Playing the wrong ball.

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
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.
So let's say that I have been having a bad day on the golf course looking for my ball on a number of holes and I'm tired of it. I'm walking in the fairway towards where my ball should be and I don't see it. I say to heck with it, take a ball from my bag, drop it and then play it to the green. I still have no idea where my original ball is. Have I substituted a ball for my original ball and played from a wrong place? When looking at my actions, how will the Committee decide what rule I have acted under?
 

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
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.
Actually Colin, if you change the original situation only slightly, there is an official ruling that applies. So, if Player B declares Player A's ball unplayable and takes relief under 19.2c using a fresh ball retrieved from his bag, drops it correctly in the required relief area and then plays it, you have the situation described in 19.2/5.
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
Actually Colin, if you change the original situation only slightly, there is an official ruling that applies. So, if Player B declares Player A's ball unplayable and takes relief under 19.2c using a fresh ball retrieved from his bag, drops it correctly in the required relief area and then plays it, you have the situation described in 19.2/5.
Certainly looks relevant, and a clear principle.

Leaves the question of serious breach wide open though; if you are ruled to be proceeding under 18.1 I fail to see how there can't be a serious breach here (as Rulie has posted earlier) rather than your post #38?
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,219
Visit site
wow! This is has been an interesting discussion - but it is totally mind-wrangling :)

I think I'll go back to the start and read it all again...
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Actually Colin, if you change the original situation only slightly, there is an official ruling that applies. So, if Player B declares Player A's ball unplayable and takes relief under 19.2c using a fresh ball retrieved from his bag, drops it correctly in the required relief area and then plays it, you have the situation described in 19.2/5.

Food for thought, Barry, and I'm still digesting! First reaction is that the "slight" change to the original situation actually seems quite a significant one. 19.2/5 is specifically about unplayable ball relief, the question in my mind being whether it is uniquely so.
 

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
Certainly looks relevant, and a clear principle.

Leaves the question of serious breach wide open though; if you are ruled to be proceeding under 18.1 I fail to see how there can't be a serious breach here (as Rulie has posted earlier) rather than your post #38?

Yes, the last sentence of my post #38 is wrong. I was thinking correctly in #33 but then must have entered a dream state when forming that last sentence. Player B played from a wrong place and it is a serious breach, which, if not corrected will lead to a disqualification. Thanks Duncan.
 

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
Food for thought, Barry, and I'm still digesting! First reaction is that the "slight" change to the original situation actually seems quite a significant one. 19.2/5 is specifically about unplayable ball relief, the question in my mind being whether it is uniquely so.
Colin, I agree that this Interpretation can be troublesome. An important portion is this wording at the end of the first paragraph: "the player is treated as taking stroke-and-distance relief as that is the only Rule that can be used if the player has not found his or her original ball."
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
Food for thought, Barry, and I'm still digesting! First reaction is that the "slight" change to the original situation actually seems quite a significant one. 19.2/5 is specifically about unplayable ball relief, the question in my mind being whether it is uniquely so.

It's a good match but moves things a long way from the old wrongly substituted ball played from a wrong place, where the relative positions of the ball played and original ball was relevant to one where , seemingly, the player must now return to where he played his previous stroke with his original ball under penalty of 3 strokes (and distance) when playing a wrong ball gets a mere 2 strokes.

Something wrong...
 

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
It's a good match but moves things a long way from the old wrongly substituted ball played from a wrong place, where the relative positions of the ball played and original ball was relevant to one where , seemingly, the player must now return to where he played his previous stroke with his original ball under penalty of 3 strokes (and distance) when playing a wrong ball gets a mere 2 strokes.

Something wrong...
Only one stroke and distance if he proceeds correctly, though.
 

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,836
Visit site
It's a good match but moves things a long way from the old wrongly substituted ball played from a wrong place, where the relative positions of the ball played and original ball was relevant to one where , seemingly, the player must now return to where he played his previous stroke with his original ball under penalty of 3 strokes (and distance) when playing a wrong ball gets a mere 2 strokes.

Something wrong...
It's not a new ruling, 19.2/5 is exactly the same as old Decision 28/15. When the Committee/official makes a ruling on the player's actions in this situation, they cannot apply any part of the unplayable ball Rule to the player's actions, only the player can do that ("sole judge"), so the Committee/official must find another Rule to apply to the player's actions, and it's 18.1, stroke and distance. Old Decision 34-3/6 may be helpful.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Colin, I agree that this Interpretation can be troublesome. An important portion is this wording at the end of the first paragraph: "the player is treated as taking stroke-and-distance relief as that is the only Rule that can be used if the player has not found his or her original ball."

I don't find the Interpretation troublesome in terms of its application to unplayable ball relief but I would have difficulty in applying it to other situations involving substitution when a player mistakes another ball for his own. Any time a player plays a wrong ball or picks up another player's or a stray ball and takes some form of relief with it thinking it is his, he has not yet found his original ball. I can't be otherwise. If he knew where his own ball was, he wouldn't be making the mistake. If stroke and distance was intended to apply in every instance of substitution of a ball you wrongly think is yours it would be stated in the Rule itself, not left to be inferred from an Interpretation which as worded is specific to one defined situation.

At the moment, I read this Interpretation as being solely to do with unplayable ball relief.
 

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,836
Visit site
Colin, I may not be understanding all the twists here, but old D15/14 and D28/14 and 28/15 are all similar circumstances. The mapping document for D15/14 says no change in the outcome and refers to Rules 19.2 and 18.1, and Committee Procedures, Section 6C (9). Old D15/14 also suggests the player was rather foolish for not identifying the ball he picked up while he had it in his hands!
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,269
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
Any player who proceeds with a ball that isn't his or hers is most certainly foolish! I imagine most of us have that t-shirt in a drawer somewhere.

Here's a situation which occurred in a group I was playing with. Tow of us put our second shots on a temporary green (not in use) as did another player's. He picked up one of the balls and took relief from from the wrong putting green and played up on to the green in use. I then picked up the other ball and, for once not being foolish, noticed that it wasn't mine. The other player had played mine.
Not difficult to sort out .....or so I thought. Told him he hadn't played a wrong ball, was entitled to drop a different ball from his original, had dropped in a wrong place, incurred a 2 stroke penalty but had to hole out with the ball he had dropped. Job done, I thought (though as an aside, I hate the distraction of having to make a ruling whilst playing). Or was it done?

At the time of picking up my ball and taking relief with it, the other guy had not found his own ball even though it was in plain view. Is it being said that he therefore was proceeding under stroke and distance and had incurred a penalty stroke for that on top of the two for playing from a wrong place and that it was a serious breach since his second shot was the length of a full 3 wood?

Sorry this is a bit rushed - I'm in the middle of number crunching for our annual review of handicaps.
 

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
So no penalty for playing from a wrong place then? Now I'm really confused.
My post was at best, unclear. I meant that once he realized that he did not know where his ball was, he could return to the tee and play again under 18.1, thus avoiding the wrong place penalty. That is what I meant by proceeding correctly, as 19.2/5 states, first paragraph. I admit it is highly unlikely that this player would proceed in that way.
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
My post was at best, unclear. I meant that once he realized that he did not know where his ball was, he could return to the tee and play again under 18.1, thus avoiding the wrong place penalty. That is what I meant by proceeding correctly, as 19.2/5 states, first paragraph. I admit it is highly unlikely that this player would proceed in that way.
But 19.2/5 makes it clear that by having made a stroke at the ball substituted in the wrong place the player has stroke and distance plus 2 strokes - 3 strokes plus distance in total (as I posted but you corrected).
If he had simply played a wrong ball, then subsequently established this and corrected, he only gets 2 strokes and no distance - which is the cause for my concern.
 

Barrie J

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
22
Visit site
But 19.2/5 makes it clear that by having made a stroke at the ball substituted in the wrong place the player has stroke and distance plus 2 strokes - 3 strokes plus distance in total (as I posted but you corrected).
If he had simply played a wrong ball, then subsequently established this and corrected, he only gets 2 strokes and no distance - which is the cause for my concern.
Understood. If however, he hadn't corrected playing the wrong ball the result would have been the same, and given the confusion as to how to proceed, that could have been the result. He could also have simply corrected before playing the substituted ball and continued to search for his original ball and if found, avoided penalty altogether. Or, if after attempting to correct, he couldn't find his original ball he would be back at stroke and distance as well as the wrong ball penalty. A lot of ifs.

Edit: I think it's reasonable that there is a more severe penalty when the player lifts a stray ball, has the opportunity to identify it and then plays it anyway. At least when he plays a wrong ball he can claim that he couldn't see the markings.
 
Last edited:
Top