Unplayable or free drop?

[Mr Hip]

I have been thinking about the proposed embedded ball rule. Suppose you are playing a links course and you hit your ball into the gorse. It's far enough in that you can't get a swing at it but it has settled into a sandy patch and is apparently "embedded". Only the player can declare a ball unplayable, so is this a penalty drop, because a blind man on a galloping horse can see that there is no stance or swing, or a free drop? Also, is there a proposed or actual definition of "embedded"?

 

[DCB]

In the example you give, the ball is unplayable as it is in a gorse bush, no free relief IMO.

 

[Mr Hip]

In the example you give, the ball is unplayable as it is in a gorse bush, no free relief IMO.

That's what I think should happen but, as I said, the player is the sole judge as to playable or unplayable so an unfair advantage can be gained because there is no way to enforce the penalty drop. At least that's what I think. I have asked the same question of the R&A and, after some weeks, have not received a ruling. I think it's a bad rule change among a number of bad rule changes. Can't wait to see the three minute look for a ball in action (inaction?).

 

[Colin L]

I have been thinking about the proposed embedded ball rule. Suppose you are playing a links course and you hit your ball into the gorse. It's far enough in that you can't get a swing at it but it has settled into a sandy patch and is apparently "embedded". Only the player can declare a ball unplayable, so is this a penalty drop, because a blind man on a galloping horse can see that there is no stance or swing, or a free drop? Also, is there a proposed or actual definition of "embedded"?

See decision 25-2/0.5 for the current definition of embedded
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-25,d25-2-0.5

The new definition does not really change what it means for a ball to be embedded. The only change is that you wil be able to take relief in the general area' which is everywhere except the teeing area, penalty areas and the putting green whereas at the moment it's lmited to closely mown areas (i.e. mainly fairways).

When a player’s ball is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of the player’s previous stroke and where part of the ball is below the level of the ground.

Also not changed other than the words used, is that you cannot take relief if something else makes a stroke unreasonable (that is in Rule 16.1)
There is no relief under Rule 16.1:
• When playing the ball as it lies would be clearly unreasonable because of something other than an abnormal course condition (such as when a player is standing in temporary water or on an immovable obstruction but would be unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush), or
• When interference exists only because a player chooses a club, type of stance or swing or direction of play that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

If you cannot make a reasonable stroke at your ball in the gorse bush, you cannot take free relief but would have to deem your ball unplayable.

 

[Mr Hip]

Colin, thanks. This clarifies things. I thought I was reasonably up on the rules but this one obviously passed me by.

 

[duncan mackie]

Colin, thanks. This clarifies things. I thought I was reasonably up on the rules but this one obviously passed me by.

And of course, in the context of your specific question, neither the existing or new rules would have permitted relief for a ball embedded in sand (currently that would include areas mown to fairway height or less but the new rules have relaxed that). New wording, from 16.3 that covers embedded balls, and includes the specific requirement re being otherwise reasonable to make a stroke, is as follows.

When the ball is embedded in sand in a part of the general area that is not cut to
fairway height or less,

 

[Mr Hip]

Duncan, educate me. Does that mean you could get a drop on a parkland course that you wouldn't on a links course?

 

[DCB]

Duncan, educate me. Does that mean you could get a drop on a parkland course that you wouldn't on a links course?

No, as Colin L states, rule 16.1 would cover the situation described.

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan, educate me. Does that mean you could get a drop on a parkland course that you wouldn't on a links course?

The rules don't use the terms parkland or links course. Sandy soil isn't sand, but sand is sand! As with everything else I the rules it pistols down to a question of fact as to whether a ball is embedded, whether it's embedded in sand or soil etc and the rules cover how to deal with such questions (and the answer isn't that the player is the sole judge!)

You wrote that the ball had settled into a sandy patch....if this was basically sand then you don't need to go the the question of whether a reasonable stroke is available.

The full wording of the applicable rule includes -

When Relief Not Allowed for Ball Embedded in General Area: Relief under
Rule 16.3b is not allowed:
• When the ball is embedded in sand in a part of the general area that is not cut to
fairway height or less, or
• When interference by anything other than the ball being embedded makes the
stroke clearly unreasonable (for example, when a player would be unable to make a
stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush).

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The rules don't use the terms parkland or links course. Sandy soil isn't sand, but sand is sand! As with everything else I the rules it pistols down to a question of fact as to whether a ball is embedded, whether it's embedded in sand or soil etc and the rules cover how to deal with such questions (and the answer isn't that the player is the sole judge!)

You wrote that the ball had settled into a sandy patch....if this was basically sand then you don't need to go the the question of whether a reasonable stroke is available.

The full wording of the applicable rule includes -

When Relief Not Allowed for Ball Embedded in General Area: Relief under
Rule 16.3b is not allowed:
• When the ball is embedded in sand in a part of the general area that is not cut to
fairway height or less, or
• When interference by anything other than the ball being embedded makes the
stroke clearly unreasonable (for example, when a player would be unable to make a
stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush).

I understand your point but in reality, as the original post implies, can't the player now take relief without the opinion of a fellow competitor providing he tells them about it as he does so?

Whilst the personal integrity of the players is paramount we all know of instances where players will ask the question with the hope of gaining advantage.

 

[duncan mackie]

I understand your point but in reality, as the original post implies, can't the player now take relief without the opinion of a fellow competitor providing he tells them about it as he does so?

Whilst the personal integrity of the players is paramount we all know of instances where players will ask the question with the hope of gaining advantage.

I don't understand what you are saying/asking.

I'm not aware that anything has changed with respect to the establishment of whether a player has a reasonable stroke and this exception.

Am I missing something?

 

[rulefan]

I understand your point but in reality, as the original post implies, can't the player now take relief without the opinion of a fellow competitor providing he tells them about it as he does so?

Whilst the personal integrity of the players is paramount we all know of instances where players will ask the question with the hope of gaining advantage.

The player - not fellow competitors - must make the decision. If he is nor sure he may (should) play two balls under Rule 3-3 (following the procedure set down. He must then check the status of the ground with the committee when he gets back to the club.
His fellow competitors have no say in the matter.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-03,3-3

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I don't understand what you are saying/asking.

I'm not aware that anything has changed with respect to the establishment of whether a player has a reasonable stroke and this exception.

Am I missing something?

No I don't think so.

My point was that under the new rules it isn't necessary to inform your fellow competitor before you take certain actions - eg identifying your ball. Thus if a ball is in a bush they may take relief and only inform their fellow competitor they have done so.

In my experience this would usually be done after discussion with a fellow competitor even if the final decision is with the player. There seems less likelyhood of this happening in future.

 

[rulefan]

No I don't think so.

My point was that under the new rules it isn't necessary to inform your fellow competitor before you take certain actions - eg identifying your ball. Thus if a ball is in a bush they may take relief and only inform their fellow competitor they have done so.

In my experience this would usually be done after discussion with a fellow competitor even if the final decision is with the player. There seems less likelyhood of this happening in future.

If his FC doesn't agree with his action he should query it. If the RC is his marker he shouldn't sign the card until it is resolved.

 

[duncan mackie]

The player - not fellow competitors - must make the decision. If he is nor sure he may (should) play two balls under Rule 3-3 (following the procedure set down. He must then check the status of the ground with the committee when he gets back to the club.
His fellow competitors have no say in the matter.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-03,3-3

And if the player is absolutely sure that he's entitled to relief (somisnt going to invoke 3-3or discuss with the committee, and his fellow competitors are equally sure that he is not entitled, your statement that they have no say means that's the end of that?

6-6d/10 clearly implies that fellow competitors do have a say, and in the case of a marker 6-6a/5 takes that further into a responsibility.

 

[rulefan]

And if the player is absolutely sure that he's entitled to relief (somisnt going to invoke 3-3or discuss with the committee, and his fellow competitors are equally sure that he is not entitled, your statement that they have no say means that's the end of that?

6-6d/10 clearly implies that fellow competitors do have a say, and in the case of a marker 6-6a/5 takes that further into a responsibility.

That, in effect is what I said in my next post. He is not involved in the decision itself. The player does what he chooses.

 

[duncan mackie]

That, in effect is what I said in my next post. He is not involved in the decision itself. The player does what he chooses.

Sorry, that crossed with me posting mine ie I'd started before you posted and didn't see it when I finished.

I'm sure we agree in practice!

 

[duncan mackie]

No I don't think so.

My point was that under the new rules it isn't necessary to inform your fellow competitor before you take certain actions - eg identifying your ball. Thus if a ball is in a bush they may take relief and only inform their fellow competitor they have done so.

In my experience this would usually be done after discussion with a fellow competitor even if the final decision is with the player. There seems less likelyhood of this happening in future.

Ah, understand where you are coming from.

Yes, the need to involve a FC when identifying your ball has changed...but I think it's the only change in this regard.

I agree completely with your last paragraph about the current position, but don't see any reason for it to change going forwards. If anything the wholesale changes in the rules will initially result in more such discussions on what people had previously felt absolutely comfortable that they understood! 🤔