Marking ball on green

[FairwayDodger]

I have politely requested people to move damm great poker chips a club length on occassions

I've just started using a poker chip.... got it free in some magazine or other....

 

[bobmac]

I played recently with someone who had a green ball marker. You never knew where their ball was and were constantly tip toeing round the green trying not to stand on their line. The poker chips are great as you know exactly where their line is.

 

[RGDave]

If odd ball markers is annoying for some people, I'm going to buy myself a bright orange frisbee and see if I can put off my next opponents in the match play.

Maybe I could mark my ball with a guinea pig, and see if I can train him to much the grass in the direction of the hole (when nobody's looking of course, like a stealth pig)

 

[daymond]

A big poker chip ( as supplied by GM this month ) is fine but if it is anywhere near the line of putt I would have it moved as many putter heads as I want. Personally I use a 5p piece ( tight old git! ).

 

[Fraz]

I usually use a nice shiney Quarter, got loads left from last trip to Florida. I did however use the poker chip last time out and felt a bit guilty whenever my partner was putting past it as i feel its own gravity field will probably effect the line oftheir putt...

 

[ScienceBoy]

I played recently with someone who had a green ball marker.

It wasn't me but it did cause me some issues, it was actually a transparent green and the guy said he got 100 off ebay!

I cannot bring myself to use the poker chips, my ball markers are big, shiny and 10p a go

 

[DappaDonDave]

You should watch Jon Richardson a little bit OCD.

That tee have no impact on you other ha ou thinking it is somehow distressing.

 

[backwoodsman]

if it is interfering with you then you can request that it be moved - I have politely requested people to move damm great poker chips a club length on occassions (not a putter head!) because they are so distracting.

absolutely no problem with people using what suits them otherwise

Am going to play devil's advocate here: what rule allows you to request the marker be moved - or what compels the player to do it? Rule 22/2 allows you to request a ball be lifted and marked. And the note to 20/1 about moving markers to the side only says "should" if it interferes with play, stance or stroke. Which a) doesn't mention requests and b) isn't compulsory

 

[Mark_G]

Am I the only one who still uses the Centenary Marker?

 

[Colin L]

Perhaps you might first consider why anyone would not be willing to move their marker if asked to do so. The Rules envisage a situation where a player might want a marker left as it would help him line up his putt and confirms the right of the other player to move his marker so that it does not assist. (Decision 20-1/11) but that is very different.

I can only think of one reason for refusing a request to move a marker - the hope that it would interfere with the other player's putt by knocking it off line and that very unworthy intention seems to me to be a breach of Rule 1-2. Insisting on leaving the marker in place would be an action designed to influence the movement of the ball.

 

[North Mimms]

Am going to play devil's advocate here: what rule allows you to request the marker be moved - or what compels the player to do it? Rule 22/2 allows you to request a ball be lifted and marked. And the note to 20/1 about moving markers to the side only says "should" if it interferes with play, stance or stroke. Which a) doesn't mention requests and b) isn't compulsory

Maybe no rule, but manners or etiquette?

 

[duncan mackie]

Am going to play devil's advocate here: what rule allows you to request the marker be moved - or what compels the player to do it? Rule 22/2 allows you to request a ball be lifted and marked. And the note to 20/1 about moving markers to the side only says "should" if it interferes with play, stance or stroke. Which a) doesn't mention requests and b) isn't compulsory

devil's advocate is useful at times, and I can appreciate your reasons here. I hadn't really given it much thought beyond 22-1 but here goes for now - I may look into it further in case I have missed something more direct.

firstly we have 22-1 confirming that interference can be both mental and physical, although as you point out 22 references a ball.

we then have the situation that the ball marker is effectively the ball - if it didn't have that status it would be a movable obstruction and you could just remove it.

you also have 16-1/17 which infers that the player could have had the tee peg substituted or moved, and that that is his solution under the rules.

I agree that there is nothing specific, but there's also the spirit of the game element under etiquette which would come into play if, for example, the player was using a 2" diameter 1" high disc directly on your line and refused to move it citing the 'should' in 20-1's note. Were such a situation come to me in committee I would be inclined to use 33-7!

I may have exaggerated to make my point earlier, and in practice I've noticed that people with such markers either have a 'normal' one as well for marking their ball close to the hole or putt out (stroke play obviously).

 

[backwoodsman]

Maybe no rule, but manners or etiquette?

Yes, I know, but the reason for asking about "what rule" what a little more than mere pedantry. I'd happily move a marker a couple of clubheads, perhaps 3 even. Unless the person was annoying me, I'd probably swap to a smaller marker if asked. But I'd baulk at moving it a putter length and would probably say no. (Too much risk of not being able to replace the marker at its precise original position). And unless someone can point at something to say otherwise, I'd be within the rules.

 

[backwoodsman]

PS: Duncan, I note yours too - on this blasted forum, people post faster than I can read & type...

 

[Colin L]

if, for example, the player was using a 2" diameter 1" high disc directly on your line and refused to move it citing the 'should' in 20-1's note. Were such a situation come to me in committee I would be inclined to use 33-7!

Duncan, what did you think of my suggestion of a breach of 1-2 for that?

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan, what did you think of my suggestion of a breach of 1-2 for that?

interesting that 20-1/11 references back to 22-1 even though it deals with a ball marker - missed that in my earlier response.

overall I think 22-1 covers the situation you outline too - by analogy to this decision, and therefore 1-2 wouldn't be called upon

 

[Colin L]

The simplest approach is, I agree, that it is implicit in the rules that what applies to the ball applies to the ball marker (apart from another ball hitting the marker).

I'll keep the thought of 1-2 as the ultimate deterrent:thup:

 

[MashieNiblick]

Interesting discussion. Usually the Rules are very comprehensive and specific.

Accordingly you might have expected there to be a note under either 20-1 or 22-2 confirming that a player may have a marker moved if it interferes with play.

In this case (i.e. moving a marker that is interfering with play) it just seems like there is an assumption/implication e.g with reference to the note under Rule 20-1, that it will be done when requested. I have always assumed that myself and that the word "should" in the note (which denotes a recommedation) simply applies to the method of moving the marker, with the need to move it being a given.

 

[duncan mackie]

I have always assumed that myself and that the word "should" in the note (which denotes a recommedation) simply applies to the method of moving the marker, with the need to move it being a given.

I also considered this line as well, and it's the question I propose to take forward elsewhere.

 

[backwoodsman]

Which last two posts get to the nub of my devils advocacy. ie if there's a need to move it then it should (will?) be moved - pretty much as fact. But presumably at some point there will be lack of unanimity about the need. eg Can you move it to the side a bit. Ok. A bit further. Ok. No, a bit further still. Sod off.

If Duncan takes it forward elsewhere, will be interesting to see what elsewhere thinks.