Unplayable lie. Is it acceptable or frowned upon?

[londonlewis]

Perfectly acceptable and actually a very sensible option sometimes. Dont know why the scratch player is turning his nose up, if its the best option within the rules then go ahead without worrying what narrow minded people like him think. If anything he should be commending you for knowing that you can drop for an unplayable lie and having decent course management to do so

Agree, good advice Fundy.
I wouldn't worry what someone else thinks - just because he is good enough to get out of sticky situation doesn't mean he dictate how much you enjoy your game or the score you end up shooting!

 

[North Mimms]

My definition of an unplayable lie- a position where i mistakenly THINK I can hit from , then realise afterwards that i can't .

 

[HawkeyeMS]

My definition of an unplayable lie- a position where i mistakenly THINK I can hit from , then realise afterwards that i can't .

So anywhere on the course then

 

[Jay Gee]

Perhaps Rule 28 would be better named 'Player's Prerogative' than 'Ball Unplayable' because there is no stipulation as to what constitutes 'Unplayable'.
However, the rule states that whilst the player is the sole judge, they must deem the ball unplayable. In using the word unplayable, the rule suggests that you must deem there to be some impedance to playing the ball from where it lies. If a ball clearly lies without any impedance, wouldn't it be against either (or both), the spirit of the game and/or the spirit of the rules to declare it unplayable?

There could be consequences under;
Rule 1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

Rule 33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted. Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified. If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.

This PDF is interesting, although I'm not sure if it comes directly from the R&A. It gives a number of examples where one can adhere to the rules but violate the spirit of the game or rules. Note that violations of the spirit of the game are dealt with far more harshly than violations of the spirit of the rules.
http://www.throughthegreen.org/In the Spirit of the Game of Golf.pdf

Finally, a couple of quotes from the R&A on the spirit of the game.
Honesty, integrity, courtesy: three words that have come to represent the spirit in which the game of golf is played.

It is this dependency upon honesty and courtesy that has elevated ‘integrity’ to sacrosanct status. Without them, we may as well hang up our clubs.
http://www.randa.org/en/Playing-Golf/Spirit-of-the-Game.aspx

One can play to the letter of the published rules, but would declaring a ball on the fairway unplayable be in the spirit of the game?

Just askin!

 

[Snelly]

An interesting thread indeed. In all my years playing golf I have never considered this, seen it done or even for a second, thought that it was feasible. Every day is a school day I guess... Of course, having read this I can see that this is perfectly legal and quite a clever approach to take in a given set of circumstances.

However, to take the 2 foot putt scenario, I would never do what Swings It Like Hogan did. Whilst it is without question, totally acceptable under the rules of the game, it does not seem like the right thing to do to me. I am in full agreement with Bobmac.

No law is broken but in this instance, the law is an ass. Jay Gee raises a good point in his post above too and from a personal perspective, I would not feel as though I was acting with integrity if I declared a ball as unplayable if it was in the fairway, 30 yards from the green.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Snelly, I thought the issue was not that he was declaring it unplayable, more that in the rules, people have said that at any point, you can retake a shot (with the obvious one shot penalty incurred). That's the way I was reading this at the moment? And that the "unplayable" bit is a red herring?

I have probably missed the point though, I'm still learning!

 

[Colin L]

Jay Gee, there is no way in which a player who deems his ball to be unplayable whatever the circumstances and proceeds correctly according to Rule 28 is in breach of any other Rule. He is simply doing what the Rule allows him to do. Perhaps it is worth re-visiting what the Rules actually say is the spirit of the game:

The Spirit Of The Game
Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

The bit I've put in bold type is relevant to this discussion. If you deem your ball unplayable and follow the procedure, you are abiding by Rule 28. By abiding by a Rule you are acting within the defined spirit of the game, not contrary to it.

 

[Jay Gee]

If you deem your ball unplayable and follow the procedure, you are abiding by Rule 28. By abiding by a Rule you are acting within the defined spirit of the game, not contrary to it.

I understand what you're saying, but my point was focused on the definition of the word unplayable and whether declaring a ball on a perfect lie as unplayable, is in the spirit of the game.

It's quite clear that it would be a whole can of worms to specify in the rules, what exactly constitutes an unplayable ball. Accounting for player's varying abilities alone would be a nightmare. So should rule 28 be treated as a player's prerogative or should there be at least some remote semblance of unplayability about it?

Could a player not challenge an opponent's decision to deem a ball unplayable based upon the spirit of the game or rules? After all, the rules themselves do not cover all eventualities, which is why there are decisions. Some decisions override the rules, based upon the spirit of the game/rules even when the actions in question appear to follow the rules to the letter. The PDF I linked to gives some examples.

Put it this way, would you be confident going before a committee after declaring a ball on the 18th fairway unplayable, when you are leading your club championship?

This is more of a question than an assertion on my part.

 

[Crow]

Put it this way, would you be confident going before a committee after declaring a ball on the 18th fairway unplayable, when you are leading your club championship?.

I think you'd be more likely to be up before the men in white coats than your committee.

Unless the Committee wanted to speak to you about handicap protection for deliberately wasting a shot.

 

[Foxholer]

I understand what you're saying, but my point was focused on the definition of the word unplayable and whether declaring a ball on a perfect lie as unplayable, is in the spirit of the game.

It's quite clear that it would be a whole can of worms to specify in the rules, what exactly constitutes an unplayable ball. Accounting for player's varying abilities alone would be a nightmare. So should rule 28 be treated as a player's prerogative or should there be at least some remote semblance of unplayability about it?

Could a player not challenge an opponent's decision to deem a ball unplayable based upon the spirit of the game or rules? After all, the rules themselves do not cover all eventualities, which is why there are decisions. Some decisions override the rules, based upon the spirit of the game/rules even when the actions in question appear to follow the rules to the letter. The PDF I linked to gives some examples.

But there is no doubt about 27-1a, which is the Rule you are/should be using.

Don't declare the ball unplayable (Rule 28).

Use the absolutely unequivocal right of 27-1a to...

a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.

Can someone make the above 3 lines a 'sticky' in every post in this thread please? :sbox:

 

[Colin L]

I think there is a bit of confusion around, not least because of this strange notion about a ball sitting clear of any problems on the fairway which a player would mysteriously deem unplayable for no reason.

Could a player not challenge an opponent's decision to deem a ball unplayable based upon the spirit of the game or rules?
No
Some decisions override the rules, based upon the spirit of the game/rules even when the actions in question appear to follow the rules to the letter
No Decision overrides a Rule

Put it this way, would you be confident going before a committee after declaring a ball on the 18th fairway unplayable, when you are leading your club championship?
Why would I want to do that in the first place? But if I had a reason to use Rule 28 as a player I would be entirely comfortable with that. And quite honestly, as a member of the committee I wouldn't consider the legitimate actions of a player as of any interest or concern.

 

[Jay Gee]

But there is no doubt about 27-1a, which is the Rule you are/should be using.

Don't declare the ball unplayable (Rule 28).

Use the absolutely unequivocal right of 27-1a to...

a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.

Can someone make the above 3 lines a 'sticky' in every post in this thread please? :sbox:

Again, just trying to understand the rules.

Rule 27 addresses balls lost or OOB. Rather than an 'absolutely unequivocal right' i.e. anywhere at any time or under any circumstance, would it not be fair to think that stroke and distance requires a ball to be (or thought to possibly be) lost or OOB? Another rule (such as 28 ball unplayable) can specifically prescribe S&D as an option, but is S&D an unequivocal rule in it's own right or an action to follow when a ball is lost or OOB?

Rule 27. Ball Lost or Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball
27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.

 

[Colin L]

Again, just trying to understand the rules.

Rule 27 addresses balls lost or OOB. Rather than an 'absolutely unequivocal right' i.e. anywhere at any time or under any circumstance, would it not be fair to think that stroke and distance requires a ball to be (or thought to possibly be) lost or OOB? Another rule (such as 28 ball unplayable) can specifically prescribe S&D as an option, but is S&D an unequivocal rule in it's own right or an action to follow when a ball is lost or OOB?

Rule 27. Ball Lost or Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball
27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.

Yes, it is an unqualified right to play from where you last played. 27-1a which you quote is saying that exactly. It is what you must do if you lose a ball or it goes OOB; it is what you may do as one of the options under a number of rules including unplayable ball; but it is also what you may do any time for any reason.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Again, just trying to understand the rules.

Rule 27 addresses balls lost or OOB. Rather than an 'absolutely unequivocal right' i.e. anywhere at any time or under any circumstance, would it not be fair to think that stroke and distance requires a ball to be (or thought to possibly be) lost or OOB? Another rule (such as 28 ball unplayable) can specifically prescribe S&D as an option, but is S&D an unequivocal rule in it's own right or an action to follow when a ball is lost or OOB?

Rule 27. Ball Lost or Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball
27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.

He does have a point

 

[Foxholer]

He does have a point

Not one that makes any difference.

All rules, including R28, that have Stroke and Distance as an option refer to 27-1.

I agree the main title of 27 should include 'Stroke and distance,....' though, as the subtitle certainly does.

 

[Jay Gee]

Yes, it is an unqualified right to play from where you last played. 27-1a which you quote is saying that exactly. It is what you must do if you lose a ball or it goes OOB; it is what you may do as one of the options under a number of rules including unplayable ball; but it is also what you may do any time for any reason.

Thanks for clearing that up Colin and others saying the same thing. I hope you understand my asking. The rule title comes before any subtitles or points and read through inexperienced eyes can give a different impression.

As to my comment about decisions overriding rules, I obviously phrased that incorrectly. What I meant to say, is that sometimes a decision will give a different rule priority over another rule. This may include breaches of etiquette or violations of the spirit of the game/rules.

If the rules were that straightforward in general, there would be no need for 1200 decisions or committee referrals

 

[Colin L]

Yes, I can see how the way the rule is structured could confuse.

 

[Wessex]

To take a quote from the inside cover of the Rules of Golf:

'Play the ball as it lies,
play the course as you find it,
and if you can't do either,
do what is fair.
But to do what is fair,
you need to know the Rules of Golf.'

Whilst it is the player's sole decision to declare a ball unplayable,
it is you're fellow competitor's opinion whether that decision is fair
and whether they wish to play in competitions with that person in the future.

 

[North Mimms]

To take a quote from the inside cover of the Rules of Golf:

'Play the ball as it lies,
play the course as you find it,
and if you can't do either,
do what is fair.
But to do what is fair,
you need to know the Rules of Golf.'

Whilst it is the player's sole decision to declare a ball unplayable,
it is you're fellow competitor's opinion whether that decision is fair
and whether they wish to play in competitions with that person in the future.

Are you seriously saying that you wouldn't play with someone who took an unplayable or Stroke and distance in circumstances where you would have played the ball as it lies??

 

[Colin L]

Whilst it is the player's sole decision to declare a ball unplayable,
it is you're fellow competitor's opinion whether that decision is fair
and whether they wish to play in competitions with that person in the future.

So if you thought that I had "unfairly" deemed my ball unplayable in a competition, you wouldn't enter another competition if you knew I had entered it? That's a very noble self-sacrifice for the sake of being morally troubled by the legitimate application of the rules of golf.