Fellow competitor picks incompletely holed ball from the hole?

[delc]

In a stroke play competition one of my FC's elected to putt from the fringe, leaving the flagstick in. The ball entered the hole, but didn't completely drop in because it got wedged between the lip and the flagstick. Before we could stop him, another FC picked the ball out of the hole without doing anything to allow it to drop in, such as re-centreing the stick. The ball had not met the definition of being holed, but would it be fair to place it on the lip and ask the player to hole it from there, costing him a stroke? Should the FC who lifted the ball out be penalised?

 

[Maninblack4612]

Definition of "holed" "A ball is holed when it is at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of it is below the level of the lip of the hole" Was this the case? It doesn't have to touch the bottom of the cup. I think, under the circumstances I would have given the player the benefit of the doubt. It's a club competition, not the Ryder Cup.

 

[duncan mackie]

the ball should be replaced where it was (18-4)

the problems start when the damn thing won't stay wedged as it was before.........at which point the FC's actions may well cost the player a stroke. Probably won't please him.

shouting normally stops people in such situations, and they shouldn't be that close to the unattended flag in any event.

 

[Maninblack4612]

Rule 18.4 says no penalty & ball must be "replaced" It should, therefore be replaced exactly where it was, although I know, if the player had, say, knocked it away when moving the flagstick, it would need to be replaced on the lip, but this is part of the penalty. A competitor can't, surely, be penalised for something that wasn't his fault.

 

[duncan mackie]

A competitor can't, surely, be penalised for something that wasn't his fault.

of course he can - hitting the flagstick when the FC fails to remove an attended flag in time being the obvious/classic example.

 

[delc]

Rule 18.4 says no penalty & ball must be "replaced" It should, therefore be replaced exactly where it was, although I know, if the player had, say, knocked it away when moving the flagstick, it would need to be replaced on the lip, but this is part of the penalty. A competitor can't, surely, be penalised for something that wasn't his fault.

That was my view at the time, as I was the marker for the player concerned. I allowed the putt to stand under equity, but I wasn't totally sure that was the correct thing to do, and I might have opened a can of worms if I hadn't! Any penalties for the fellow competitor?

P.S. I did point out the definition of "ball holed" to the FC so he would know for future reference.

 

[duncan mackie]

That was my view at the time, as I was the marker for the player concerned. I allowed the putt to stand under equity, but I wasn't totally sure that was the correct thing to do, and I might have opened a can of worms if I hadn't! Any penalties for the fellow competitor?

1. as fellow competitor or marker you never, ever, rule - as for equity.........that's neither relevant nor appropriate.
2. you know exactly what to do; you just didn't like it. You attempt to replace the ball exactly where it was; if it sticks great, if it won't then it's at the nearest point that it will which will be on the lip. If the question is whether or not the original ball was holed that's a completely different issue; it's a simple matter of fact.
3. no

 

[Maninblack4612]

of course he can - hitting the flagstick when the FC fails to remove an attended flag in time being the obvious/classic example.

His fault for asking a edit to attend the flag!

Edit: Language please.

 

[delc]

1. as fellow competitor or marker you never, ever, rule - as for equity.........that's neither relevant nor appropriate.
2. you know exactly what to do; you just didn't like it. You attempt to replace the ball exactly where it was; if it sticks great, if it won't then it's at the nearest point that it will which will be on the lip. If the question is whether or not the original ball was holed that's a completely different issue; it's a simple matter of fact.
3. no

If equity means fairness (which is one of the dictionary definitions), I didn't want the player to be potentially penalised or disqualified due to the fellow competitor's ignorance of the rules.

 

[duncan mackie]

If equity means fairness (which is one of the dictionary definitions), I didn't want the player to be potentially penalised or disqualified due to the fellow competitor's ignorance of the rules.

it doesn't; it's means even handedness to the entire field. it is a basis for ruling when there is no applicable rule.

here there are clear rules so there is no requirement for the committee to rule in equity. Definition of holed, 18-4 and 20-3 d if the ball won't remain stationary when replaced.

what 'you wanted' is completely irrelevant under the rules of golf

 

[delc]

I note that "equity" is not included in the definitions section of the Rules of Golf.

 

[duncan mackie]

I note that "equity" is not included in the definitions section of the Rules of Golf.

I don't know where you are heading with this, and we have discussed it many times over the last 3 years.

Equity does not provide a wider fairness to the player involved. It provides a fairness to the entire field under the principles of the rules of golf where a specific rule doesn't cover the actual situation.

Most equity rulings protect the field rather than the player - the following rulings robably illustrate this better then I can with mere words!

1-4/3
Flagstick Stuck into Green Some Distance from Hole by Practical Joker

Q.A practical joker removes the flagstick from the hole and sticks it into the putting green some distance from the hole. The players approaching the green are unaware of this action and they play towards the flagstick and not the hole. Do the players have the option to replay?

A.No. In equity (Rule 1-4), the players must accept the resultant advantage or disadvantage.
1-4/4
In Anger Player Strikes Ball Played by Player in Following Group

Q.A is nearly struck by a ball played by a player in the following group. In anger, A hits the ball back towards the group. Has A played a practice stroke or a wrong ball?

A.No. However, in equity (Rule 1-4), A should incur the general penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play.

By your interpretation you would rule that they had been disadvantaged in 1-4/3 and it's only fair to them that they are allowed to replay their shots with the flag in it's correct place, and that in 1-4/4 the player shouldn't be penalised at all as he clearly hasn't gained any advantage from his (justified) action!

 

[atticusfinch]

Please note rule 1-4 does not say equity should be applied, it says the decision should be made "in accordance with equity." This derives from the common law doctrine of the same name and means when a law does not specifically address a case, the court shall decide the case in a manner consistent with applicable legal principles and in a way that is fair to all parties involved. That means sometimes the result may be unfair from a particular individual's point of view.

(Interestingly, the term "court of law" does not mean what most people intend it to....i.e. a place where law is done. It refers to the distinction between courts of equity and the other kind..law courts. The former had fewer rigid rules of procedure or legal principles and judges were freer to make remedies. The distinction has been done away with in most states in the usa but I am not sure what has been done in the uk. Typical equity courts were called chancery courts, the judge was a chancellor.)

 

[chrisd]

That was my view at the time, as I was the marker for the player concerned. I allowed the putt to stand under equity, but I wasn't totally sure that was the correct thing to do, and I might have opened a can of worms if I hadn't! Any penalties for the fellow competitor?

P.S. I did point out the definition of "ball holed" to the FC so he would know for future reference.

So, you changed the rules of golf in a competition mmmmmmmm!

 

[atticusfinch]

I allowed the putt to stand under equity, but I wasn't totally sure that was the correct thing to do,

It was not. individual players do not have the authority to invoke equity.

 

[Colin L]

Del, just put these two statements side by side in your mind.

I was the marker for the player concerned. I allowed the putt to stand under equity.

A “marker’’ is one who is appointed by the Committee to record a competitor’s score in stroke play. He may be a fellow-competitor. He is not a referee.

 

[North Mimms]

I'm sure this identical scenario has been discussed on here before.
And I do mean identical.

 

[palindromicbob]

That was my view at the time, as I was the marker for the player concerned. I allowed the putt to stand under equity, but I wasn't totally sure that was the correct thing to do, and I might have opened a can of worms if I hadn't! Any penalties for the fellow competitor?

P.S. I did point out the definition of "ball holed" to the FC so he would know for future reference.

As you probably now know, it wasn't the correct thing to do.

Don't forget the title of Rule 1-4 is Points Not Covered by Rules

The situation you describe is covered by the rules and therefore equity should not even come into consideration.

Where equity may come in is in the committee consideration of the DQ that should now apply to your FC for returning a wrong score. In equity it would be fair to apply a 1 stroke penalty to the FC and waive the DQ.

 

[Colin L]

My difficulty with that, Bob, is that the competitor did not return a wrong score. He did not hole out at one hole and therefore has no score. I cannot think of any other rule which could act as an analogy or parallel on which to base an equity ruling that would allow him to return a score.

 

[palindromicbob]

My difficulty with that, Bob, is that the competitor did not return a wrong score. He did not hole out at one hole and therefore has no score. I cannot think of any other rule which could act as an analogy or parallel on which to base an equity ruling that would allow him to return a score.

True Colin. Just spotted decision 33-7/2 which basically stops a committee from applying rule 33-7 in this case.

I suppose there is always the possibility that decision 1-3/6 comes into this one

The player is DQ for failing to hole out under 3-2 and was obviously aware of the failure or he wouldn't have tried to stop the FC.

Possible DQ for Delc under 1-3 as he signed the card yet appears to show knowledge of the actual ruling and in effect has waived a rule while trying to dance around justifying it under equity.


Had they progressed as per the rules there is the chance that the score would have been ok. Otherwise it may have added an extra stroke.