Moving ball in a bunker for better lie

[Huwey12]

I was playing in a medal, after the match I heard a player had been reported for picking up his ball and placing it for a better lie

He's a well known cheat and when challenged he said it was in a footprint but still played from his improved lie. After nine holes when they add up their scores he just added one shot for his breach of rule. Later he changed his reason for moving the ball was because of animal scraping. His playing partners definitely witnessed it was a footprint

He was clearly in breach of bunker rules

My question is is this an automatic dq and would it be grounds for giving him a ban for a specific period

I need to get my facts right as I'm on on the committee

Thanks

 

[duncan mackie]

Firstly you need to separate the current competition with any subsequent, and separate, committee action.

Dealing with the competition.
If the player has returned the card and signed for a score on that hole which is incorrect, and the competition hasn't been closed yet, then you need to read rule 6-6d carefully.
Without making any judgement I think it would be difficult to argue that he knew about the correct penalty to apply and therefore penalty shots would apply as per the rule.

However, the underlying issue seems somewhat deeper and the committee should really have a formal discussion with the player to establish exactly what happened and what he thought he was doing. I would recommend that the meeting is documented and signed by those present. After that the committee can have their own meeting to decide on what actions they feel appropriate.

34-1b is the other rule to get comfortable with, including specifically 34-1b/1.5 (which you may feel justifies simple DQ if you take the view that the players initial statement represents the facts). This also provides a route post competition closing - but obviously follows the meeting.

Move carefully, establish the facts then apply the rules to those facts. Avoid judgement where possible

Let the rules rule.

 

[Huwey12]

Thanks Duncan, my first time what could be disciplinary action to a member. I'll consult the rules you have quoted

Cheers

 

[jim8flog]

Even if it was an animal scrape he incurred a penalty for placing the ball and not dropping it.

 

[Huwey12]

Yes Jim he gave himself a grudgingly one shot penalty instead of 2. So he's signed for the wrong score on that hole then

 

[jim8flog]

Yes Jim he gave himself a grudgingly one shot penalty instead of 2. So he's signed for the wrong score on that hole then

Yes it was a 2 shot penalty. As Duncan says read Rule 6-6d and if you a willing to apply that rule it is a further 2 shot penalty.

 

[Colin L]

Yes it was a 2 shot penalty. As Duncan says read Rule 6-6d and if you a willing to apply that rule it is a further 2 shot penalty.

You would need to check first whether the Local Rule modifying 6-6d and limiting the penalty to two strokes was in place or not.

 

[backwoodsman]

I also think you need to check

a) was he justified in moving the ball at all?
b) if not, did he move it back (ie did he play from a wrong place)?
c) did he gain a significant advantage by not moving it back (by the account given & the fact it was a bunker, l'd almost certainly say yes)

To me, in this case, the issue of a wrong place would amount to a dq in its own right regardless of the issue of signing for a wrong score.

 

[Huwey12]

QUOTE=backwoodsman;1867995]I also think you need to check

a) was he justified in moving the ball at all?
b) if not, did he move it back (ie did he play from a wrong place)?
c) did he gain a significant advantage by not moving it back (by the account given & the fact it was a bunker, l'd almost certainly say yes)

To me, in this case, the issue of a wrong place would amount to a dq in its own right regardless of the issue of signing for a wrong score.[/QUOTE]

We're in the process of a dq but some committee members on hols. Can we dq him with just the comp sec and captain present?

 

[Colin L]

If you DQ, you should be very clear as to which rule you are applying. It cannot just be for playing from a wrong place, it would have be for a serious breach of that rule,i.e, did he gain a significant advantage by the breach. Ask whether the advantage gained by a better lie in the bunker was significantly greater than catered for by a 2 stroke penalty. I would doubt it, but that's just my view.

If you want to DQ under 34-1b, which Duncan referenced, you should make sure that his fellow competitors told him he had incurred a 2 stroke penalty. Since he applied a penalty he might have wriggle room under 6-6d by claiming he did not know the penalty.

 

[duncan mackie]

QUOTE=backwoodsman;1867995]I also think you need to check

a) was he justified in moving the ball at all?
b) if not, did he move it back (ie did he play from a wrong place)?
c) did he gain a significant advantage by not moving it back (by the account given & the fact it was a bunker, l'd almost certainly say yes)

To me, in this case, the issue of a wrong place would amount to a dq in its own right regardless of the issue of signing for a wrong score.

We're in the process of a dq but some committee members on hols. Can we dq him with just the comp sec and captain present?[/QUOTE]

Yes, normally the competion sec alone would handle a DQ- any subsequent action outside the competition result should be handled by the committee in due course.

As Colin has reinforced it's clarity at this stage that's key.

There are mixed views on whether someone who has had a penalty queried before they return their card loses the protection of 'innocent error' in having failed to add a penalty which they didn't know they had incurred.
Some take the view that if the matter has been raised as a query it becomes the players responsibility to ensure that they have included the relevant penalty - some suggest that is going to far. Many take the view that the scale and nature of the discussion are relevant to the situation.

Here, if the player has returned the card without discussion with the committee (or it's representatives) you have to establish the facts around who said what to whom about penalties in order to make your judgement.

I didn't want to raise it earlier but you also have an issue with the marker. How has the marker signed the card if they disagrees with the score entered? Did the marker feel coerced at the time but was the one who subsequently (first realistic opportunity) approached the committee with their concerns? Did the player alter the score? Or did the score get discussed with the committee before being returned and there are now further questions being asked?

These are the important issues at this point - the actual offence cited and applicable penalties (below dq) are really rather minor in this context - I think it's generally accepted that the score returned for that hole was too low!