Wildlife intervention

S

sportsbob

Assistant Pro
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
249
Location
Wellington, Somerset
Visit site
Probably been threaded before but cannot see anything. Player hits the ball on the green. A bird then picks up the ball and flies off, never to be seen again. What is the ruling? Has happened when playing a friendly match and was asked by my 11 year old and did not definitively know the answer.
 
sportsbob said:
Probably been threaded before but cannot see anything. Player hits the ball on the green. A bird then picks up the ball and flies off, never to be seen again. What is the ruling? Has happened when playing a friendly match and was asked by my 11 year old and did not definitively know the answer.
Click to expand...

Moved by outside agency. Place a ball as close to spot original was (rules guys will confirm)
 
And applies to through the green not just on the green



Also it has to be known or virtually certain that you'll never see the ball/bird again... ok so that bits not true ;)
 
As others have said. If the ball is at rest and the ball is moved by an outside agency there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced (18-1).

If the ball is still in motion and is effectively deflected or stopped it is classified as the rub of the green, there is no penatly and the must must be played as it lies (19-1). If you can't find the ball because the bird has flown off with it, I would assume your only option is to take stroke and distance and go back to where you last played with a penalty of 1 stroke....

EDIT: Thinking about it, I was wrong... No penalty.
However, if your ball in motion was picked up by the bird after a stroke from off the putting green, the player is required to place the ball on the spot from which it was lifted. If that spot is on the putting green, the ball will be placed. If that spot was off of the putting green, the ball must be dropped. And, if the ball is not immediately recoverable, another ball may be substituted with no penalty.
 
Last edited:
This is getting a bit confusing! The OP said "the player hits the ball on the green."
A. If that means the ball was played from the putting green then
i) if the ball was in motion when removed or stopped or deflected by an animal, the stroke is cancelled and the putt must be retaken;
ii)if the ball was at rest when removed by the animal, the ball is replaced.

B. If the OP meant that the ball was played on to the green, then
i) if the ball was in motion and was deflected by the bird, it is played as it lies;
ii)if the ball was in motion and taken by the animal, it is placed at the point where the animal took hold of it;
iii) if the ball was at rest and picked up, it is replaced.

In all cases except B(i), if the ball is not recoverable, another ball may be substituted.
 
Last edited:
Player hits the ball on the green
Click to expand...

I never spotted the ambiguity as I was reading the obvious meaning. Only when possible alternative meanings are thrown into the melting pot (albeit if they require some stretching of the words) does the ambiguity make any difference. However may ambiguity, wilful misunderstanding, and misinformation remain forever as without them we are lost and would have nothing to ponder over :)
 
The clue to the probable meaning was in "hits" but I thought it useful to cover both possibilities. We don't normally talk of hitting a ball that is on the green - we always putt it.

Not noticing the ambiguity is probably a good sign that you are not as seriously sad a pedant as I am.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I never spotted the ambiguity as I was reading the obvious meaning. Only when possible alternative meanings are thrown into the melting pot (albeit if they require some stretching of the words) does the ambiguity make any difference. However may ambiguity, wilful misunderstanding, and misinformation remain forever as without them we are lost and would have nothing to ponder over :)
Click to expand...

35+ Years of IT Development and Support have made me very aware of ambiguities - and made me even more pedantic than I already was! :rolleyes:

Thanks ColinL for the 19-1b point though (where putt cancelled), That had slipped my mind!
 
Foxholer said:
35+ Years of IT Development and Support have made me very aware of ambiguities - and made me even more pedantic than I already was! :rolleyes:

Thanks ColinL for the 19-1b point though (where putt cancelled), That had slipped my mind!
Click to expand...

Likewise I am a serious pedant and perhaps not coincidentally in IT. I yesterday reviewed a section of a backup strategy work instruction (yawn) and had to explain to the author why my feedback was as picky as it was. Fortunately not knowing very much about the subject I can spot the ambiguities quite easily. And in golf a situation in real life is as it presents itself and can be dealt with - but trying to describe it in words and then deal with it...
 
In the legal business we take care to differentiate a rule or statement that is ambiguous on its face from one where the ambiguity results only after applying extrinsic evidence. The former is not ambiguous The latter is not a true ambiguity because the multiple meanings are forced on the plain language of the statement by introducing extrinsic evidence.

"He played his ball on the green." Without considering any extrinsic evidence that statement only means one thing: he played his ball "which was on" the green. It is therefore not an ambiguous statement. To get the other meanings being discussed requires extrinsic evidence which would not be allowed in a legal setting. If the statement had some significance to the speaker he would be stuck with that interpretation, which he has stated was not his intention.

Fortunately in everyday speech including golf talk with its slang and customary phrases we are not held to legal standards and can clarify our meanings without any fallout.
 
Last edited:
atticusfinch said:
In the legal business we take care to differentiate a rule or statement that is ambiguous on its face from one where the ambiguity results only after applying extrinsic evidence. The former is not ambiguous The latter is not a true ambiguity because the multiple meanings are forced on the plain language of the statement by introducing extrinsic evidence.

"He played his ball on the green." Without considering any extrinsic evidence that statement only means one thing: he played his ball "which was on" the green. It is therefore not an ambiguous statement. To get the other meanings being discussed requires extrinsic evidence which would not be allowed in a legal setting. If the statement had some significance to the speaker he would be stuck with that interpretation, which he has stated was not his intention.

Fortunately in everyday speech including golf talk with its slang and customary phrases we are not held to legal standards and can clarify our meanings without any fallout.
Click to expand...

Ambiguity probably avoided if a pedant had suggested 'onto the green' rather than 'on the green' :)
 
That would have expressed his idea better, but there was no ambiguity to avoid. The original statement was clear with only one meaning. the alternative meaning (ambiguity) arises only by introducing extrinsic evidence (his intended meaning.)

In the cruel legal world he would not have been allowed to state his true intention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Ball moved accidentally when preferred lies are in place
Replies
6
Views
784
rulefan
R
E
Player plays wrong ball after picking picking up provisional ball.
Replies
5
Views
1K
Steven Rules
S
PaulMdj
Testing The Green
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
PaulMdj
PaulMdj
D
Refusal to mark and lift ball
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
rulie
R
IanM
Tom Kim's damaged golf ball
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Imurg
Imurg
Top