Consider the following (which arose recently):
A player’s ball was on the putting green
(with those of his fellow-competitors) and without the knowledge of the player
one of his fellow-competitors marked and lifted his ball and set it aside on
the green.
The player holed his ball from the place at
which it had been set aside.
On the next tee as the group was preparing to
play their tee shots, the fellow-competitor asked for his marker to be
returned. This was the first indication to the player that his ball had been
marked.
What should be done?
We can quickly discover from Rule 20-1 that a
ball may be lifted by the ‘player … or a person authorised by the player’. So
this ball has been, in common terms, lifted by a fellow-competitor in
contravention of this Rule.
One could first question whether a ball which
is marked and picked-up without authority is, in fact, ‘lifted’ within the
meaning of the Rules. But the Rules are silent on this point so we will assume
that this ball has been ‘lifted’ and the relevant Rules apply.
However, we do know from Rule 20-3a that a
ball which has been lifted must be replaced by the player or the person who
lifted it and that a ball which has been lifted or moved must be replaced or
placed (as the case may be) on the spot from which it was lifted or moved.
These provisions are difficult for the player to comply with if s/he is unaware
that the ball has been lifted.
We also know from the first paragraph of the
Definition of a ‘Ball in Play’ that a ball which is ‘lifted’ is ‘out of play’
and from the Definition of ‘Wrong Ball’ that a wrong ball is ‘any ball other
than the player’s ball in play’.
There is, however, another line of reasoning.
It is clear that the fellow-competitor has
‘moved’ the player’s ball (within any meaning of that word) other than with the
authority of the player, as provided in Rule 20-1. Rule 18-4 covers the
situation where, in stroke play (which this is because it involves a
‘fellow-competitor’), a player’s ball is moved by a fellow-competitor. The
fellow-competitor incurs no penalty but the ball must be replaced. This, again,
is a provision difficult for the player to comply with if s/he is unaware that
the ball has been moved.
Rule 18-4 also refers the reader to Rule 15-3
– Playing a wrong ball.
So in consideration of both lines of enquiry
we have a situation where the player has either played the ball in play from a
‘wrong place’ or has played a ‘wrong ball’.
That is the first question to decide.
If the ‘wrong place’ line is followed, the
player (as required by Rule 20-7) incurs a two stroke penalty and counts his
score without correcting the mistake. (There is also provision for
disqualification of the player if the breach is significant; but let’s not get
into that in this instance).
If the ‘wrong ball’ option is chosen then
Rule 15-3 makes it quite clear that the player incurs a two stroke penalty and
must correct the mistake, under threat of disqualification if s/he does not do
so prior to playing from the next tee.
Both of these seem a bit harsh as the player
is unaware that his/her ball has not been played from the place on the green at
which it came to rest as a result of her/his stroke. But what other courses of
action are available to the player under the Rules of Golf? Is this another
instance where Rule 35 is invoked: Stiff Luck!
So what do the Castle Dwellers have to
say about this?
It will be noted that The Castle treats this
as a ‘wrong ball’ rather than a ‘wrong place’ situation. I think that this is
correct as the ball which was taken out of play has not been properly put back
into play, hence remains a ‘wrong ball’, rather than the ball having been put
back into play (by the fellow-competitor who lifted it) at a ‘wrong place’.
As a result, Decision 15-3b/3 states:
Fellow-Competitor
Lifts Competitor's Ball and Sets It Aside; Competitor Plays Ball from Where Set
Aside
Q. In stroke play, B marked the position of A's ball on the
putting green, lifted it and placed it nearby on the green. A failed to replace
the ball. He putted it from where it lay and holed out. The error was then
discovered. What is the ruling?
A. When a ball is lifted, it is out of play — see
Definition of "Ball in Play." When A played a stroke with his ball
which was out of play, he played a wrong ball.
If A knew
that B had lifted his ball, he incurred a penalty of two strokes under Rule
15-3b and was required to replace his ball on the correct spot and play out the
hole.
If A did not
know that B had lifted his ball, A could not be penalized for playing a wrong
ball. If he became aware of the mistake before playing from the next tee, he
was required to replace his ball on the correct spot, without penalty, and
complete the hole. If he learned of the mistake after playing from the next
tee, the score with the wrong ball would stand and there would be no penalty.
Setting
aside the question posed above regarding whether the ball was technically
lifted (within the meaning of the Rules), the task I set for knowledgeable
Roggies is to explain the bases within the Rule Book for the third paragraph of
this Decision.
The eminent
good sense of this Decision notwithstanding, is there any specific
justification to be found in the Rule Book for this outcome? Or is this
Decision simply a result of the fertile imagination of the Castle Dwellers and,
if so, what chance is there of the long-suffering punter who places reliance on
the primacy of the Rule Book reaching the conclusion described in this
Decision, from the Rule Book alone?
In my view
this Decision (while eminently sensible) is definitely dodgy.
Rog, does the Note to R18-1 not help us here?
ReplyDeleteThe ball has been moved by an OA (the FC is an OA), that is a matter of fact. But, the player is unaware of that fact. The note to r18-1 protects him from any penalty from inadvertently playing a 'wrong ball', in my humble opinion, and thus that same Note offers some rules-based support for the 'dodgy' decision you question here.
What do you think is wrong with that line of thinking?
Enjoy the blog v much. Thought-provoking.
Thanks, Anon, for you comment.
DeletePlease consider the following:
While a ‘fellow-competitor’ may, in broad terms, be considered to fall within the scope of the Definition of ‘Outside Agency’, I do not believe that this is relevant when applying Rule 18. I say this because in Rule 18 a ‘fellow-competitor’ is clearly differentiated (18-4) from an ‘outside agency’ (18-1). That is, when applying Rule 18 a fellow-competitor is a ‘fellow-competitor’ and is not an ‘outside agency’, and a ball moved by a ‘fellow-competitor’ must be dealt with in accord with Rule 18-4.
And there is no provision within Rule 18-4 to substantiate the Decision on how to proceed in the circumstances described.
You may, however, wish to argue that the principle outlined in the Note to Rule 18-1 could (and should) be applied to all other sections of Rule 18.
Thus, as you indicate, in the absence of knowledge by the player that his/her ball has been moved, the ball must be played as it lies. That is, in the case in point, as the player was in ignorance of the fact that the ball had been moved at the time he played his next stroke, then it was ‘played as it lay’ and the score should stand.
But that is not what Decision 15-3b/3 says.
This Decision states that if the player (in the circumstances described) plays the ball as it lies then discovers the error prior to playing from the next tee, s/he must return to the green, replace the ball in the correct position and complete the hole, without penalty or, one assumes, counting the strokes wrongly played, but if the discovery occurs after the next tee shot has been played then the score when played from the wrong place stands (ie: the ball remains played as it lay).
There is, in my view, no substantiation within the Rules for either of these decisions.
Please let me know if you do not agree with any of this analysis.
Rog, I believe that one of the problems here is rule 20-1, nowhere in this decision is there a suggestion of a penalty for the fellow competitor who lifted the ball without the players authority, yet the rule clearly states that the ball may be lifted by the player, his partner or another person authorised by the player, penalty for breach of rule 20-1 two strokes.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not agree that this should apply as there are many occasions where it is not possible to get the players permission to lift his ball without unduly delaying play, think of call up on a long par three, the rule says otherwise.
So if we start with a ball that has been marked and lifted and set aside in breach of rule 20-1 what is the status of that ball?
Larry
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point.
The only references within the Rules to ‘unauthorised’ action refer to ‘unauthorised attendance of the flagstick’ and ‘unauthorised form of transportation’.
Consider Rule 17-2, which states:
If an opponent or his caddie in match play or a fellow-competitor or his caddie in stroke play, without the player’s authority or prior knowledge, attends, removes or holds up the flagstick during the stroke or while the ball is in motion, and the act might influence the movement of the ball, the opponent or fellow-competitor incurs the applicable penalty.
Thus, in this case, we have a clear statement of the consequences where a fellow-competitor acts without authority from the player.
Rule 20-1 is, as you say, quite clear on who may lift a player’s ball but it seems that a fellow-competitor who lifts a ball without the player’s authority, contrary to this Rule, may do so with impunity.
I take your point that there may be occasions where it is expedient, in the interests of, say, pace of play, that a ball on the green be lifted by a fellow-competitor without the authority of the player. This should not be a problem. The real problem arises when the lifter does not inform the player of his/her action. This behaviour is not only extremely poor etiquette but should, in my view, have consequences for the ‘lifter’.
There needs to be provisions within Rule 20-1 detailing the sanction (possibly one stroke penalty) to be applied to a competitor who breaches this Rule and does not inform the player. There should also be a description of how the player should proceed in circumstances where s/he has not been informed that his/her ball has been moved: as I have indicated in the blog, the course of action described in the Decision is quite reasonable, but it needs to be incorporated into the Rules.
Your question regarding the consequences of a breach of Rule 20-1 is also fascinating.
Since the ball has been moved by a fellow-competitor without authority to ‘lift’ it, one could argue that it has not been ‘lifted’ within the meaning of the term under the Rules. Therefore it would be a ball in play which has been moved while at rest.
Now, as alluded to above, in general terms a fellow-competitor falls within definition of an ‘outside agency’. Hence one might argue that the provisions described in Rule 18-1 might apply. That is, the ball must be played as it lies.
But this could be very disadvantageous to the player whose ball was marked 30 cms from the hole and placed on the green 5 metres away!! It would also get us back to the question of whether a fellow-competitor can be dealt with as an outside agency pursuant to Rule 18, given the existence of Rule 18-4, wherein it is required that the ball be replaced whether or not the player is aware that the ball has been moved … and so on, and so on!
I do not think that there is a clear answer to the question you pose.
With luck there will be at least one fellow Roggie who can shed some light on this.