Non-Compliant Local Rule

[rulie]

I just wonder if this could be a sensitive topic during the preferred lies period, where the relief area is often only 6 inches. At many courses, frequently a wider relief area would be desirable, as it can be difficult to find a decent piece of grass to place the ball in. If a player conveniently doesn't mark the ball, and then estimates where the reference point is, I can imagine many will find it much easier at finding a nicer area of grass to place their ball.

I suppose I'm a little surprised that the rule isn't that the ball should be marked by default, unless in doing so would not be feasible (and give examples in the Interpretations). But, I'm sure the pros outweigh the cons. It'll be interesting the day when one player accuses another of clearly not being able to pinpoint their reference point on the many preferred lies during a round, and taking it to the Committee to rule on.

I know this will sound heretic, but why no expand the 6" to one club-length (which is common in many parts of the world)?
Regarding your dispute issue - the Committee just needs to ask the player, did you use your reasonable judgment to estimate the spot?
Cheaters will cheat, but the Rules are based on player integrity.

 

[Swango1980]

I know this will sound heretic, but why no expand the 6" to one club-length (which is common in many parts of the world)?

Because if we do in the UK, scores are not allowed to be used for handicap, at least last time I checked the CONGU guidance.

Still applies, just checked the guidance as applied in GB&I

Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: 6 inches from the reference point,but with these limits: 


 

[rulie]

Because if we do in the UK, scores are not allowed to be used for handicap, at least last time I checked the CONGU guidance.

Still applies, just checked the guidance as applied in GB&I

Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: 6 inches from the reference point,but with these limits: 


That can be changed through CONGU - it is self-imposed.

 

[Swango1980]

That can be changed through CONGU - it is self-imposed.

True, but very little I can do to influence it at club level

 

[rulefan]

Imo, 14.3 is about estimating the spot, not for what purpose.

Perhaps 1.3b(2) would have been a better choice

1.3(2) Accepting Player’s “Reasonable Judgment” in Determining a Location When Applying the Rules.​

• Many Rules require a player to determine a spot, point, line, edge, area or other location under the Rules, such as:
  • Estimating or measuring when dropping or placing a ball in taking relief,
• So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if, after the stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Perhaps 1.3b(2) would have been a better choice

1.3(2) Accepting Player’s “Reasonable Judgment” in Determining a Location When Applying the Rules.​

• Many Rules require a player to determine a spot, point, line, edge, area or other location under the Rules, such as:
  • Estimating or measuring when dropping or placing a ball in taking relief,
• So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted even if, after the stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information.

I would expect a playing companion/opponent to pick up that they think I’ve gone beyond 6”, before I play my shot. If they don’t then I take as given their agreement to where I’ve placed my ball. If they do this I assume that I can agree with my opponent a reasonable estimate of the original position of my ball and then I place it within 6” without penalty.

 

[clubchamp98]

I just wonder if this could be a sensitive topic during the preferred lies period, where the relief area is often only 6 inches. At many courses, frequently a wider relief area would be desirable, as it can be difficult to find a decent piece of grass to place the ball in. If a player conveniently doesn't mark the ball, and then estimates where the reference point is, I can imagine many will find it much easier at finding a nicer area of grass to place their ball.

I suppose I'm a little surprised that the rule isn't that the ball should be marked by default, unless in doing so would not be feasible (and give examples in the Interpretations). But, I'm sure the pros outweigh the cons. It'll be interesting the day when one player accuses another of clearly not being able to pinpoint their reference point on the many preferred lies during a round, and taking it to the Committee to rule on.

That’s so wide open to abuse it’s crazy.

preffered lies is only on cut areas so no reason not to mark it .

I just find it a bit bizzare.

 

[Swango1980]

That’s so wide open to abuse it’s crazy.

preffered lies is only on cut areas so no reason not to mark it .

I just find it a bit bizzare.

I tend to agree, especially when the reference area is only 6 inches, which is very small. For such a small area, you'd think the reference point is even more critical. Whereas with a club length or 2, often people will drop well within that area anyway.

But, the rules are the rules. So I guess there is little stopping a player going back to their bag, cleaning the ball and then estimating their reference point?

 

[Steven Rules]

Frankly I am unconvinced that the 'reasonable judgement' provisions in the Rules are intended to function as a kind of 'get out of jail' cover all to compensate for lax, careless or sloppy attention to detail by the player in the way being discuussed in this thread.

1.3b(2) requires that determiations about location need to be made 'with reasonable care'.

I am not comfortable that 1.3b(2) can be relied on to compensate for (for example) stepping away any great distance to clean the ball and then being unable to reliably remember the original spot of the ball to the degree of precision that is required under the circumstances.

14.1a does not require that the spot of the ball is first marked, but I do not believe that 1.3b(2) is intended to provide an excuse to totally throw caution to the wind.

Thoughts please?

 

[clubchamp98]

Frankly I am unconvinced that the 'reasonable judgement' provisions in the Rules are intended to function as a kind of 'get out of jail' cover all to compensate for lax, careless or sloppy attention to detail by the player in the way being discuussed in this thread.

1.3b(2) requires that determiations about location need to be made 'with reasonable care'.

I am not comfortable that 1.3b(2) can be relied on to compensate for (for example) stepping away any great distance to clean the ball and then being unable to reliably remember the original spot of the ball to the degree of precision that is required under the circumstances.

14.1a does not require that the spot of the ball is first marked, but I do not believe that 1.3b(2) is intended to provide an excuse to totally throw caution to the wind.

Thoughts please?

Imagine if they gave the same lax attitude to the putting green.
Just pick your ball up ,then wander around the green looking at your putt.
Just have a best guess where your ball was Then putt out.

Lexi Thompson would not have been so criticised .
If you pinch even half an inch on the green you’re branded a cheat.
But on the cut areas just have a guess.?

I do get certain situations you might not be able to mark your ball.
Up a tree for example.

I would say if you’re picking it up to clean it and not moving your feet fair enough.
But if you’re picking it up and wandering 5/10 yds or more to your bag/ buggy you should mark it.

Thats why I asked about the “logic “ of this rule.
I always mark mine to protect myself from any questions.

 

[salfordlad]

Frankly I am unconvinced that the 'reasonable judgement' provisions in the Rules are intended to function as a kind of 'get out of jail' cover all to compensate for lax, careless or sloppy attention to detail by the player in the way being discuussed in this thread.

1.3b(2) requires that determiations about location need to be made 'with reasonable care'.

I am not comfortable that 1.3b(2) can be relied on to compensate for (for example) stepping away any great distance to clean the ball and then being unable to reliably remember the original spot of the ball to the degree of precision that is required under the circumstances.

14.1a does not require that the spot of the ball is first marked, but I do not believe that 1.3b(2) is intended to provide an excuse to totally throw caution to the wind.

Thoughts please?

I agree. I don't believe lifting and walking away without any care or attention, then returning the ball to what is proven to be a wrong location (especially if it is a little better than the correct spot) can be considered "reasonable judgement". The concept covers when proceeding under the Rules. The careless person that has personally failed to take account of the ball's position is not automatically protected for any estimate they make for the correct information that they have personally destroyed. The arbiter of "reasonableness" is the Committee and they are not required to accept any dodgy estimate.

Swango might like to take this question to the R&A and get their perspective?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surely the point is that on close cut areas cut to fairway length or less the likelihood of not getting a decent spot within 6” is small, and the difference in playability of the placed ball when placed in a good spot within 6” and a perfect spot 7” is not going to be great and is actually quite unlikely to have much impact on the outcome of the subsequent shot.

That 6” is the common relief distance is surely simply a recognition that our ball could end up in a really poor lie, and for equity the relief affords a better lie - and 6” reflects the state of most fairways I.e. a good lie will be available anywhere on a fairway within 6” of where a ball ends up…and as some distance guidance is required, 6”:it is for most.

 

[rulie]

Frankly I am unconvinced that the 'reasonable judgement' provisions in the Rules are intended to function as a kind of 'get out of jail' cover all to compensate for lax, careless or sloppy attention to detail by the player in the way being discuussed in this thread.

1.3b(2) requires that determiations about location need to be made 'with reasonable care'.

I am not comfortable that 1.3b(2) can be relied on to compensate for (for example) stepping away any great distance to clean the ball and then being unable to reliably remember the original spot of the ball to the degree of precision that is required under the circumstances.

14.1a does not require that the spot of the ball is first marked, but I do not believe that 1.3b(2) is intended to provide an excuse to totally throw caution to the wind.

Thoughts please?

Players play with integrity, that is what the Rules and reasonable judgment relies on. Change the attitude to something positive, not an attitude that everyone cheats.

 

[salfordlad]

Players play with integrity, that is what the Rules and reasonable judgment relies on. Change the attitude to something positive, not an attitude that everyone cheats.

Steven can offer his own view, but I did not interpret his post as about cheating, rather a significant failure on the part of the player to take any notice of where they picked up their ball from. I don't think 'reasonable judgement' means any estimate is okay if, in fact, the player is some distance from the correct spot because of a significant failure to take appropriate notice. That is, it is not a get out of jail free pass when the player themself is the cause of the problem - that is not, IMO, what 1.3b(2) is about.
It would be good to have an RB perspective on this, hence my suggestion above for Swango to take his issue upstairs.

 

[rulie]

Steven can offer his own view, but I did not interpret his post as about cheating, rather a significant failure on the part of the player to take any notice of where they picked up their ball from. I don't think 'reasonable judgement' means any estimate is okay if, in fact, the player is some distance from the correct spot because of a significant failure to take appropriate notice. That is, it is not a get out of jail free pass when the player themself is the cause of the problem - that is not, IMO, what 1.3b(2) is about.
It would be good to have an RB perspective on this, hence my suggestion above for Swango to take his issue upstairs.

Imo, considering reasonable judgement as a "get of jail free pass" presumes that the player is miss-using it purposely. "Reasonable judgment" is based on and relies on the player's integrity.
Of course, if a player is obviously not using his or her reasonable judgment, they should be called out on it, but, again imo, that would be an abnormal situation.

 

[salfordlad]

Imo, considering reasonable judgement as a "get of jail free pass" presumes that the player is miss-using it purposely. "Reasonable judgment" is based on and relies on the player's integrity.
Of course, if a player is obviously not using his or her reasonable judgment, they should be called out on it, but, again imo, that would be an abnormal situation.

I am not presuming misuse. I think the issue that I (and Steven) are raising is 'reasonable judgement' is not, in my view, a permanently available mechanism that 1.3b(2) intends to over-ride a significant failure of the player to take note of the original position of their own ball that they have lifted under a rule.

 

[rulie]

I am not presuming misuse. I think the issue that I (and Steven) are raising is 'reasonable judgement' is not, in my view, a permanently available mechanism that 1.3b(2) intends to over-ride a significant failure of the player to take note of the original position of their own ball that they have lifted under a rule.

What information/evidence would a “significant failure” be based on?

 

[salfordlad]

What information/evidence would a “significant failure” be based on?

Any valid guidance provided to a Committee - eg player was way out of position when they put the ball back into play and made the stroke. Committee would need to investigate and assess on whatever facts they could gather.

 

[rulie]

Any valid guidance provided to a Committee - eg player was way out of position when they put the ball back into play and made the stroke. Committee would need to investigate and assess on whatever facts they could gather.

Ultimately the Committee would need to determine whether or not the player used their “reasonable judgment.”

 

[salfordlad]

Ultimately the Committee would need to determine whether or not the player used their “reasonable judgment.”

Agree. And I think it covers the totality of the player's actions from the time the player lifts the ball, it isn't something that only commences when the player cleans the ball at their cart some distance away and then thinks "now where did I pick up the ball from?"