touching a ball in bunker

[williamalex1]

hi guys
Some advice please , a pal of mine has a detached retina in one eye , in the other eye he only has partial sight .He still plays ok of a 12 hc, when he can ground his club .But in bunkers he can't judge the depth distance , so he either tops the ball or goes too deep.
Question -- in a bunker at the address position, is he allowed to touch the top of the ball with the sole of his club , to give him some depth perspective . What rule if any would he be breaking.

cheers

 

[palindromicbob]

Is he registered blind? I would imagine he is. If so then he can ground his club in a hazard as long as it can't be constituted as testing the hazard or improving lie. This would mean touching the ball is not required.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Good question!

Under Rule 18-2a.(i), except as permitted by the Rules, when a ball is in play, you are not allowed to touch it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing the ball). Penalty 1 stroke. The question is would touching the ball in such a case be regarded as part of the act of addressing it? If it was done immediately before the stroke was taken I would be inclined to feel that it was OK. Others might disagree.

However it is complicated by the fact that the new definition of addressing the ball states that it is the act of grounding the club behind the ball, which of course you aren't allowed to do in a bunker. Therefore the Rules generally no longer provide for a player addressing the ball in a hazard.This was a change with the new edition.

Decision 13-4/12 Ball Touched Accidentally with Club in Hazard But Not Moved indicates that there is no penalty for accidently touching your ball in a hazard as long as you don't move it. Touching the ball doesn't constitute grounding the club.

So in short, I'm confused and would be interested in others' views.

Maybe another one to be sent off to the folks at the R&A?

 

[Colin L]

Palindromicbob is referring to the fact that the rules for players with disabilities have been modified. There is a booklet published by the R&A and USGA where you will find this modification to 13-4:

Rule 13-4b (Touching the Ground in Hazard)
The following additional Exception under Rule 13-4 is permissible:
Exceptions:
4. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if a blind golfer grounds his club in a hazard preparatory to making a stroke. However, the player is deemed to have addressed the ball if the club is grounded immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball, whether or not the player has taken his stance.

[A Modification of the Rules of Golf for Golfers with Disabilities, p6]

 

[williamalex1]

Is he registered blind? I would imagine he is. If so then he can ground his club in a hazard as long as it can't be constituted as testing the hazard or improving lie. This would mean touching the ball is not required.

No he isn't registered blind yet , but he should be , he's been tested and is still allowed to drive a car but only with his prescription glasses on.

 

[palindromicbob]

No he isn't registered blind yet , but he should be , he's been tested and is still allowed to drive a car but only with his prescription glasses on.

Right then that would probably bring him under the standard rules unfortunately.

As the act of touching the ball prior to the stroke would be a deliberate act then I'd say decision 13-4/12 doesn't apply. Decision 18-2b/2 covers the fact that you can't address the ball in a hazard (with the exception of blind golfers) therefore the get out above doesn't really fly.

My thought would be he has 3 options.

1. Play it normally within the rules and risk the top or the dig but avoid any penalty.
2. Attempt to touch the top of the ball and accept the 1 stroke penalty but also risk the possibility of moving the ball therefore requiring it to be replaced before making his stroke in which case any further touch would result in another penalty.
3. Ground his club and accept the 2 stroke penalty in the hope that he would be out in 1 (therefore 3)

 

[MashieNiblick]

Looks like the new definition of "addressing the ball" as clarified in Decision 18-2b/2 means that, whilst previously you could have touched the ball as part of the act of addressing it in the bunker, now you can't as you can't address the ball in a bunker. Seems like this might be an unintended consequence. Wonder why the reference to addressing the ball in a hazard was removed from the definition?

Would be interested in further views on this.

 

[williamalex1]

Looks like the new definition of "addressing the ball" as clarified in Decision 18-2b/2 means that, whilst previously you could have touched the ball as part of the act of addressing it in the bunker, now you can't as you can't address the ball in a bunker. Seems like this might be an unintended consequence. Wonder why the reference to addressing the ball in a hazard was removed from the definition?

Would be interested in further views on this.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, i would also be interested in any futher information

 

[duncan mackie]

Looks like the new definition of "addressing the ball" as clarified in Decision 18-2b/2 means that, whilst previously you could have touched the ball as part of the act of addressing it in the bunker, now you can't as you can't address the ball in a bunker. Seems like this might be an unintended consequence. Wonder why the reference to addressing the ball in a hazard was removed from the definition?

Would be interested in further views on this.

starting at the beginning, the reference to addressing the ball wasn't removed from the definition - the definition was changed as a result of issues outside hazards where people had grounded a club behind the ball but not taken their stance so, by the previous definition, there were issues over whether they had addressed the ball, and therefore the application of 18-2b...

the exception under 18-2a recognises that in addressing the ball the player is purposely placing his club head in close proximity to the ball - if there was a penalty if they actually came into contact it would be impossible to play the game!

in the case outlined in the original post, the player deliberately touching the ball with the club to establish where it is and the exception wouldn't apply in, or out, of a hazard.

the player accidentially touching the ball prior to making a shot from a hazard is protected, and a written response to a National Federation from the R&A indicated that unless there was strong evidence that the action was deliberate it should be considered accidental (the words are a translation and only intended to be indicative here).

 

[williamalex1]

starting at the beginning, the reference to addressing the ball wasn't removed from the definition - the definition was changed as a result of issues outside hazards where people had grounded a club behind the ball but not taken their stance so, by the previous definition, there were issues over whether they had addressed the ball, and therefore the application of 18-2b...

the exception under 18-2a recognises that in addressing the ball the player is purposely placing his club head in close proximity to the ball - if there was a penalty if they actually came into contact it would be impossible to play the game!

in the case outlined in the original post, the player deliberately touching the ball with the club to establish where it is and the exception wouldn't apply in, or out, of a hazard.

the player accidentially touching the ball prior to making a shot from a hazard is protected, and a written response to a National Federation from the R&A indicated that unless there was strong evidence that the action was deliberate it should be considered accidental (the words are a translation and only intended to be indicative here).

Thanks Duncan , so i can tell my semi blind pal ,that if he touches his ball in a bunker [intentionally with his club before he makes his stroke] he will be penalised, 1 stroke , or loss of hole in match play. Is that correct ?.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks Duncan , so i can tell my semi blind pal ,that if he touches his ball in a bunker [intentionally with his club before he makes his stroke] he will be penalised, 1 stroke , or loss of hole in match play. Is that correct ?.

that is my understanding - ie 18-2a applies and the exception is no longer available in a hazard.

as other posts have highlighted, the ruling bodies do understand the needs of impaired individuals and have developed additional rules to support their enjoyment of the game; however there has to be a clear basis for the application of these.

 

[williamalex1]

that is my understanding - ie 18-2a applies and the exception is no longer available in a hazard.

as other posts have highlighted, the ruling bodies do understand the needs of impaired individuals and have developed additional rules to support their enjoyment of the game; however there has to be a clear basis for the application of these.

Thanks again Duncan. I'll tell him the bad news.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks Duncan , so i can tell my semi blind pal ,that if he touches his ball in a bunker [intentionally with his club before he makes his stroke] he will be penalised, 1 stroke , or loss of hole in match play. Is that correct ?.

1 stroke in both stroke play and match play. Not loss of hole.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thanks Duncan, that's helpful, as always and I see the point of changing the definition by removing the reference to taking your stance, because of issues outside hazards, and applying that generally for simplicity and consistency. I was wondering why the new definition did not nevertheless retain the words in old definition "...except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball then he has taken his stance".

The R&A have clearly thought about the fact that you now no longer technically address the ball in a hazard (e.g Decision 18-2b/3 Ball Moves After Player Has Taken Stance in Bunker) and in practice I guess it makes little difference. I did just wonder whether the knock on effect of that in the OP's situation might be one which they hadn't taken into account but I think your comments on the reasons for the exception under 18-2a(i) cover that.

Been an intersting thread and just shows how many variables and unsual situations this game throws up.

 

[duncan mackie]

1 stroke in both stroke play and match play. Not loss of hole.

thank you Colin - my turn to have one of those moments!

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks Duncan, that's helpful, as always and I see the point of changing the definition by removing the reference to taking your stance, because of issues outside hazards, and applying that generally for simplicity and consistency. I was wondering why the new definition did not nevertheless retain the words in old definition "...except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball then he has taken his stance".

The R&A have clearly thought about the fact that you now no longer technically address the ball in a hazard (e.g Decision 18-2b/3 Ball Moves After Player Has Taken Stance in Bunker) and in practice I guess it makes little difference. I did just wonder whether the knock on effect of that in the OP's situation might be one which they hadn't taken into account but I think your comments on the reasons for the exception under 18-2a(i) cover that.

Been an intersting thread and just shows how many variables and unsual situations this game throws up.

overall I think it's actually a simplification this way - although for those of us coming from previous versions of the rules it never seems that way!

 

[williamalex1]

i don't mean to be a pest ,that would be 1 penalty stroke for every time he touches the ball before he makes his stroke . As he does tend to be a bit like Garcia used to be at address ie bobbing up and down .

 

[Colin L]

thank you Colin - my turn to have one of those moments!

It's called teamwork - but there will no doubt be all-round ribald laughter the day we synchronise our senior moments instead of taking turns. :cheers:

i don't mean to be a pest ,that would be 1 penalty stroke for every time he touches the ball before he makes his stroke . As he does tend to be a bit like Garcia used to be at address ie bobbing up and down .

The forum is for asking questions about the rules, so don't feel you are a pest! There is a useful rule that means you are only penalised once for doing the same thing more than once in the same action eg several successive practice swings in a bunker that touch the sand will only cost you 2 strokes. So for your friend, I'd say only one penalty for several touches provided they occur as a single process in setting up and playing a stroke.

 

[duncan mackie]

i don't mean to be a pest ,that would be 1 penalty stroke for every time he touches the ball before he makes his stroke . As he does tend to be a bit like Garcia used to be at address ie bobbing up and down .

you aren't a pest - it's a good, related, question!

it would be one stroke even for multiple infringements of the rule at the same time. however, you have to start considereing just exactly how this individual who can't see is managing to bring his clubhead into contact with a ball so delicately, on multiple occassions, such that it doesn't move at all - despite only being supported by a few grains of loose sand!!!

and if it does move he will have to put it back - hope you have a bucket and spade with you

I'm also ignoring here the possibility that the player is deliberately and knowingly breaking the rules and any other issues that might arise from that.

 

[williamalex1]

thanks again lads , i'll pass that on to my mate, but only after i take a few bob off him. only kidding:rofl: