Movement of Ball by Outside Influence

[Steven Rules]

IMO, no penalty to the opponent. I believe this is a 9.6 issue, not a 9.5b issue. A ball in motion is an outside influence - per the final bullet point in the definition of outside influence: "Any natural or artificial object or anything else (including another ball in motion),...

I agree with you that 'another ball', no matter who owns the other ball, is covered by 9.6 and 11.1a. But it wasn't another ball that dislodged the player's ball. It was sand etc that was propelled by the opponent's actions.

The opponent is penalised for the outcome of these actions under 9.5 just as equally as if the player’s own equivalent actions had caused the player’s own ball to move in breach of 9.4.

 

[Steven Rules]

So I take it that it would be reasonable then for the player who was playing from the bunker, to ask his opponent to mark his ball, so that any sand thrown up from the bunker shot would not be able to cause the ball to move?

Yes it would be reasonable but - and this is probably going to generate a whole new avenue of tangential discussion - strictly under 15.3b, fear of a ball being dislodged by flying sand is not one of the valid reasons to have a ball marked and lifted. The rule only deals with the scenario of a reasonable chance the player’s ball in motion could hit that ball. Nevertheless, in match play, with the hindsight of the discussion in this thread, and if I had the foresight to anticipate the perils of flying sand, I'd probably be seeking to have the teetering ball marked and lifted, too.

15.3b Ball Anywhere on Course Interfering with Play
(1) Meaning of Interference by Another Player’s Ball. Interference under this Rule exists when another player’s ball at rest:
*Might interfere with the player’s area of intended stance or area of intended swing,
*Is on or close to the player’s line of play such that, given the intended stroke, there is a reasonable chance the player’s ball in motion could hit that ball, or
*Is close enough to distract the player in making the stroke.

 

[YandaB]

Yes it would be reasonable but - and this is probably going to generate a whole new avenue of tangential discussion - strictly under 15.3b, fear of a ball being dislodged by flying sand is not one of the valid reasons to have a ball marked and lifted. The rule only deals with the scenario of a reasonable chance the player’s ball in motion could hit that ball. Nevertheless, in match play, with the hindsight of the discussion in this thread, and if I had the foresight to anticipate the perils of flying sand, I'd probably be seeking to have the teetering ball marked and lifted, too.

15.3b Ball Anywhere on Course Interfering with Play
(1) Meaning of Interference by Another Player’s Ball. Interference under this Rule exists when another player’s ball at rest:
*Might interfere with the player’s area of intended stance or area of intended swing,
*Is on or close to the player’s line of play such that, given the intended stroke, there is a reasonable chance the player’s ball in motion could hit that ball, or
*Is close enough to distract the player in making the stroke.

Having read this thread, knowing what I now know, I would be distracted thinking it was close enough for me to dislodge it with some sand. Would that count?

 

[Steven Rules]

Having read this thread, knowing what I now know, I would be distracted thinking it was close enough for me to dislodge it with some sand. Would that count?

Probably the easier and more reasonable argument would be that it is close to your line of play.

 

[RRidges]

Happily for you, in match play you may ignore a breach of the rules by your opponent. Rule 3.2d(4). No need to 'create a scene' if you don't want to.

This is one case where I'd likely do exactly that, as it seems distinctly unfair.

 

[salfordlad]

This is my reasoning also.

The player is deemed to have caused the player’s own ball to have moved if the player causes it to move through, say, vibration or thowing up loose impediments or other natural objects.

In match play, there is nothing in 9.5 suggesting that the opponent is exempt from liability for moving the player’s ball throgh similar actions of the opponent.

One stroke penalty for the opponent. Replace the player’s ball

Very harsh on the opponent, but that is how I (and Colin) interpret this rule.

A very similar question is live in a different place and we don't have an official answer yet - this 9.5 v 9.6 dimension, so hopefully we will get an answer. Here's the issue - if a ball and sand, as a consequence of a player's stroke, head towards an opponent's ball and moves it, if the sand moves the opponent's ball you are applying penalty but if the player's ball moves the opponent's ball then you are not? How much sense does this make? In my mind, a logical separation (and consistent with the definition that a ball in motion is an outside influence) is if a player is making their stroke (ie complying with the rule requirements to play their ball as it lies) and there is no clear reason for the player to be concerned the action may move an opponent's ball, then I think it is logical to consider the consequences of the player's stroke to be an outside influence to the opponent's ball, regardless of their nature. RB's really don't want penalties of this nature grabbing headlines and fuelling the 'rules are stupid' brigade.
This little dilemma is a direct result of some of the changes in the 2019 Rules aimed at simplifying things. Simplification and fairness are often mortal enemies.

 

[salfordlad]

I agree with you that 'another ball', no matter who owns the other ball, is covered by 9.6 and 11.1a. But it wasn't another ball that dislodged the player's ball. It was sand etc that was propelled by the opponent's actions.

The opponent is penalised for the outcome of these actions under 9.5 just as equally as if the player’s own equivalent actions had caused the player’s own ball to move in breach of 9.4.

I don't believe that is a valid comparison because the player is actually complying with the rules in playing his own ball, making a stroke. You do not incur a 9.4 penalty in making a counting stroke.

 

[Steven Rules]

Absolutely not disputing but why the penalty in Matchplay but not in Strokeplay?

.........

Why the inconsistencies?

In stroke play, every other player on the course (Edit - except other members of your 'side' in formats such as four ball or foursomes) is an outside influence.

In match play, your opponent is, well, your opponent. In many areas of the rules opponents in match play are treated quite differently from other players (i.e. outside influences) in stroke play.

 

[Steven Rules]

I don't believe that is a valid comparison because the player is actually complying with the rules in playing his own ball, making a stroke. You do not incur a 9.4 penalty in making a counting stroke.

But you do incur a 9.4 penalty if you make a practice swing and flying debris moves your own ball.

Given the alignment in wording between the relevant bits of 9.4 and 9 5, the rules tell me that the opponent should equally incur a penalty if the opponent makes a practice swing and resultant flying debris moves the player's ball. If I was to progress from there to look for support for the 'no penalty in making a counting stroke' line of thinking then I'd have to go looking for a relevant Exception, and there simply isn't one.

What 9.4 and 9.5 tell me is that you have to be careful about what you do around your own ball and you also have to be careful around your opponent's ball too

 

[Steven Rules]

Here's the issue - if a ball and sand, as a consequence of a player's stroke, head towards an opponent's ball and moves it, if the sand moves the opponent's ball you are applying penalty but if the player's ball moves the opponent's ball then you are not? How much sense does this make?

We are in complete agreement here. It is harsh. It is not initially intuitive. It is probably either an unintended consequence of the way the rules are currently written or, as you suggest, an ambiguity that has crept in through the 'simplification' process.

Of course, I may just be plain 'wrong' in the way I am reading the rules around this scenario but, for the time being, I am not yet prepared to concede that point.

 

[rulie]

We are in complete agreement here. It is harsh. It is not initially intuitive. It is probably either an unintended consequence of the way the rules are currently written or, as you suggest, an ambiguity that has crept in through the 'simplification' process.

Of course, I may just be plain 'wrong' in the way I am reading the rules around this scenario but, for the time being, I am not yet prepared to concede that point.

I have an answer from a very reliable authority - this is a Rule 9.6 situation - there is no penalty to either player and the ball must be replaced.

 

[salfordlad]

I have an answer from a very reliable authority - this is a Rule 9.6 situation - there is no penalty to either player and the ball must be replaced.

Thank you. I strongly believe this answer needs to be made public. Because it is just too easy for anyone to say the answer is there in rule 9.5, penalty.

 

[salfordlad]

But you do incur a 9.4 penalty if you make a practice swing and flying debris moves your own ball.

And you get a precisely matching penalty if your practice swing flying debris moves your opponent's ball per 9.5. Total symmetry there. But my understanding is playing a stroke changes everything, incidental impacts on balls (yours or anyone else's) do not raise penalty issues. But the very easy thing we can agree on is RB's got us into this complexity, they need to take responsibility for the answer here and make it transparent.

 

[rulie]

Thank you. I strongly believe this answer needs to be made public. Because it is just too easy for anyone to say the answer is there in rule 9.5, penalty.

You know that, by their posting rules, I can't post the answer any more than I have, and cannot identify the source. I'll continue to abide by their restrictions because I appreciate their answers.

 

[salfordlad]

You know that, by their posting rules, I can't post the answer any more than I have, and cannot identify the source. I'll continue to abide by their restrictions because I appreciate their answers.

Of course, I meant made public by them, not by you.

 

[Steven Rules]

You know that, by their posting rules, I can't post the answer any more than I have, and cannot identify the source. I'll continue to abide by their restrictions because I appreciate their answers.

Well, I guess that's that then. A secret society whose name we dare not mention has made a secret ruling in secret and sworn the secret few who know about it to keep it a secret.

Not particularly helpful or comforting for the other 99.99999% of the world golfing community. (I wasn't sure how many 9s to add there but I expect I'm in the ball park.)

 

[rulie]

Well, I guess that's that then. A secret society whose name we dare not mention has made a secret ruling in secret and sworn the secret few who know about it to keep it a secret.

Not particularly helpful or comforting for the other 99.99999% of the world golfing community. (I wasn't sure how many 9s to add there but I expect I'm in the ball park.)

That's a bit sarcastic (also sarcastic), but you can ask the same question yourself and get an answer - then share the answer as best you can in accordance with the accompanying restrictions. Imo, belittling those authorities is not a recipe for cooperation or success.
In other words, your response is not in character or appreciated.

 

[Steven Rules]

That's a bit sarcastic (also sarcastic), but you can ask the same question yourself and get an answer - then share the answer as best you can in accordance with the accompanying restrictions. Imo, belittling those authorities is not a recipe for cooperation or success.
In other words, your response is not in character or appreciated.

Yes. It was more than a bit sarcastic. It was very sarcastic. But, you are right, it was unhelpful.

Back to topic. Could you please confirm for me, though, in match play if an opponent makes a pactice swing and sends sand and loose impediments flying that moves the player’s ball, does the opponent incur a one stroke penalty under 9.5b? Is there anything in this 9.5/9.6 ruling that changes my understaning of 9 5b in this scenario?

 

[Colin L]

Thank you. I strongly believe this answer needs to be made public. Because it is just too easy for anyone to say the answer is there in rule 9.5, penalty.

It is "just too easy" because that is what 9.5 clearly leads one to understand. But never mind. Those who write the rules can instruct us how to apply them even if they are wrong by their own words. ?

Judging by its Facebook page, the ease with which its members seem to able to get quick answers to questions and the openness with which members post such answers on internet forums, the USGA seems to have a different approach to that of the R&A. I get the matter of not wanting individuals to pass on rulings like this given, for example, the risk of them being distorted in a form of Chinese whispers but it's not asking much for it to post them on its own website. That way it controls the wording of the explanations; that way golfers in general are kept informed; and that way for those of us who put back into the game by refereeing it's not just left to chance to find out.

The only reason I now know there is no penalty for moving an opponent's ball in this situation despite 9.5 is through a series of chances. I happen to follow the GM forum. A member of that forum happened to come across an unusual situation and happened to post about it. Another member happened to to be in the position of having an unpublished answer from a "higher authority" and was able within the constraints he was under to resolve the issue. It's not really satisfactory.

 

[Colin L]

What is very satisfactory’ though, is that rulie shared his knowledge with us. For that, much appreciation.