Pick and place - a scorecard length away??

[wookie]

Caught a little bit of Sky earlier. The conditions seem to have got quite bad up there Richard Boxall was talking about placing on the fairway and said "remember its a scorecard length - not nearer the hole".

Is this a local rule? (i.e. it can be any distance within reason and this is how it is measured at Gleneagles).

 

[Colin L]

It sounds as if preferred lies were being allowed? In which case the local rule would specify the distance permitted from where the ball lay - in this case the length of a scorecard.

 

[wookie]

Cheers Colin - thats what I thought but wasnt sure if he was saying it was roughly the length of a scorecard (which could vary) or whether the local rule could state whatever it wants as a measurement.

 

[Robobum]

Cheers Colin - thats what I thought but wasnt sure if he was saying it was roughly the length of a scorecard (which could vary) or whether the local rule could state whatever it wants as a measurement.

I think that a scorecard is used for exactly the opposite reason.

When we pick & place we, ordinarily, do so within 6". But who's to say we don't take the occaisional 6 1/4" move??

If this happened with the pros and the camera scrutiny they are under for TV, there would be viewers calling in every 5 mins to question the length of move.

The scorecard issued to all competitors would be uniform in size and so the moving area the exact same for everyone.

Don't know whether that is true, just my logic.

The "double" scorecards you get at some clubs (with the hole planners on) could see you move the ball halfway across the fairway!!!! HAha

 

[CliveW]

Quite simple really. All players have a scorecard so why not use this as a measure, just similar to the "One club" rule.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

the 'one scorecard' placing meaure has just been mentioned again. So must be a 'local'?

 

[Colin L]

I read that Michael Hoey incurred a 2 stroke penalty as a result of getting confused over the preferred lie local rule. Apparently he was taking relief from ground under repair and placed his ball instead of dropping it. After dropping on the fairway for relief from the GUR he could then have placed it in a preferred lie but either got confused and was just thinking of a preferred lie or thought he could take a short-cut to the preferred lie. Cost him 2 strokes.

 

[CMAC]

I read that Michael Hoey incurred a 2 stroke penalty as a result of getting confused over the preferred lie local rule. Apparently he was taking relief from ground under repair and placed his ball instead of dropping it. After dropping on the fairway for relief from the GUR he could then have placed it in a preferred lie but either got confused and was just thinking of a preferred lie or thought he could take a short-cut to the preferred lie. Cost him 2 strokes.

prob a shortcut, seen it happen many times and co-incidentally happened to me at the weekend. Ball came to rest on a steep downhill but in a little hollow with casual water. We all knew my drop would bound down the hill but I still went through the motions of dropping twice then placing.
I can understand a pro 'forgetting' but his caddie is also there to keep his man on the straight and narrow. 2 shots is expensive at their level.

 

[garyinderry]

ive seen the 6-inch distance printed on our winter cards.

 

[6inchcup]

this is used in ALL pga sanctioned events, in usga events they use the length of a grip, we use the 6inch rule at my club as do all others i have played.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I read that Michael Hoey incurred a 2 stroke penalty as a result of getting confused over the preferred lie local rule. Apparently he was taking relief from ground under repair and placed his ball instead of dropping it. After dropping on the fairway for relief from the GUR he could then have placed it in a preferred lie but either got confused and was just thinking of a preferred lie or thought he could take a short-cut to the preferred lie. Cost him 2 strokes.

Just read this in the R&A Rules News letter which had an article about Rulings at the the USPGA

"However, the ruling of the day involved Michael Hoey, who late in the evening contacted the PGA Rules Committee with his concerns that he may have breached a Rule. Hoey embedded his ball deeply in a sandy area on the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] hole. In an effort to identify the ball as his, he brushed away sand as is allowed under Rule 12-1a. However, he failed to re-create his lie by replacing the sand on the ball. This would normally incur a two-stroke penalty but because he had failed to include this in his scorecard Hoey was disqualified under Rule 6-6d."

Ooops. That's 2 costly breaches for Mr Hoey. Better get himself a copy of the Rules of Golf and stick it in his bag.

Surprised that in neither case he checked with the rules official that he had proceeded correctly before playing as both infringements could easily have been averted. Can the rules officials step in if the see a player about to breach a Rule?

 

[CMAC]

dont get that, ball embedded so free lift and drop, he identified it, lifted it and dropped it, but didnt put sand back on top like a cake sprinkling and he was disqualified, they are seriously having a laugh, this is this mans livelihood they are playing with. There has to be common sense interpreted with some of these so called rules.

 

[CMAC]

Can the rules officials step in if the see a player about to breach a Rule?

I dont know the official line but I would seriously doubt it, unless you're a mind reader how do you know what someone is about to do?, they are referees and are reactionary not pro-active

 

[Colin L]

dont get that, ball embedded so free lift and drop, he identified it, lifted it and dropped it, but didnt put sand back on top like a cake sprinkling and he was disqualified, they are seriously having a laugh, this is this mans livelihood they are playing with. There has to be common sense interpreted with some of these so called rules.

Hoey was not entitled to relief from a ball embedded in the sand. If you have to move or lift your ball or brush sand away from it to identify it - see Rule 12-2 for the general procedure and 12-1a for dealing with a ball covered in sand - you must restore it to the way it was. It's the basic principle of playing the ball as it lies and it is only fair to your opponent or FC that you don't get a better lie as a result of having to identify the ball.

I dont know the official line but I would seriously doubt it, unless you're a mind reader how do you know what someone is about to do?, they are referees and are reactionary not pro-active

Referees have an obligation to be proactive if they see a breach about to take place.

In stroke play a referee should indeed step in and advise a player if he/she is about to breach a rule as explained in the R&A's Duties of a Referee:

The referee is not responsible for a player's wilful breach of the Rules, but he certainly does have an obligation to advise players about the Rules. It would be contrary to the spirit of fair play if a referee failed to inform a player of his rights and obligations under the Rules and then penalised him for a breach that he could have prevented.

In match play, however, if a referee is not allocated to a particular match but has a roving job, it is explicit in the Definition of a referee that he has no authority to intervene:

Unless a referee is assigned to accompany the players throughout a match, he has no authority to intervene in a match other than in relation to Rule
1-3 ,6-7
or
33-7



​

 

[MashieNiblick]

Cheers Colin, just read the bit on the R&A wesite about the duties of Refs which as the quote shows, makes it clear that they have an obligation to advise players on the Rules. I see that in fact one example given is "If a player is about to adopt or adopts a wrong dropping procedure, call his attention to it and point out the correct procedure."

So it does seem Hoey has been a bit unlucky.

In the first situation it would have been clear that he hadn't followed the corrrect procedure, i.e. drop followed by placing.

In the second example, I would have assumed a Rules official was supervising the process of clearing the sand to allow identification of the ball. If so surely they should have reminded him of the need to recreate the lie before playing?

I was under the impression that each group has a Rules official with it. Is that not the case?