Hitting partner's ball marker

[cliveb]

Playing in a friendly 4BBB recently, my partner did not use a traditional round ball marker, and instead stuck a pitchmark repairer in the green to mark his ball. On one occasion, my putt missed the hole, and then very nearly hit his marker. Which got me thinking - if it *had* hit and been stopped by his pitchmark repairer, would there have been a penalty?

I asked someone at the club who is a county rules official, an he initially said "interesting question - I'd say there would be no penalty as it's an outside agency - rub of the green". But then I suggested that perhaps the pitchmark repairer would count as my partner's equipment, which made him reconsider and in the end he wasn't sure.

Any thoughts?

 

[CMAC]

without looking at the rules I'd say it was an outside agency and no penalty....except a slap on your wrists for not getting it moved or replaced by something appropriate.

However, if a partner or FC placed something deliberately that could interfere or aid a partner then it envokes another rule and penalties and DQ would ensue.........I believe

 

[palindromicbob]

Playing in a friendly 4BBB recently, my partner did not use a traditional round ball marker, and instead stuck a pitchmark repairer in the green to mark his ball. On one occasion, my putt missed the hole, and then very nearly hit his marker. Which got me thinking - if it *had* hit and been stopped by his pitchmark repairer, would there have been a penalty?

I asked someone at the club who is a county rules official, an he initially said "interesting question - I'd say there would be no penalty as it's an outside agency - rub of the green". But then I suggested that perhaps the pitchmark repairer would count as my partner's equipment, which made him reconsider and in the end he wasn't sure.

Any thoughts?

No penalty.

Because it was marking the position of the ball it was no longer deemed as equipment.

Had it been dropped by your partner and not being used to mark position then it would have been equipment.

There is the small risk pointed out above by DarthVega though and deliberately interfering or aiding, but from what you have said this would not be the case.

 

[duncan mackie]

No penalty.

Because it was marking the position of the ball it was no longer deemed as equipment.

Had it been dropped by your partner and not being used to mark position then it would have been equipment.

I think you have this slightly wrong

What it's doing alone doesn't change it's status. I can see how the wording of the definition could seem to say that, but it doesn't. It has to be a small object first, then be used to mark etc

“Equipment” is anything used, worn or carried by the player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either of their caddies, except any ball he has played at the hole being played and any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped."

An example to illustrate this in practice involves a glove being used to mark a dropping area - 20-2a/7tells us that a glove retains it's status as equipement because it's not a 'small object' as envisated by the definition.

I agree that a pitchmark repairer is - well all those I've seen anyway! - and no penalty applies unless it was being used deliberately to influence the outcome of the shot; and 1-2 would come into play.

 

[Slab]

Can I just ask a slight aside to this

Given that the line of the putt stops at the hole (& this scenario reads as though the marker is beyond the hole) could a marker (conforming with the guidance of a small object etc) ever be deemed as used deliberately to influence the outcome of a shot?

 

[SaintHacker]

Sorry to go slightly off topic, but one of the fourball I was playing with a few weeks ago was told by one of the other players he couldn't mark his ball on the green with a tee as it would be testing the ground. If this is true surely a pitch mark fork couldn't be used either?

 

[duncan mackie]

Can I just ask a slight aside to this

Given that the line of the putt stops at the hole (& this scenario reads as though the marker is beyond the hole) could a marker (conforming with the guidance of a small object etc) ever be deemed as used deliberately to influence the outcome of a shot?

a good question

the answer must reflect the question; a marker that doesn't fundamentally represent an object likely to significantly influence the outcome of a shot clearly doesn't.

a simple tee peg clearly could - and the question then reverts to whether it was deliberately used for this purpose.

it doesn't matter where the object is relative to the hole.

 

[duncan mackie]

Sorry to go slightly off topic, but one of the fourball I was playing with a few weeks ago was told by one of the other players he couldn't mark his ball on the green with a tee as it would be testing the ground. If this is true surely a pitch mark fork couldn't be used either?

your logic is correct - either smile and ignore him or shoot him, as you consider appropriate

if you are looking for a total put down you could just quote the applicable rule verbatim and show how stupid he is -

"10-1 d. Testing Surface

During the stipulated round, a player must not test the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface."

Sticking a marker in it, repairing a pitchmark and, possibly surprisingly, walking on the green, aren't a breach..........

 

[pogle]

your logic is correct - either smile and ignore him or shoot him, as you consider appropriate

if you are looking for a total put down you could just quote the applicable rule verbatim and show how stupid he is -

"10-1 d. Testing Surface

During the stipulated round, a player must not test the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface."

Sticking a marker in it, repairing a pitchmark and, possibly surprisingly, walking on the green, aren't a breach..........

Whilst I would hesitate to disagree with Duncan, to achieve a total put down you must also quote Decision 20-1/16. An extract of which states

"... Examples of methods of marking the position of a ball that are not recommended, but are permissible, are as follows:
placing the toe of a club at the side of, or behind, the ball;
using a tee
using a loose impediment;

..."

 

[duncan mackie]

Whilst I would hesitate to disagree with Duncan, to achieve a total put down you must also quote Decision 20-1/16. An extract of which states

"... Examples of methods of marking the position of a ball that are not recommended, but are permissible, are as follows:
placing the toe of a club at the side of, or behind, the ball;
using a tee
using a loose impediment;

..."

Pogle - please feel free to put me down; posting here leaves me open to that everyday

personally I wouldn't ever raise decisions that reference recomendations, other than in the negative, because they are exactly that, recomendations not rules.