louise_a
Money List Winner
The way I understood the logic in Duncan's reply quoting 18-2 was that the ball had been moved but by taking S&D, that penalty overrode the penalty for the original mistake.
Picking up ball without marking then replacing
- Thread starter louise_a
- Start date
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Yes it would in the circumstances outlined in the 18-2 Decisions. The question is whether that is based on the fact in those cases the ball is moved with the intention of replaying the shot from where the last shot was played (i.e. the teeing ground) and therefore wouldn't apply if the ball were moved for any other reason in which case the principle in 27-2b/10 would apply (i.e. you get the the 1 shot pen in addition to S&D) might then apply. Interesting debate. Might need an R&A Ruling!
woody69
Journeyman Pro
I think you're on dodgy ground moving a ball and then because you didn't know where to replace it claiming S&D? I guess there is nothing stopping you from doing that, but is it in the spirit of the game?
In my head you moved the ball, 1 stroke pen and then dropped in the wrong place, then holed out with that, so 6.
In my head you moved the ball, 1 stroke pen and then dropped in the wrong place, then holed out with that, so 6.
rulefan
Tour Winner
In the 18-2 decisions the ball was already on the TG and is being replaced intentionally on the TG, so S&D is effectively 'built in' because the intention was to place it on the TG when the ball was lifted. So there is no penalty for lifting/moving the ball just for S&D..
In 27-2b/10 the player had no intention of taking S&D when lifting the ball (without marking). So they get a penalty.
They then decide to to take S&D and pay the price for that in addition to the penalty already applied.
In 27-2b/10 the player had no intention of taking S&D when lifting the ball (without marking). So they get a penalty.
They then decide to to take S&D and pay the price for that in addition to the penalty already applied.
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
It isn't a wrong place because 27-1a is always available.
So the ball was moved without marking. 1 stroke penalty.
THEN S&D was taken. Another stroke to the score.
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Yes that's how I see it. So that would make 6.
Original shot = 1
Penalty shot for lifting without marking = 2
Penalty shot under 27-1 = 3
3 scored with replayed ball from tee = 6
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
So just because my head is being dim today, am I understanding rulefan correctly as follows..
a. Louise's tee shot on to green - 1 (I assume, else she wouldn't have been measuring for nearest pin)
b. Picked up without marking by mistake - 1 penalty = 2
c. Go back to tee - S&D 1 penalty =3
d. Next shot from tee - 1 stroke = 4
e. 2 putts or chip & putt - 2 strokes = 6 (am assuming this as she said got down in 3 at second attempt)
But Duncan said 5 - and rulefan hasn't specifically said that number is wrong - so is something in the above not right? Someone in thread has said c could/would override b - is that right?
(From the outset I was assuming 5 as you can always pick up without marking and take S&D - although I wasn't factoring anything in for "not intended" - if that indeed is necessary)
Edit - Sorry, Mashie got there first - I can't type fast enough
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
IMO Duncan has wrongly (unusual for him) used 18-2/1 as the model. At the time the player lifted the ball there was no intention to go back to the tee. It was only because she didn't know the original spot when she came to replace it that she decided to take S&D. 27-2b/10 is the answer.
IMO the answer is 6.
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Thanks for clarifying.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
Sorry - been away.
I quoted the decision I did because it's been recently revised and seemed to be making a relevant principle - it appears I was mistaken. I think it's poorly worded "...as the player made his next stroke from within the teeing ground (Rule 20-5), he played under penalty of stroke and distance (see Rule 27-1a) and, therefore, the penalty under Rule 18-2 does not apply. (Revised)"
Importantly in the context of this discussion he had no intention of doing so. It seems strange that because he didn't realise he had breached 18-2 he gets to avoid the penalty whilst a player who realises they have breached it but returns to the tee in error gets penalised.
Looks like a 6 then - sorry for the confusion.
I quoted the decision I did because it's been recently revised and seemed to be making a relevant principle - it appears I was mistaken. I think it's poorly worded "...as the player made his next stroke from within the teeing ground (Rule 20-5), he played under penalty of stroke and distance (see Rule 27-1a) and, therefore, the penalty under Rule 18-2 does not apply. (Revised)"
Importantly in the context of this discussion he had no intention of doing so. It seems strange that because he didn't realise he had breached 18-2 he gets to avoid the penalty whilst a player who realises they have breached it but returns to the tee in error gets penalised.
Looks like a 6 then - sorry for the confusion.
