Playing the wrong ball.

[Colin L]

Then again post #14 confirms that he didn't play a wrong ball

Ah. I hadn't noticed that.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Perhaps if conditions were such that a ball could be plugged on the fairway you should have been playing Stableford!

It was stableford. No medals for us in the winter unfortunately, it is much too wet.

 

[berniethebolt]

Then why were people disqualified? Surely the exceptions to D/Q given in rule 21.1c cover this situation. Please tell me if I am wrong.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Then why were people disqualified? Surely the exceptions to D/Q given in rule 21.1c cover this situation. Please tell me if I am wrong.

Only one DQ'd. Player A who signed for a 4 where he holed out with his original ball when it should not have been the ball in play.

 

[jim8flog]

Only one DQ'd. Player A who signed for a 4 where he holed out with his original ball when it should not have been the ball in play.

It is an interesting point because his score could have been altered under Rule 3.3(3) because he was not aware that he had incurred penalty strokes for a wrong procedure

• Returned Score Lower Than Actual Score or No Score Returned. The player is disqualified.
Exception – Failure to Include Unknown Penalty: If one or more of the player’s hole scores are lower than the actual scores because he or she excluded one or more penalty strokes that the player did not know about before returning the scorecard:
• The player is not disqualified.
• Instead, if the mistake is found before the close of the competition, the Committee will revise the player’s score for that hole or holes by adding the penalty stroke(s) that should have been included in the score for that hole or holes under the Rules.

 

[duncan mackie]

It is an interesting point because his score could have been altered under Rule 3.3(3) because he was not aware that he had incurred penalty strokes for a wrong procedure

• Returned Score Lower Than Actual Score or No Score Returned. The player is disqualified.
Exception – Failure to Include Unknown Penalty: If one or more of the player’s hole scores are lower than the actual scores because he or she excluded one or more penalty strokes that the player did not know about before returning the scorecard:
• The player is not disqualified.
• Instead, if the mistake is found before the close of the competition, the Committee will revise the player’s score for that hole or holes by adding the penalty stroke(s) that should have been included in the score for that hole or holes under the Rules.

It would be a lot more helpful to quote all of the terms associated with the exception, which include the most relevant one in this case...uncertainty regarding the players procedure/score for that hole clearly existed and required resolution before the score was returned. The exception to the exception makes this clear.

 

[duncan mackie]

Only one DQ'd. Player A who signed for a 4 where he holed out with his original ball when it should not have been the ball in play.

Without the information regarding the position of B's plugged ball relative to the stroke he played with A's ball, we still can't be clear of his situation...

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

Without the information regarding the position of B's plugged ball relative to the stroke he played with A's ball, we still can't be clear of his situation...

B's plugged ball was about 15 yards in front of where he played A's ball from.

 

[duncan mackie]

B's plugged ball was about 15 yards in front of where he played A's ball from.

In which case he should have continued with the ball he had already played - there was no advantage gained and the provisions of 14.7 b apply

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

In which case he should have continued with the ball he had already played - there was no advantage gained and the provisions of 14.7 b apply

Thanks.

 

[Barrie J]

Regarding player A. His provisional ball was the ball in play – Duncan has explained why. I assume that player A played his provisional ball to the green, where he would have been lying 4. He then lifted his ball in play without authority, a penalty under 9.4b and played it from a wrong place. His penalty was just two 2 strokes however as these were related acts. His next stroke, from where B had played his original ball, would have been his 7th - there was obviously no serious breach.

He would not have been disqualified if he had raised the issue with the Committee before he returned his scorecard - rule 3.3b (3). The Committee would have provided the correct penalties.

 

[Swango1980]

Could it be argued that, Player A's ball was found (by Player B), but he wasn't given reasonable time to identify it? Therefore, the ball is not yet lost and his provisional doesn't automatically become the ball in play? If that was the case, and the ball was not lost, then Player A could proceed under 9.6 and replace the original once this fact became known. The rules say a ball is lost when it is not "found" within 3 minutes, not when it hasn't been identified within 3 minutes. Player B clearly found it, so surely Player A has a right to identify it, which he wasn't given?

I must admit, imagine playing in a competition, especially an important one like a board comp / club champs, and you get penalised for a lost ball, especially had you been playing quite well. Only to find out when you get to the green that the reason you didn't find it was that the twerp you were playing with had hit your original, and never gave you the opportunity to find it.

 

[Barrie J]

Could it be argued that, Player A's ball was found (by Player B), but he wasn't given reasonable time to identify it? Therefore, the ball is not yet lost and his provisional doesn't automatically become the ball in play? If that was the case, and the ball was not lost, then Player A could proceed under 9.6 and replace the original once this fact became known. The rules say a ball is lost when it is not "found" within 3 minutes, not when it hasn't been identified within 3 minutes. Player B clearly found it, so surely Player A has a right to identify it, which he wasn't given?

I must admit, imagine playing in a competition, especially an important one like a board comp / club champs, and you get penalised for a lost ball, especially had you been playing quite well. Only to find out when you get to the green that the reason you didn't find it was that the twerp you were playing with had hit your original, and never gave you the opportunity to find it.

I agree, this would be very frustrating for A. He might have made your argument to the Committee, although I doubt he would have been successful.

B doesn't get off free though. He didn't play a wrong ball but he didn't play his own ball either, so he too is subject to penalty, in his case under 18.1 and 14.7 and there is the possibility of a serious breach and disqualification. Player A could probably think of something else he'd like to do to him.

 

[Swango1980]

I agree, this would be very frustrating for A. He might have made your argument to the Committee, although I doubt he would have been successful.

B doesn't get off free though. He didn't play a wrong ball but he didn't play his own ball either, so he too is subject to penalty, in his case under 18.1 and 14.7 and there is the possibility of a serious breach and disqualification. Player A could probably think of something else he'd like to do to him.

Player B definitely played the wrong ball, so I'm pretty sure he proceeded under Rule 6.3c. Either way, he get's a penalty and the evil eyes from Player A, he's had a nightmare

 

[Colin L]

He would not have been successful in such an argument. B did not "find A's ball. He mis-identified a ball as his own and played it. If you find another player's ball, you identify it as not being yours and draw the other player's attention to it so that he can check it out.
For A to proceed on the basis that B had played his ball, knowledge or virtual certainty that B had done so would have to be established within the 3 minute search time.

 

[duncan mackie]

Player B definitely played the wrong ball, so I'm pretty sure he proceeded under Rule 6.3c. Either way, he get's a penalty and the evil eyes from Player A, he's had a nightmare

No, player B did not play a 'wrong ball', he played a substituted ball from a wrong place.
From the advice given 're the relative positions of the ball played and where his ball actually lay, he was required to complete the hole with the substituted ball and his 2 stroke penalty - playing his subsequently found ball was not an available option and would have meant even more penalty strokes.

 

[Swango1980]

No, player B did not play a 'wrong ball', he played a substituted ball from a wrong place.
From the advice given 're the relative positions of the ball played and where his ball actually lay, he was required to complete the hole with the substituted ball and his 2 stroke penalty - playing his subsequently found ball was not an available option and would have meant even more penalty strokes.

Ahh, I was reading from the OP, and so didn't take into account subsequent information regarding preferred lies and relative positions. Which changes the ruling from wrong ball to wrong place as you pointed out. I'm glad the rules were simplified in 2019. Player A gets a nice juicy penalty for Player B's error, and Player B must then realise he played from the wrong place rather then played the wrong ball because he took a preferred lie. I guess it makes forums like this interesting, but good luck to the average golfer on the course.

 

[Barrie J]

From the advice given 're the relative positions of the ball played and where his ball actually lay, he was required to complete the hole with the substituted ball and his 2 stroke penalty - playing his subsequently found ball was not an available option and would have meant even more penalty strokes.

Because player B took relief (preferred lie relief) with a ball not his own, he proceeded under an inapplicable rule. To proceed under the preferred lie rule he had to do so with his own ball. Therefore, in trying to make sense of his action the Committee would have concluded that the only rule he could have been proceeding under was 18.1. Therefore, he would have been penalized one stroke under 18.1 and two strokes under 14.7. There was no serious breach; post #28 confirms that.

 

[rulie]

Because player B took relief (preferred lie relief) with a ball not his own, he proceeded under an inapplicable rule. To proceed under the preferred lie rule he had to do so with his own ball. Therefore, in trying to make sense of his action the Committee would have concluded that the only rule he could have been proceeding under was 18.1. Therefore, he would have been penalized one stroke under 18.1 and two strokes under 14.7. There was no serious breach; post #28 confirms that.

If your ruling that player B played under Rule 18.1 is correct, you need to determine if there was a serious breach of playing from a wrong place (Rule 14.7). To make that determination, you have to compare where he did play from (where player A's ball was located) to where 18.1 requires him to play from (where his previous stroke was made). Since the original post said these were tee shots, there was very likely a serious breach involved that would require correction. The ultimate location of B's original ball is irrelevant in your proposed ruling.

 

[Colin L]

Because player B took relief (preferred lie relief) with a ball not his own, he proceeded under an inapplicable rule. To proceed under the preferred lie rule he had to do so with his own ball. Therefore, in trying to make sense of his action the Committee would have concluded that the only rule he could have been proceeding under was 18.1. Therefore, he would have been penalized one stroke under 18.1 and two strokes under 14.7. There was no serious breach; post #28 confirms that.

Sorry, but that is not correct. You may substitute another ball when taking any form of relief [6.3b(1)]. B was entitled to use another ball when taking a preferred lie. His error was to mistake the ball whose lie he preferred for his own and so he legitimately substituted his ball in play but did so in the wrong place. I don't see 18.1 having any relevance.