Tom Kim's damaged golf ball

[IanM]

Just seen something odd on the Sky coverage.

Tom Kim's ball was damaged in a collision with a rock! A decent slice was hanging off.

He asked for a ruling. Ref 1 said, sorry, cannot substitute a ball, but could rip off the torn plastic once on the green. Kim queried this and eventually was asked if he wants a second opinion.

Some time later, senior ref arrives, takes a quick look and nods his head and agrees the ball is sufficiently damaged.

I can't believe Ref 1 didn't allow it. (Sorry I don't yet have a picture) I'm shouting at the TV that he's wrong.

Anyone see this? Looked obvious to me.

 

[clubchamp98]

Just seen something odd on the Sky coverage.

Tom Kim's ball was damaged in a collision with a rock! A decent slice was hanging off.

He asked for a ruling. Ref 1 said, sorry, cannot substitute a ball, but could rip off the torn plastic once on the green. Kim queried this and eventually was asked if he wants a second opinion.

Some time later, senior ref arrives, takes a quick look and nods his head and agrees the ball is sufficiently damaged.

I can't believe Ref 1 didn't allow it. (Sorry I don't yet have a picture) I'm shouting at the TV that he's wrong.

Anyone see this? Looked obvious to me.

I thought as long as your pp/ op agreed it is damaged you can replace with a new ball.

 

[Steven Rules]

In stroke play, playing partners or markers (or anyone) can offer an opinion to the player or help the player with the Rules, but ultimately those others have no authority or say in it whatsoever. It is up to the player or a referee or the Committee to make the decision. If the player makes the decision, they will need to answer to the Committee if there is any doubt about the decision.

If the player is in doubt, they may play a second ball and report the facts to the Committee before returning their scorecard.

In match play, the player and opponent may agree on how to decide the issue.

 

[Steven Rules]

Anyone see this? Looked obvious to me.

I didn't see it but I guess there must have been some doubt in the first referee's mind about whether the ball was clearly cut or cracked.

Under 4.2c(2) it must be clearly seen that the original ball is cut or cracked and this damage happened during the hole being played – but not if it is only scratched or scraped or its paint is only damaged or discoloured.

 

[rulie]

In stroke play, playing partners or markers (or anyone) can offer an opinion to the player or help the player with the Rules, but ultimately those others have no authority or say in it whatsoever. It is up to the player or a referee or the Committee to make the decision. If the player makes the decision, they will need to answer to the Committee if there is any doubt about the decision.

If the player is in doubt, they may play a second ball and report the facts to the Committee before returning their scorecard.

In match play, the player and opponent may agree on how to decide the issue.

with a proviso - that they do not know the Rule(s) that apply. They cannot agree to waive a penalty or Rule that they know applies. Serious consequences - both dq.

 

[salfordlad]

Steven points to the rule language - cut/cracked versus scratched/scraped/paint damage only. IMO, this distinction, at times, can be quite subjective.

 

[IanM]

There was a piece hanging off it clearly visible to the camera.

I'm sure images will appear. No doubt about the ball.

 

[salfordlad]

There was a piece hanging off it clearly visible to the camera.

I'm sure images will appear. No doubt about the ball.

I agree piece clearly hanging off would suggest cut/cracked rather than simply scuffed or scraped. That said, we can sometimes get significant scuffing that produces non-trivial roughening of the surface that can misshape the ball, but the rules don't protect the player from even a visibly misshapen ball.

Aside: for those with longer memories, 'out of shape' used to be a reason to replace a ball, but that changed in 2019 with this explanation provided at the time:

There is no longer a good reason to allow substitution for a ball in play that has become “out of shape” (which means not fully round), because:
o The construction and composition of modern golf balls has made it rare for a ball to cease to be round, and
o The playing characteristics of modern balls are not materially affected except when cut or cracked.
 The “out of shape” language has led to confusion, as some players incorrectly believe that a ball with any scuff or scrape on its surface has become out of shape and therefore is unfit for play.
 Restricting relief only to when a ball is cut or cracked would eliminate this confusion and reinforce the Rule’s intention that a player not be allowed to substitute another ball when the ball in play is merely scratched or scraped.

 

[Imurg]

Looks ok to me.....

 

[rulefan]

If that is the ball in question it appears to be cut.

 

[IanM]

Indeed it is. My o.p was wondering why the first ref didn't think that was damaged sufficiently, but the senior official did.


4.2c(2) surely applied.

 

[rulefan]

Some time later, senior ref arrives, takes a quick look and nods his head and agrees the ball is sufficiently damaged.

Was he a senior ref or just another ref?

 

[IanM]

Was he a senior ref or just another ref?

Not certain to be honest, but I got that inference.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Once I was on the green and marked and lifted it, I would bite that wee bit off and carry on.
I might chuck it in the bin after the round, though.

Yesterday I completed a third round with a Callaway Supersoft that I had found.
Looking fairly well-used now, but starting to acquire some sentimental value.

 

[rulie]

Was he a senior ref or just another ref?

There isn’t such a differential designation of officials on the PGA Tour wrt rulings. Second opinions are done by the nearest available Rules official.

 

[IanM]

I'm still left wondering why the first guy didn't think the ball was sufficiently damaged to warrant a substitution.

But we seem to have meandered around several other points

 

[salfordlad]

I'm still left wondering why the first guy didn't think the ball was sufficiently damaged to warrant a substitution.

But we seem to have meandered around several other points

It's a discussion forum, and we are appreciating the issue you brought!

Once I was on the green and marked and lifted it, I would bite that wee bit off and carry on.
I might chuck it in the bin after the round, though.

Yesterday I completed a third round with a Callaway Supersoft that I had found.
Looking fairly well-used now, but starting to acquire some sentimental value.

Hmmm, that little chew could alter the playing characteristics of the ball, risking DQ under 4.2a(2).

 

[Neilds]

Any other blokes think twice before clicking on this thread?

 

[clubchamp98]

Once I was on the green and marked and lifted it, I would bite that wee bit off and carry on.
I might chuck it in the bin after the round, though.

Yesterday I completed a third round with a Callaway Supersoft that I had found.
Looking fairly well-used now, but starting to acquire some sentimental value.

Yes but a missed put dosnt cost you $$$$$$$

It’s quite clearly damaged what’s the ref thinking?

 

[IanM]

Any other blokes think twice before clicking on this thread?

I think the use of the word "golf" in the title alleviated that