Unaddressing a ball

[backwoodsman]

Following from an earlier thread this week where the moving of a ball after addressing it was discussed - it got me thinking. Can you "unaddress" a ball?

Scenario. Your ball is in, say, the light rough. You address the ball and are just about to take a shot. You get bothered and stung by a wasp so move away. Whilst getting your Waspeze out of the bag your ball moves. If it moved after only a second or so, I dare say 18.2b would apply. But say it was a darn big hornet and you were away from the ball dosing yourself up for say five minutes before it moved? Is there any point at which you would/could be deemed to have unaddressed the ball? Or to the same effect, how long before the exception to 18.2b could be reasonably expected to kick in? A few seconds, a minute, a few minutes, never?

 

[guest100718]

didnt adam scott do something like this in the open a few years back? Maybe without the wasps.. I think he addressed the ball then went walk about then the ball moved. No penalty was applied.

 

[Colin L]

When someone says, "Good question," it generally means he doesn't have a definite answer. Good question, backwoodsman.

I can't think of any Decision that answers this. D18-2b/7 tells us that if you step away from your ball after addressing it because you think it is going to move, you would be penalised if it did (unless the 18-2b Exception applied). In other words, you can't escape an 18-2b penalty by "unaddressing" the ball if your intention is to avoid one. In the circumstances you describe, I'd suggest that the important point is not the amount of time away from the previously addressed ball but the reason for moving away. If there is no intent to avoid a penalty for a ball moving that looked precarious, but a genuine reason for moving away - that wasp, an impending sneeze, a dog intruding on the green, whatever - I would think we should revert to 18-2a. That is, you would have to be known to have caused the ball to move to be penalised.

That is simply how I would work out the situation you ask about and how I would propose to rule on it. I can't cite any references for the opinion.

 

[rulefan]

The only way I know of 'unaddressing' the ball is to mark and lift it under a permissive rule. Other than that, it remains addressed. You can only avoid a penalty if it is known or virtually certain that you did not cause the ball to move.

 

[backwoodsman]

The only way I know of 'unaddressing' the ball is to mark and lift it under a permissive rule. Other than that, it remains addressed. You can only avoid a penalty if it is known or virtually certain that you did not cause the ball to move.

This is what I thought - once addressed, it stays addressed.

And yes, the KOVC that it wasn't you is required. After just a second or so I'm sure the KOVC is absent, so a penalty - but after a longish period I think there would be KOVC it wasn't you. So somewhere in between there is a transition.

There's always the "in equity" bit one can fall back on, so I just wondered whereabouts was the moment that allowed one to be equitable. But I don't think I was expecting a definitive answer.

 

[rulefan]

This is what I thought - once addressed, it stays addressed.

And yes, the KOVC that it wasn't you is required. After just a second or so I'm sure the KOVC is absent, so a penalty - but after a longish period I think there would be KOVC it wasn't you. So somewhere in between there is a transition.

There's always the "in equity" bit one can fall back on, so I just wondered whereabouts was the moment that allowed one to be equitable. But I don't think I was expecting a definitive answer.

IMO there is no transition. The wording of the rule leaves no room for manoeuvre.

 

[doublebogey7]

This is what I thought - once addressed, it stays addressed.

And yes, the KOVC that it wasn't you is required. After just a second or so I'm sure the KOVC is absent, so a penalty - but after a longish period I think there would be KOVC it wasn't you. So somewhere in between there is a transition.

There's always the "in equity" bit one can fall back on, so I just wondered whereabouts was the moment that allowed one to be equitable. But I don't think I was expecting a definitive answer.

"Time" is not sufficient evidence for KOVC. It would require some form of physical evidence to be able to claim that something else had coursed the ball to move.

 

[6Aces]

IMO there is no transition. The wording of the rule leaves no room for manoeuvre.

If a player has addressed his ball, and play is discontinued, and the ball moves, there is no penalty.

 

[rulefan]

See 18-2a/25

 

[6Aces]

See 18-2a/25

This decision refers to a player accidentally moving the ball during the suspension. Would the penalty be the same if the player is sitting in the club house waiting for the rain to clear, and the ball moved? During a suspension, a player may mark and lift his ball, clean it, even substitute another ball, and, according to 6-8d(iii), if the ball is moved during the suspension, a ball or ball marker must be placed on the spot where the original was located.

 

[rulefan]

This decision refers to a player accidentally moving the ball during the suspension. Would the penalty be the same if the player is sitting in the club house waiting for the rain to clear, and the ball moved?

No, because the player did not cause it to move. In the decision he did.

During a suspension, a player may mark and lift his ball, clean it, even substitute another ball, and, according to 6-8d(iii), if the ball is moved during the suspension, a ball or ball marker must be placed on the spot where the original was located.

That decision relates to the situation after play has resumed.

 

[CMAC]

seems a really easy one for common sense to prevail here, within the rules of course.

You address it, its addressed.
You move away (for any reason other than knowing its about to move) and you are not accountable for penalty for any reason the ball moves outwith you and your equipments influence.

 

[6Aces]

No, because the player did not cause it to move. In the decision he did.

My intent in post 8 was to provide an example of a player, where, having addressed the ball, then moved away from the ball, that is, "unaddressed" it, and seeing it subsequently move, he would not be penalized. (During a suspension of play) By citing 18-2a/25, it seemed that you disagreed with that statement but then later agreed that if the player was not present when the ball moved during that suspension, there would be no penalty.

Further examples of that same point: when a ball after having been addressed is moved by an outside agency, another ball, wind, water..., there is no penalty.

 

[Colin L]

seems a really easy one for common sense to prevail here, within the rules of course.

You address it, its addressed.
You move away (for any reason other than knowing its about to move) and you are not accountable for penalty for any reason the ball moves outwith you and your equipments influence.

There is a basic problem with that, as with my earlier similar thoughts that moving away for a specific reason other than trying to avoid a penalty should not incur a penalty. As was pointed out, the Rules don't make any provision for that. The Definition of addressing the ball is open-ended: it tells you when it starts but nothing about when it might finish. Addressing the ball is concluded when you make a stroke at the ball.

Since Decision 18-2b/7 is about a player deliberately intending to avoid a penalty, I was pursuing the thought that moving away for another reason could allow us to revert to R18-2 should the ball move. I have to confess that not having thought about it before, I would have ruled in that way on the course if the situation had been thrown at me. Rulefan is clearly unimpressed by that line of reasoning, and right enough there is nothing in the Rules to support it. It is not, to my mind, an equity matter (Rule 1-4) because it is not something on which there is no Rule.

Nothing then to support my inclination to be nice guy and allow the player who has addressed his ball to back off for some valid reason and no longer be subject to an 18-2b penalty until he re-grounds his club. Which means that a player who addresses his ball just as the hooter sounds for an immediate suspension of play, doesn't mark and lift and whose ball moves after play resumes when he is at his ball but before he re-grounds his club could be penalised under 18-2b. Interesting.

 

[6Aces]

There is a basic problem with that, as with my earlier similar thoughts that moving away for a specific reason other than trying to avoid a penalty should not incur a penalty. As was pointed out, the Rules don't make any provision for that. The Definition of addressing the ball is open-ended: it tells you when it starts but nothing about when it might finish. Addressing the ball is concluded when you make a stroke at the ball.

Since Decision 18-2b/7 is about a player deliberately intending to avoid a penalty, I was pursuing the thought that moving away for another reason could allow us to revert to R18-2 should the ball move. I have to confess that not having thought about it before, I would have ruled in that way on the course if the situation had been thrown at me. Rulefan is clearly unimpressed by that line of reasoning, and right enough there is nothing in the Rules to support it. It is not, to my mind, an equity matter (Rule 1-4) because it is not something on which there is no Rule.

Nothing then to support my inclination to be nice guy and allow the player who has addressed his ball to back off for some valid reason and no longer be subject to an 18-2b penalty until he re-grounds his club. Which means that a player who addresses his ball just as the hooter sounds for an immediate suspension of play, doesn't mark and lift and whose ball moves after play resumes when he is at his ball but before he re-grounds his club could be penalised under 18-2b. Interesting.

It certainly is. As is my right as a player, I would like a second opinion. LOL I have an online meeting tomorrow evening with our local rules committee, where two of the members are on the Rules Committee for Golf Canada. I will ask for an opinion/ruling from them and pass on what they say.

 

[Colin L]

It certainly is. As is my right as a player, I would like a second opinion. LOL I have an online meeting tomorrow evening with our local rules committee, where two of the members are on the Rules Committee for Golf Canada. I will ask for an opinion/ruling from them and pass on what they say.

Well miss out that rubbish in the last bit about suspension of play.

 

[6Aces]

It certainly is. As is my right as a player, I would like a second opinion. LOL I have an online meeting tomorrow evening with our local rules committee, where two of the members are on the Rules Committee for Golf Canada. I will ask for an opinion/ruling from them and pass on what they say.

Present at our online meeting last evening were six Golf Canada certified Level 4 officials. The question I posed was this:

"A player has addressed his ball in the fairway when the horn sounds suspending play.
1. During the suspension of play, the ball moves. Is there a penalty?
2. After resumption of play and before the player re-addresses the ball, it moves. Is there a penalty?
For both questions, we all answered, "No." Because of the extended time period between the discontinuance and resumption of play, there is no way that it can be proven that the player in addressing the ball initially, caused the ball to move.