Greensomes and preferred lies

[cliveb]

Was playing a mixed greensomes the other day. Preferred lies were in force.
I was waiting at my partner's drive while she walked to my ball.
The expectation was that she would play my drive, but in the meantime I lifted, cleaned and placed her drive to a preferred lie, in preparation for playing it if we decided to go with her drive. Once she chose to play my ball I picked hers up and we carried on.

Then I wondered if placing it as I did actually made that ball the one in play. Perhaps I shouldn't have touched it until we had decided which ball to play? Anyone able to give a ruling on this?

 

[salfordlad]

LOL, there's no "official" ruling here, it is entirely up to the Committee.

 

[Steven Rules]

A similar question was asked only a few months ago.

Greensomes rule

In a recent game of Greensomes, our course was designated pick, clean and place on the fairways. Our playing partners teed off - one (player A) was in the middle of the fairway but fairly short, the other - player B (a much longer hitter) went further and may have ended up in a fairway bunker...

forums.golfmonthly.com

 

[cliveb]

A similar question was asked only a few months ago.

Greensomes rule

In a recent game of Greensomes, our course was designated pick, clean and place on the fairways. Our playing partners teed off - one (player A) was in the middle of the fairway but fairly short, the other - player B (a much longer hitter) went further and may have ended up in a fairway bunker...

forums.golfmonthly.com

Thanks for the link.
Apologies that I didn't find it before asking the question.

 

[rulefan]

In that other thread I quoted from Rule 14.4

• The original ball or another ball is replaced, dropped or placed on the course with the intent for that ball to be in play.

That would confirm that both balls are in play after one or both have been lifted and replaced.

 

[cliveb]

In that other thread I quoted from Rule 14.4

• The original ball or another ball is replaced, dropped or placed on the course with the intent for that ball to be in play.

That would confirm that both balls are in play after one or both have been lifted and replaced.

So that would seem to imply that you're allowed to take whatever relief options may be available for both balls before deciding which one to play, yes?

 

[salfordlad]

So that would seem to imply that you're allowed to take whatever relief options may be available for both balls before deciding which one to play, yes?

Rule 14.4 deals with when a player's ball is back in play after the player's original ball was out of play. It does not determine which of multiple balls played in greensomes is the ball which must count in the score.

 

[rulefan]

Rule 14.4 deals with when a player's ball is back in play after the player's original ball was out of play. It does not determine which of multiple balls played in greensomes is the ball which must count in the score.

I must admit that the title of the rule 14.4 "When Player’s Ball Is Back in Play After Original Ball Was Out of Play" made me think again

However the following words from the text suggest that it does apply in the case of greensomes as the game is designed to have two balls in play for the team following the tee shots. The determination of which is to count is made when a stroke is made at one of the balls in play.
Of course 4BBB has the expectation that there may be two balls in play for one team.

When a player’s ball in play is lifted from the course or is lost or out of bounds, the ball is no longer in play.

The player has a ball in play again only when:
The original ball or another ball is replaced, dropped or placed on the course with the intent for that ball to be in play.
If a ball is returned to the course in any way with the intent for it to be in play, the ball is in play

 

[Steven Rules]

greensomes as the game is designed to have two balls in play for the team following the tee shots. The determination of which is to count is made when a stroke is made at one of the balls in play.

I am with you totally on the bit that I have quoted here. But frankly I struggled in the other thread, and I am struggling here, to see how your quote from 14.4 is relevant or in any way supports your statement above.

 

[rulefan]

The ball is back in play after it was out of play.
Why is this not true and/or why wouldn't it apply?

 

[Steven Rules]

I think the key question here is not so much whether a ball is in play, but rather when is one of the two balls no longer in play, or when does one of those two balls cease being allowed to be in play or put back into play. I think your passage, which I quoted at #9, adequately answers that question with no need to refer to 14.4.

 

[rulefan]

I think the key question here is not so much whether a ball is in play, but rather when is one of the two balls no longer in play, or when does one of those two balls cease being allowed to be in play or put back into play. I think your passage, which I quoted at #9, adequately answers that question with no need to refer to 14.4.

So are the players able to choose which ball to play after PL relief has been taken?

I couldn't determine your view from your response in the other thread.

 

[salfordlad]

I think the simplest way to approach scrambles is to make the critical issue to determining the subsequent ball in play for the team to be when another actual stroke is made. So, for example, the team (which can be any number of players, depending on the competition's T&C) has made their second stroke and one player without thinking plays their ball again even though it's position is disastrously inferior to the better of the second strokes - that is now the team ball, lying three. On this line of thinking, taking any form of available relief prior to making a team choice on ball to proceed with, would be permitted. IMO, this is the simplest way to approach scrambles. But there is nothing in the Rule book that requires a Committee to approach it this way.

 

[rulie]

I think the simplest way to approach scrambles is to make the critical issue to determining the subsequent ball in play for the team to be when another actual stroke is made. So, for example, the team (which can be any number of players, depending on the competition's T&C) has made their second stroke and one player without thinking plays their ball again even though it's position is disastrously inferior to the better of the second strokes - that is now the team ball, lying three. On this line of thinking, taking any form of available relief prior to making a team choice on ball to proceed with, would be permitted. IMO, this is the simplest way to approach scrambles. But there is nothing in the Rule book that requires a Committee to approach it this way.

Not sure how this switched from Greensomes to Scrambles??
Anyway, I'm in the camp that says doing LCP with one of the balls in Greensomes does not change that the side has not yet made a choice of which ball to play.
For somewhat of an analogy, see Clarification 5.7b/1 - Dropping a Ball After Play has Been Suspended Is Not Failing to Stop Play. This suggests that proceeding under a Rule is not equivalent to making a stroke.

 

[salfordlad]

Not sure how this switched from Greensomes to Scrambles??
Anyway, I'm in the camp that says doing LCP with one of the balls in Greensomes does not change that the side has not yet made a choice of which ball to play.
For somewhat of an analogy, see Clarification 5.7b/1 - Dropping a Ball After Play has Been Suspended Is Not Failing to Stop Play. This suggests that proceeding under a Rule is not equivalent to making a stroke.

It was an unintentional morph into scrambles, cueing off the general theme 'is choice preserved until the point that a ball is played?' which rears its head in greensomes and scrambles. I note 20.1c(3)/2 (again, noting it is a different context) also uses language of "Dropping a ball is not equivalent to making a stroke."

Extending the discussion ...

Preferred lies is a rather benign example, but what if there is accidental movement of one of the side's balls? No problem if they have not yet played the next stroke or problem if they had chosen that ball but not yet played it (and hadn't yet lifted the other ball)?

 

[rulie]

It was an unintentional morph into scrambles, cueing off the general theme 'is choice preserved until the point that a ball is played?' which rears its head in greensomes and scrambles. I note 20.1c(3)/2 (again, noting it is a different context) also uses language of "Dropping a ball is not equivalent to making a stroke."

Extending the discussion ...

Preferred lies is a rather benign example, but what if there is accidental movement of one of the side's balls? No problem if they have not yet played the next stroke or problem if they had chosen that ball but not yet played it (and hadn't yet lifted the other ball)?

Imo, in Greensomes, the choice isn't "made" until a stroke is made at the chosen ball or the side has picked up the other ball with the intent that it will no longer be available. Integrity is important!

 

[salfordlad]

Imo, in Greensomes, the choice isn't "made" until a stroke is made at the chosen ball or the side has picked up the other ball with the intent that it will no longer be available. Integrity is important!

That doesn't pick up all my question - if they are intending to play ball A but ball B hasn't yet been lifted and one of them accidentally moves ball A (so they know ball A now 'owns' a one stroke penalty but ball B is still lying there without any additional penalty)?

 

[rulie]

That doesn't pick up all my question - if they are intending to play ball A but ball B hasn't yet been lifted and one of them accidentally moves ball A (so they know ball A now 'owns' a one stroke penalty but ball B is still lying there without any additional penalty)?

Again, imo, ball A carries that one stroke penalty (similar to a provisional ball or second ball) but ball B is not impacted.

 

[salfordlad]

Again, imo, ball A carries that one stroke penalty (similar to a provisional ball or second ball) but ball B is not impacted.

Thanks for your thoughts. Let me revisit an earlier point - picking up a ball. Ball A goes long and a bit left, ball B is much shorter so the side picks up ball B intending to hit ball A. They get there and find it has just found it's way through an OOB fence. What are their options?

 

[rulie]

Thanks for your thoughts. Let me revisit an earlier point - picking up a ball. Ball A goes long and a bit left, ball B is much shorter so the side picks up ball B intending to hit ball A. They get there and find it has just found it's way through an OOB fence. What are their options?

I'll propose this - go back and replace ball A with its one stroke penalty (same as would happen if A was a provisional), play on. I'll also propose that it's a foolish move by the side to pick up ball A without knowing ball B's situation.