Picking up ball without marking then replacing

[louise_a]

Today was our ladies captain's day and we had a nearest the pin.
I measured the distance and then inadvertently picked up my ball without marking it. I was unsure as to whether I was disqualified or not but to be on the safe side I went back and hit 3 of the tee. I score 3 with the 2nd ball.

Once back in the clubhouse I looked up the rule online and it says that the ball should have been replaced under penalty of 1 shot. Breach of rule is 2 shot penalty.

What puzzles me is what score I had on the hole. A 5, a 7 or a DQ?

 

[woody69]

What made you think going back to the tee and taking your tee shot was the right course of action?

Tee shot - 1
Picked ball up - 2 penalty shot penalty
3 shots for where you dropped from

6

 

[drdel]

No question. You failed to hole out. Your opponents were entitled to think you had 'finished' minimum +1 shot and replace.

 

[woody69]

No question. You failed to hole out. Your opponents were entitled to think you had 'finished' minimum +1 shot and replace.

Why did she fail to hole out? She just dropped in the wrong place and took 3 from there.

 

[louise_a]

I had walked away so I did not know exactly where the ball had been so thought it was a DQ but has a safeguard I played 3 off the tee.

 

[drdel]

Why did she fail to hole out? She just dropped in the wrong place and took 3 from there.

Because she'd left the green.

 

[pogle]

Because she'd left the green.

This would only be the case if the player had teed off at the next hole, or it was the last hole and the player hadn't announced their intention to replay the tee shot.

I think it's a six. Original tee shot, one stroke penalty for lifting without marking that becomes a two stroke penalty for failing to replace and three further strokes.

 

[duncan mackie]

5

Look at 18-2/1 for the principle involved

However, you must surely have asked the committee before signing and returning your card? What was their interpretation?

Finally, 3-3!!! Might have saved you 2 shots here.

 

[louise_a]

5

Look at 18-2/1 for the principle involved

However, you must surely have asked the committee before signing and returning your card? What was their interpretation?

Finally, 3-3!!! Might have saved you 2 shots here.

I am the handicap/comps secretary, there were no other committee members around so I searched the rules but couldn't find anything that I could see as definitive answer, on the green I said I would play 3 off the tee to be on the safe side on the basis that I could have declared the ball unplayable. However I did not no how the penalties would be applied or even if I had completely disregarded them and thus maybe DQed.

 

[pogle]

5

Look at 18-2/1 for the principle involved

However, you must surely have asked the committee before signing and returning your card? What was their interpretation?

Finally, 3-3!!! Might have saved you 2 shots here.

I was thinking of the principle in Dec 27-2b/10. As the player had no intention of playing under S&D when they lifted the ball, the 1 stroke penalty applied. However, that seems to contradict 18-2/1 when the player also had no intention of proceeding under S&D when they altered the ball on the tee.

What's the difference between the two situations that I'm missing?

 

[upsidedown]

If you'd measured the distance could you have not replaced your ball under penalty of one shot ?

 

[rulefan]

I was thinking of the principle in Dec 27-2b/10. As the player had no intention of playing under S&D when they lifted the ball, the 1 stroke penalty applied. However, that seems to contradict 18-2/1 when the player also had no intention of proceeding under S&D when they altered the ball on the tee.

What's the difference between the two situations that I'm missing?

I think the key words in 18-2/1 & 18-2/2 are "because, at the moment of lifting the provisional ball, the player had no intention of playing it again from the teeing ground". At the moment of lifting the player would have intended putting it back on its spot.

 

[duncan mackie]

If you'd measured the distance could you have not replaced your ball under penalty of one shot ?

Even without measuring. As long as Louise made here best estimate of the balls position (agreeing it with a fellow competitor is good here!) then she has complied with the rules and has only a 1 shot penalty. If a referee was available you would agree the course of action and point with them.

 

[louise_a]

If you'd measured the distance could you have not replaced your ball under penalty of one shot ?

I could but did not realise it was an option.

 

[Fyldewhite]

The fact that you picked it up is irrelevant really. It is a ball at rest moved.....by the player. Just the same as if you had nudged it with your putter etc. There is a tendency to over complicate the situation because something unusual was going on (measuring, picking the ball up) when in effect it's a very simple everyday misdemeanour. If you had just accidentally kicked it I'm sure you would never have considered a DQ or going back to the tee.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I did exactly the same on Sunday, Louise.

I replaced the ball, checked with a fellow competitor, who fortunately is an ex-referee, and holed out (with the extra shot penalty).

If unsure, you can always hole out with two balls and check the rules later.:thup:

 

[woody69]

5

Look at 18-2/1 for the principle involved

However, you must surely have asked the committee before signing and returning your card? What was their interpretation?

Finally, 3-3!!! Might have saved you 2 shots here.

I don't understand this reply. How do you get 5? Surely by returning to the tee to drop she is playing from the wrong place and incurs an additional penalty stroke.

I also don't understand the reference to 18-2/1 that discusses "player who misses tee shot tees ball lower"?

 

[MashieNiblick]

I think the key words in 18-2/1 & 18-2/2 are "because, at the moment of lifting the provisional ball, the player had no intention of playing it again from the teeing ground". At the moment of lifting the player would have intended putting it back on its spot.

Little bit confused here. I too thought it was 6 for the reasons given in 27-2b/10 in that when Louise picked up the ball she did not intend to play again from the tee. The words in bold appear in that decision not in 18-2/1 or 18-2/2 where clearly the player's intention was to play again from the tee.

Have I missed or mis-read something?

 

[rulefan]

Little bit confused here. I too thought it was 6 for the reasons given in 27-2b/10 in that when Louise picked up the ball she did not intend to play again from the tee. The words in bold appear in that decision not in 18-2/1 or 18-2/2 where clearly the player's intention was to play again from the tee.

Have I missed or mis-read something?

No. Sorry I "miswrote". Oops.
The key words highlighted are in 27-2b/10.

In the 18-2 decisions, because the ball was originally on the TG, at the time it was lifted the player intended to replace the ball on the TG.
In this case, when the ball was lifted the player intended to replace the ball on its original spot so the 18-2 still applies.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thanks. Still a bit unclear. The relevance to the ball being played from the teeing ground in 18-2 decisions seems to me to be that that is where the previous stroke was played from, hence S&D applies. In the OP when Louise lifted the ball she was not intending to replay the ball where the previous stroke was played from but where the ball lay. Hence a separate penalty for moving ball plus the S&D penalty when she finally when back to the tee as per 27-2b/10.

Sorry if I'm being dense and I appreciate your patience.