Marking another players ball

[Dellboy]

Happened a wee while ago but still not sure what the rule is !

I was on the green and the other player was in the sand. He came out and landed on my line, now to speed up play I maked his ball so I could putt and then played mine out. The other chap replaced his own ball and holed out.

Only thought about it later, but as I marked his ball I was lead to believe I should have replaced it not him, so who was in the wrong ? Me for not replacing it for him or him for putting out after replacing it himself ?

Cheers,

Del

P.S I told him i thoght it was his fault but not sure of the ruling.

 

[palindromicbob]

You can mark another players ball if they give you the authority to do it. Doesn't specify that it must be replaced by the same person though. Rule 20-1

 

[CliveW]

As above, however it used to be that the person who marked the ball had to replace it but the rule was changed several years ago.

 

[Colin L]

Dellboy,

Did the other player give you permission to mark his ball? If so, that's fine and as said, you weren't required to do the replacing - that can be done by the player, his partner or you as the person who lifted it.

If you didn't have his authority then the outcome depends on whether you were playing stroke play or match play.

In stroke play, there is no penalty for lifting a fellow competitor's ball without authority.
In match play you would be penalised one stroke for lifting your opponent's ball.

 

[Imurg]

In match play you would be penalised one stroke for lifting your opponent's ball.

Interesting this - many people think in Matchplay the only penalties are loss of hole......

 

[MashieNiblick]

Interesting post.

I always ask "Ok if I mark that?" in these kinds of situations in order to comply with Rule 20-1.

However given that there is in fact no penalty for lifting a fellow competitor's ball in stroke play, I wonder if Rule 20-1 might be worded a bit better. Anyone checking this Rule if this happens in stroke play might well be confused or misled unless they also checked or were aware of Rule 18-4 (not to mention Decision 20-1/4 Competitor's Ball Lifted Without Authority by Fellow-Competitor) and 20-1 makes no reference to 18-4.

Does the wording of 20-1 need to be better aligned with 18-4?

 

[duncan mackie]

Does the wording of 20-1 need to be better aligned with 18-4?

I don't think so, and don't see the same issues you appear to.

20-1 deals with the player's actions when lifting his ball under the rules, it sets out the procedure and highlights that the players' caddy or other individual authorised by him to lift the ball (has to be a specific authorisation) is acting as the player in that act, and the player is fully responsible for their actions.

18 deals with what happens when a players ball at rest is moved rather than lifted under the rules.

the decision you quote simply makes this distinction clear.

the variables of who, in what capacity, with what intention and using what procedure are all covered = as is the issue of inadvertent or unavoidable substitution. Not bad with only 2 rules

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thanks Duncan.

I suppose my issue was, in a rather laboured way, that if this happened and you pulled out the Rule book and just checked Rule 20 you might think that there had been a breach of that Rule and apply a penalty.

As you say between the two Rules the situation is covered but it is the fact that you have to know both Rules (20-1 and 18-4) to know it isn't a penalty. I guess that is also the case with some other situations but it was the lack of a cross reference (maybe by way of a note) that I was thinking of.

 

[duncan mackie]

I would have said the opening sentence of the rule (20-1) is that note - if you aren't dealing with 'a person, authorised by the player to lift his ball, you are in the wrong place

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thanks Duncan. That does make more sense now.

Interesting also now to have read the recent posts on the thread about hitting a moving a ball where you also need to be aware of two Rules (although I think the wording of the Rules in that sitiation makes the link clearer).

Another reason I suppose why it's good to have a general understanding of what's in the Rule book, not necessarily in detail, but to know broadly what is covered and where so you can look in the right places when the need arises.

 

[Colin L]

Interesting this - many people think in Matchplay the only penalties are loss of hole......

One stroke penalties in stroke play are also one stroke penalties in match play. 2 stroke penalties in stroke play are loss of hole in match play. Plus there are penalties like the one in question that only exist in match play.

 

[duncan mackie]

One stroke penalties in stroke play are also one stroke penalties in match play. 2 stroke penalties in stroke play are loss of hole in match play. Plus there are penalties like the one in question that only exist in match play.

and for completeness - there are 2 stroke penalties in stroke play that don't exist in matchplay (and aren't thefore loss of hole!)

:rofl:

 

[Colin L]

Simple, intit?