here are my views for what they are worth but it's not a Rule which is invoked very often and I personally have never done so or seen it done.

Setting aside the issue as to whether the number of preferred lies can be limited, I can see no reason why Rule 3-3 cannot be invoked as long as you did so as before taking any further action.

If a player and marker disagree on a procedure it seems a good option. I can't see anything in the Rule or Decisions to indicate that it matters who first raises the doubt. Decision 3-3/2 covers the situation where a player wishes to invoke 3-3 when a referee has made a ruling but a f-c/marker is not a referee.

It is important to note however that the Rule provides that the player must declare his intention to proceed under Rule 3-3 "After the doubtful situation has arisenand before taking further action". Decision 3-3/6 - Competitor Plays Original Ball After Doubtful Situation Has Arisen and Then Invokes Rule 3-3, indicates that if you play the first ball after the situation arises, and then have a doubt about whether you did the right thing, it's too late, the first ball is in play.

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-A...cisionId=187123EC-B144-4E9F-8CA8-872DF522D624

In this case, based on that Decision I would say the doubful situation arose when you decided that you wanted to take a preferred lie.

If you declared your intention to invoke 3-3 before playing or lifting the first ball that seems Ok to me.

However if you lifted or played the first ball before declaring your intention to invoke 3-3, it was arguably too late, even though it was before your marker raised an objection and put doubt in your mind.

I could be wrong on that interpretation so would be interested in any other views.

Although I love golf and find the Rules fascinating I am beginning to wonder whether I should take up an interest in something simpler - like quantum mechanics or international shipping law.

 

[3offTheTee]

Mashie : Stay as you are- you always provide a well balanced reply which I respect and are rarely wrong

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thank you 3oTT, that is very kind.

 

[duncan mackie]

In the context of the question asked I agree with MN's conclusion in post #4

On the question of the extended conclusion I don't agree because the doubt would have clearly occurred after the player had taken the preferred lie, or played his shot.
In that instance the first ball score would count if the committee agreed with the player's interpretation - and the second ball, with appropriate penalties (now 1 stroke under 18-2) if they, effectively, agreed with the FC. The second ball is simply protecting his position.
Generally, as long as the player wishes the ball already played to count, and it's ruled legal, then there aren't any real issues; as in the case quoted it's when someone plays and then want's to play again and count the second one that things are clearly wrong.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Cheers Duncan, it is always good to have your view. I think it is that, as I see it, Decison 3-3/6 makes a distinction between when the situation giving rise to the doubt arises and when the doubt itself arises that is potentially tricky, hence I guess, the need for the Decision. In the OP case I wasn't sure when this might be and went for a rather strict interpretation.

 

[duncan mackie]

Cheers Duncan, it is always good to have your view. I think it is that, as I see it, Decison 3-3/6 makes a distinction between when the situation giving rise to the doubt arises and when the doubt itself arises that is potentially tricky, hence I guess, the need for the Decision. In the OP case I wasn't sure when this might be and went for a rather strict interpretation.

it's probably also useful to look at the implications of invoking 3-3 when you can't; basically it's pretty self correcting! even in the relatively extreme situation of the decision you referenced, the player is basicaly just stuck with the first ball he played and has no come back on him for playing the second ball (and wishing it was the one he scored with).