Woodhall Spa quandary

[rosecott]

Happened to Hovis on Sunday (amongst other things).

Fellow competitors convinced him that his ball (which was travelling at the speed of sound at ground level) had plugged in the grass face of a bunker (there are a few at Woodhall). They found a ball-shaped hole which disappeared into the face of the bunker but was so deep that they could not see anything of a ball. Hovis dropped a ball (free drop)directly above where the group estimated the ball would be and played his next shot. Surprise, surprise, they then found Hovis's original ball 50 metre's past the bunker (no, it hadn't tunnelled it's way up onto the fairway). What to do next?

 

[chrisd]

Happened to Hovis on Sunday (amongst other things).

Fellow competitors convinced him that his ball (which was travelling at the speed of sound at ground level) had plugged in the grass face of a bunker (there are a few at Woodhall). They found a ball-shaped hole which disappeared into the face of the bunker but was so deep that they could not see anything of a ball. Hovis dropped a ball (free drop)directly above where the group estimated the ball would be and played his next shot. Surprise, surprise, they then found Hovis's original ball 50 metre's past the bunker (no, it hadn't tunnelled it's way up onto the fairway). What to do next?

.................. So this longest putt competition .....

 

[palindromicbob]

Incorrectly substituted ball which was then played from a wrong place. 2 stroke penalty and finish with the substituted ball. Original was defined as lost the moment he struck the dropped ball.

If he had done the same thing and not found his original then I'd think DQ could be argued for because of a serious breech as he is playing the substituted ball from a position significantly closer to the hole than he should be. In stableford this DQ would apply only to the hole being played as opposed to the round.

 

[Colin L]

Happened to Hovis on Sunday (amongst other things).

Fellow competitors convinced him that his ball (which was travelling at the speed of sound at ground level) had plugged in the grass face of a bunker (there are a few at Woodhall). They found a ball-shaped hole which disappeared into the face of the bunker but was so deep that they could not see anything of a ball. Hovis dropped a ball (free drop)directly above where the group estimated the ball would be and played his next shot. Surprise, surprise, they then found Hovis's original ball 50 metre's past the bunker (no, it hadn't tunnelled it's way up onto the fairway). What to do next?

Thanks for that slice of Hovis's golfing life!

Relief for the embedded ball could only be taken if the ball could be seen and identified, and then only if the grass face of the bunker was closely mown. When Hovis dropped a ball he was incorrectly substituting for the original ball and the only applicable Rule was 27-1 (stroke and distance). He should then have played out the hole with the substituted ball with a 2 stroke penalty. The substitution was not made where he had played his previous stroke and, given the distance covered by a low-flying ball at the speed of sound, this was clearly likely to be a serious breach. He should therefore also have played a second ball correctly from where he had played his previous stroke, holed out with that and reported to the Committee for a ruling on which score was to count. If he didn't play a second ball and it was considered a serious breach he would be disqualified.

 

[Foxholer]

Incorrectly substituted ball which was then played from a wrong place. 2 stroke penalty and finish with the substituted ball. Original was defined as lost the moment he struck the dropped ball.

Colin has stated what should happen.

Seen a couple of instances where water or abnormal ground conditions are where the ball is deemed to be (KVC) and the result is rather different!

Also, a slight correction to Bob's last sentence. The bold bit should read 'when the substituted ball struck a part of the course'.

 

[DAVEYBOY]

I wasn't one of the ones advising him on this, he certainly wouldn't have been getting a free drop if I was anywhere near it :rofl:

 

[palindromicbob]

Colin has stated what should happen.

Seen a couple of instances where water or abnormal ground conditions are where the ball is deemed to be (KVC) and the result is rather different!

Also, a slight correction to Bob's last sentence. The bold bit should read 'when the substituted ball struck a part of the course'.

Rule 20-6 allows an incorrectly substituted ball to lifted before it is played without penalty. So the relevant part is that he has actually played it.

As colin has said though. This is all steming from incorrect procedure around an embedded ball.

 

[atticusfinch]

The facts state that the ball traveled at ground level. This implies that it was never airborne so the embedded ball rule would not apply. dec 25-2/6. It should be simply played as a lost ball.

Substitution of a lost ball is allowed, but it must be played under stroke and distance. It was not, so rule 20-7c applies. Two stroke penalty. It appears to be a serious breach so the mistake must be corrected before he tees off on the next hole or be DQ.

 

[backwoodsman]

The facts state that the ball traveled at ground level. This implies that it was never airborne so the embedded ball rule would not apply. dec 25-2/6. It should be simply played as a lost ball.

Substitution of a lost ball is allowed, but it must be played under stroke and distance. It was not, so rule 20-7c applies. Two stroke penalty. It appears to be a serious breach so the mistake must be corrected before he tees off on the next hole or be DQ.

Don't agree with this. 25-2/6 relates to scenario of ball being driven directly in to the ground at the place of the stroke being made.
Hovis' ball clearly travelled some distance before supposedly embedding itself - so must have got airborne even if only a teeny teeny bit.

 

[hovis]

Happened to Hovis on Sunday (amongst other things).

Fellow competitors convinced him that his ball (which was travelling at the speed of sound at ground level) had plugged in the grass face of a bunker (there are a few at Woodhall). They found a ball-shaped hole which disappeared into the face of the bunker but was so deep that they could not see anything of a ball. Hovis dropped a ball (free drop)directly above where the group estimated the ball would be and played his next shot. Surprise, surprise, they then found Hovis's original ball 50 metre's past the bunker (no, it hadn't tunnelled it's way up onto the fairway). What to do next?

If your going to humiliate me on a forum then you need to get the correct turn of events . Two of my pp said it had gone into said hole at the back of the green (ball travelling at knee hight) and whilst looking through the hole we could make something out that was white. They where 100% sure it was my ball. I took a unplayable drop directly above the ball under a one stroke penalty. After the hole had finished my pp had noticed my ball about 3 meters beyond the place where i took my drop ( not quite 50 meters).

We had a group up our bum so i decided that i was dq'd for taking an illegal drop and practicing on the course durring a comp.

 

[hovis]

Oh, and it wasnt a bunker. It was a mound at the back of the green. My ball had in fact gone straight throught the mound as it was mostly consisting of moss!

 

[Colin L]

The facts state that the ball traveled at ground level. This implies that it was never airborne so the embedded ball rule would not apply. dec 25-2/6. It should be simply played as a lost ball.

Substitution of a lost ball is allowed, but it must be played under stroke and distance. It was not, so rule 20-7c applies. Two stroke penalty. It appears to be a serious breach so the mistake must be corrected before he tees off on the next hole or be DQ.

I think Posts #3 and 4 covered it?

I would agree with backwoodsman that we shouldn't take "ground level" literally and that the ball would have been airborne sufficiently to satisfy the embedded ball rule. I certainly recognise the kind of daisy cutter of a shot implied

 

[Colin L]

If your going to humiliate me on a forum then you need to get the correct turn of events . Two of my pp said it had gone into said hole at the back of the green (ball travelling at knee hight) and whilst looking through the hole we could make something out that was white. They where 100% sure it was my ball. I took a unplayable drop directly above the ball under a one stroke penalty. After the hole had finished my pp had noticed my ball about 3 meters beyond the place where i took my drop ( not quite 50 meters).

We had a group up our bum so i decided that i was dq'd for taking an illegal drop and practicing on the course durring a comp.

Sadly, seeing something white which your fellow competitors are 100% sure is your ball doesn't get you out of having to identify your own ball yourself

When your ball was found, you still had time to go back and correct the mistake as explained above. You can do that up to the point of putting a ball into play from the next tee or leaving the 18th green. The DQ would be for a serious breach of playing from a wrong place and not correcting it. And where did the idea that you were practising on the course come from

 

[hovis]

Sadly, seeing something white which your fellow competitors are 100% sure is your ball doesn't get you out of having to identify your own ball yourself

When your ball was found, you still had time to go back and correct the mistake as explained above. You can do that up to the point of putting a ball into play from the next tee or leaving the 18th green. The DQ would be for a serious breach of playing from a wrong place and not correcting it. And where did the idea that you were practising on the course come from

I didnt know the rule so as we we're already holding up play from slow groups ahead i decided to take myself out the comp rather than find out in the clubhouse that i had to bin my card. (i has having a bad game anyway)
As for practicing on the course i thought it would apply as i has tested the green and read with my wrong ball ( i was wrong)

 

[atticusfinch]

I think Posts #3 and 4 covered it?

I would agree with backwoodsman that we shouldn't take "ground level" literally and that the ball would have been airborne sufficiently to satisfy the embedded ball rule. I certainly recognise the kind of daisy cutter of a shot implied

I don't like to make assumptions with these kinds of postings, I always take the poster literally until something else shows different. Assuming the hovis post above is the same person he says it flew at knee height. (Why did he not make the initial post?) That is airborne I agree. So it could have been embedded in its own pitchmark. From there you are correct, he needed to identify it and the facts indicate he did not.

 

[hovis]

I don't like to make assumptions with these kinds of postings, I always take the poster literally until something else shows different. Assuming the hovis post above is the same person he says it flew at knee height. (Why did he not make the initial post?) That is airborne I agree. So it could have been embedded in its own pitchmark. From there you are correct, he needed to identify it and the facts indicate he did not.

Might have something to do with the fact i didnt start this post!

 

[Colin L]

I don't like to make assumptions with these kinds of postings, I always take the poster literally until something else shows different. Assuming the hovis post above is the same person he says it flew at knee height. (Why did he not make the initial post?) That is airborne I agree. So it could have been embedded in its own pitchmark. From there you are correct, he needed to identify it and the facts indicate he did not.

This raises the interesting question about how widely we can apply Decision 25-2/6. To me, the Decision is quite narrowly about a ball lying on the steep bank into which it is immediately driven by the stroke, travelling forward only a few centimetres directly into the ground. The ball probably never even loses contact with the ground - it is just hammered in.

The ball which is played back from a bank and embeds in it does not fit my mental picture of what the Decision is about - even if the shot was more of a daisy cutter than knee height. Its embedding would have to be the first contact with the ground after the stroke, though. I'm just envisaging a shot that lifts only a fraction off the ground and then strikes and embeds in a closely mown bank. It's to do with the ball travelling forwards off the ground even if it is only barely off the ground as opposed to being driven straight into the ground from where it lay. What do you think?

 

[Foxholer]

Rule 20-6 allows an incorrectly substituted ball to lifted before it is played without penalty. So the relevant part is that he has actually played it.

Doh. I was ass uming the substituted ball in play situation was the same as the Stroke and Distance/Unplayable ones. It's not.

The Definition of 'Lost Ball' has separate clauses and
'c. The player has put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance under Rule 26-1a, 27-1 or 28a; or'
'e. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball.'

I was indeed wrong! So the bold but should have been 'made a stroke at the subsitiuted ball' (he may not have 'struck' it!).

 

[Foxholer]

This raises the interesting question about how widely we can apply Decision 25-2/6. To me, the Decision is quite narrowly about a ball lying on the steep bank into which it is immediately driven by the stroke, travelling forward only a few centimetres directly into the ground. The ball probably never even loses contact with the ground - it is just hammered in.

Seems very narrow (specific) to me, though would apply to a 'topped' ball driven straight down as well. It's the 'never got airborne' part that's important.

Oh and for the purposes of this thread, player would still have to find/identify it.