Non-Compliant Local Rule

[rulie]

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?"

And the second last bullet of Rule1.3b(2) would be applicable.
"So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player's reasonable judgement will be accepted even if, after stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information."

 

[salfordlad]

And the second last bullet of Rule1.3b(2) would be applicable.
"So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player's reasonable judgement will be accepted even if, after stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information."

Precisely, there are key words there that affirm the point in my previous post. The player's obligations don't commence some time well after lifting their ball. If your ball is in a clear and known position and you lift it under a rule and walk away with no attention to or awareness of where you lifted it from, there is a risk of getting the replacement wrong. Some earlier posts in this thread seemed to be suggesting that there would be no problem, in effect that any conscious estimate would be reasonable and free of risk of penalty.

 

[rulie]

And, if the player had used their best and reasonable judgment?
I’m not suggesting that the player was obviously and purposely incorrect.
But, if, after the round, a competitor suggests wrong place, how do you proceed? That sounds like “other information.”

 

[Swango1980]

And the second last bullet of Rule1.3b(2) would be applicable.
"So long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player's reasonable judgement will be accepted even if, after stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong by video evidence or other information."

I'm agreeing with the logic of Steven and Salford here.

In your quote, the "so long as the player does what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination" seems to be the failure here. Not marking ball and walking off to your bag seems to not be meeting that requirement, as soon as they walked away. The reasonable judgement only comes after the comma, so follows on from that primary point.

I'm also trying to think how a Committee would act if a player was taking relief from a tree, and then had a brain freeze after leaving area, and took relief from a tree 15 yards away from the proper tree. Maybe even 15 yards closer to hole. Would reasonable judgement get them out of this, or would they get penalised for being careless in making an accurate determination?

I'd contact R&A, but since I moved clubs I am no longer on Committee. And I know they don't just reply to any Tom, Dick or Harry, as they'd have millions of replies to make

 

[Steven Rules]

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.

It seems you have read into my post something that was not there, and certainly something I did not intend. I wrote of 'lax, careless or sloppy attention to detail by the player'. In my view this is a not the same as, and a long way short of, cheating. The latter implies some sort of wilful trickery or deceit.

The Rules require the ball to be dropped or placed (as appropriate) in a defined relief area and there are remedial processes (e.g. re-drops) followed by penalties when the requirement is not met. The onus is on the player to take care and apply an appropriate methodolodgy to meet the requirement.

The player must do '....what can be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination...'. As Swango has observed, this is a precondition to the player being able to rely on the 'reasonable judgement' argument.

 

[salfordlad]

And, if the player had used their best and reasonable judgment?
I’m not suggesting that the player was obviously and purposely incorrect.
But, if, after the round, a competitor suggests wrong place, how do you proceed? That sounds like “other information.”

As always, Committee needs to test the facts. But it would be disappointing if another competitor was aware of an issue but didn't raise it at the time, to try and head off a problem. Or if they did and it was ignored, all the more reason for the Committee to investigate.
I have bumped into a similar issue as this in a different context: a player estimating a one club length relief area but dropping right near the extremity of the relief area without measuring and, on proven fact, playing from outside the relief area. The USGA ruling was this could not be a case of reasonable judgement saving the player because they did not take the simple step of verifying.

 

[jim8flog]

Yes but you can identify your ball and leave it where it is to give you a reference point.

on your second point.
If on a buggy with the 90 degree rule I have seen players walk 20 yds pick it up walk to buggy clean the ball pick a club .
How can they know where the ball was.?

I am a buggy user hence why I use the substitute the ball option

 

[jim8flog]

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.

There in lies the difference, as has already been pointed out . If the ball is to be replaced the position has to be marked.

 

[clubchamp98]

There in lies the difference, as has already been pointed out . If the ball is to be replaced the position has to be marked.

Yes we all know what the rules say!
I was asking for the logic behind it!

It was a direct answer to Stephen who asked for “thoughts” and why it started with “imagine”!

 

[clubchamp98]

As always, Committee needs to test the facts. But it would be disappointing if another competitor was aware of an issue but didn't raise it at the time, to try and head off a problem. Or if they did and it was ignored, all the more reason for the Committee to investigate.
I have bumped into a similar issue as this in a different context: a player estimating a one club length relief area but dropping right near the extremity of the relief area without measuring and, on proven fact, playing from outside the relief area. The USGA ruling was this could not be a case of reasonable judgement saving the player because they did not take the simple step of verifying.

How does a committee come to a decision on this ?
given the way the rule is written is so open to mistakes being made.

How can another player say “ He was outside the 6” he would only be guessing just like the player himself.

A player could be 7” out or 1” closer to the hole it’s impossible to call someone out for that if there is no marker to judge it from.

 

[Swango1980]

How does a committee come to a decision on this ?
given the way the rule is written is so open to mistakes being made.

How can another player say “ He was outside the 6” he would only be guessing just like the player himself.

A player could be 7” out or 1” closer to the hole it’s impossible to call someone out for that if there is no marker to judge it from.

Isn't up to the Committee to make a judgement based on all the available facts, rather than have evidence 100% that a player was or was not within the 6 inches?

If it is reported to a Committee that a player was routinely not marking ball, leaving the area and then using their best judgement to determine the reference point again, surely a fair assessment by the Committee is that the player is not taking reasonable steps to determine where the reference point is? Whereas if this just happened in an isolated case, and the player explained that there was a distinctive mark on the ground that they used to remember the reference point, then maybe the Committee could favour on the side of that player.

 

[clubchamp98]

Isn't up to the Committee to make a judgement based on all the available facts, rather than have evidence 100% that a player was or was not within the 6 inches?

If it is reported to a Committee that a player was routinely not marking ball, leaving the area and then using their best judgement to determine the reference point again, surely a fair assessment by the Committee is that the player is not taking reasonable steps to determine where the reference point is? Whereas if this just happened in an isolated case, and the player explained that there was a distinctive mark on the ground that they used to remember the reference point, then maybe the Committee could favour on the side of that player.

Yes I get that .
But they have not broken any rule as such. Can you be sanctioned for carelessness?
It why I just don’t think it’s very logical.

 

[salfordlad]

How does a committee come to a decision on this ?
given the way the rule is written is so open to mistakes being made.

How can another player say “ He was outside the 6” he would only be guessing just like the player himself.

A player could be 7” out or 1” closer to the hole it’s impossible to call someone out for that if there is no marker to judge it from.

I don't think isolated cases of small beer like this is likely to be something to get excited over or justify Committee involvement. More significant or chronically repeating errors are a different thing. But these are issues an individual Committee is responsible for.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes I get that .
But they have not broken any rule as such. Can you be sanctioned for carelessness?
It why I just don’t think it’s very logical.

As I said before, if a player takes relief from a tree, goes to their bag and then takes relief from the wrong tree 15 yards closer to the hole, do you think they should be penalised?

Yes, people can be penalised for being careless. In a stroke play competition off the whites, a player might be careless and tee off the yellows. They are penalised.

If a player fails to remember where their reference point is by taking reasonable measures to do so, then I can quite easily see that a Committee could rule that they are not taking reasonable actions in doing so, which is against the rules. Clearly, a player does not HAVE to mark their ball in all circumstances to know where that reference point is. However, that does not mean that the ball never needs to be marked, as there are clearly circumstances in which the only reasonable way in not losing that spot is to mark it.

I'm just not sure that a player can simply say "the rules do not require me to mark my ball" and that is that. Because the Committee can then just say "we do not think you are taking reasonable actions to mark your reference point, given you have left the area"

 

[rulefan]

I tend to agree, especially when the reference area is only 6 inches, which is very small.

Of course the old distance here was the length of a score card.
But the reference area for most golfers is 1cl where the leeway is not as significant. Presumably, many years ago the R&A and USGA agreed to make the max 1cl.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Of course the old distance here was the length of a score card.
But the reference area for most golfers is 1cl where the leeway is not as significant. Presumably, many years ago the R&A and USGA agreed to make the max 1cl.

I can't recall ever seeing someone use a scorecard to measure distance. As ours are trifold they are over the size anyway.

I always thought winter rules were designed to protect the course so maybe it's time to look at the distance involved and consider moving to a club length. The alternative will be to use mats which I don't think will be popular.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I can't recall ever seeing someone use a scorecard to measure distance. As ours are trifold they are over the size anyway.

I always thought winter rules were designed to protect the course so maybe it's time to look at the distance involved and consider moving to a club length. The alternative will be to use mats which I don't think will be popular.

…mostly to protect the course if the course gets wet and muddy, but in truth my course is not badly affected by winter conditions as it mostly drains well and fairways remain pretty firm. And so winter placing relief is provided to try and ensure equity for players - especially when playing in any winter comp. Most times we don’t really need the relief, but just occasionally you’ll get a bad ‘un - for instance in an unrepaired divot hole when there is no growth or ball is on or ball strike is impeded by a worm cast.

 

[rulie]

Many players actually place their ball on top of a nearby worm cast, teeing it up nicely.

 

[rulefan]

I can't recall ever seeing someone use a scorecard to measure distance. As ours are trifold they are over the size anyway.

I always thought winter rules were designed to protect the course so maybe it's time to look at the distance involved and consider moving to a club length. The alternative will be to use mats which I don't think will be popular.

Moving them may not be popular but extending the distance to 1cl makes no difference to the number of divot holes on the fairway which will not cure until late spring.

 

[clubchamp98]

I can't recall ever seeing someone use a scorecard to measure distance. As ours are trifold they are over the size anyway.

I always thought winter rules were designed to protect the course so maybe it's time to look at the distance involved and consider moving to a club length. The alternative will be to use mats which I don't think will be popular.

6” is normally the size of a card when folded not when opened!

But have seen smaller ones as well.