Ball Accidently Hits Opponent's or FC's Ball.

My opponent's OR fellow competitor's ball is on the putting green. I mark and lift my ball and in so doing I ACCIDENTLY drop it and it hits my O's or FC's ball.

In match play, I am penalized 1 stroke and his ball is replaced, but in stroke play, there is no penalty and his ball is again replaced.

As this was done ACCIDENTLY and as the outcome of the action is the same, regardless of whether it is match play or stroke play, is there any logical reason as to why there is a penalty for one and not the other?

Read carefully the definition of an "outside agency".

It will give you a clue to the logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

Read carefully the definition of an "outside agency".

It will give you a clue to the logic.

---

OK then, in stroke play my golf ball is an Outside Agency and and if it moves my fellow competitor's ball while it is on the putting green, there is no penalty. Therefore, in match play, my ball is NOT an Outside Agency, and if it moves my opponent's ball, I am penalized.

If this is true, it still does not make sense to me as the action of my ball hitting his on the putting green, accidently, is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to either one of us.

Look at it this way.

In stroke play since your FC is playing against the field, it doesn't matter.

In match play your FC is playing you. The act of moving the ball could be an act of gamesmanship in the worst case (were it not accidental), or simply cause him to be rattled in the best case (truly accidental). Hence the penaly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jvincent

Look at it this way.

In stroke play since your FC is playing against the field, it doesn't matter.

In match play your FC is playing you. The act of moving the ball could be an act of gamesmanship in the worst case (were it not accidental), or simply cause him to be rattled in the best case (truly accidental). Hence the penaly.

---

This makes sense to me and I don't understand many of the rules :scratchch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jvincent

Look at it this way.

In stroke play since your FC is playing against the field, it doesn't matter.

In match play your FC is playing you. The act of moving the ball could be an act of gamesmanship in the worst case (were it not accidental), or simply cause him to be rattled in the best case (truly accidental). Hence the penaly.

---

Either way, the FC's or opponent's ball is replaced.

I don't believe that the Rules of Golf are centred around the possibility of gamesmanship, and so there has to be some other logical reason for the penalty in match play.

Which rules are you referring to that lead to this conclusion? I confess to having a problem readily identifying them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpare

Which rules are you referring to that lead to this conclusion? I confess to having a problem readily identifying them.

---

BC's rule questions of late are generally refering to the R&A decisions, which are very specific and the if the question is posed as a matchplay question it is answered thus, but they make no mention of a similar stroke play question and answer (some exceptions). Not very forward looking on the R&A's part, IMO.

Thanks, but what I'm really looking for are the specific rule numbers in question. I should have been clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Started2k3

BC's rule questions of late are generally refering to the R&A decisions, which are very specific and the if the question is posed as a matchplay question it is answered thus, but they make no mention of a similar stroke play question and answer (some exceptions). Not very forward looking on the R&A's part, IMO.

---

Rule 18-1.
Rule 18-3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Started2k3

BC's rule questions of late are generally refering to the R&A decisions, which are very specific and the if the question is posed as a matchplay question it is answered thus, but they make no mention of a similar stroke play question and answer (some exceptions). Not very forward looking on the R&A's part, IMO.

---

My questions are based on reading the RCGA's "Decisions on The Rules of Golf 2006-2007," which I presume originates from the USGA's book of decisions.

I am not sure what gave the impression that it was the R & A book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC MIST

My questions are based on reading the RCGA's "Decisions on The Rules of Golf 2006-2007," which I presume originates from the USGA's book of decisions.

I am not sure what gave the impression that it was the R & A book.

---

When I go to the RCGA's website and hover over "Rules of Golf" and then select "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" it re-directs me to R & A website.

When I go to the USGA's website and and get to their "Rules of Golf" window (contains both rules and decisions). There is an additional link for "Decisions Applicable Only in the United States of America".

Also the disclaimer:
"The USGA, in conjunction with the R&A in St. Andrews, Scotland, writes, interprets and maintains the Rules of Golf to guard the tradition and integrity of the game. The two organizations are joint authors and owners of The Rules of Golf and Decisions on the Rules of Golf. Through an agreement with the R&A, the Rules jurisdiction of the USGA includes only the United States, its possessions and Mexico."

Since RCGA holds NO rights on the Rules of Golf, and as of yet we are not part of the USA, then I can only assume that the R&A rules and decisions are the ones used by the RCGA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Started2k3

Since RCGA holds NO rights on the Rules of Golf,...

---

I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Hill

I disagree.

---

Really? What rights does the RCGA hold?

The Royal Canadian Golf Association has the exclusive right to publish and distribute the Rules of Golf throughout Canada.

I think that Started2k3 was referring to Rights to create or modify the rules of golf which the RCGA clearly has NO right to do as they are the copyright of the R&A and USGA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacker

I think that Started2k3 was referring to Rights to create or modify the rules of golf which the RCGA clearly has NO right to do as they are the copyright of the R&A and USGA

---

Bingo.

I have looked at Rule 18 as well as the Decision (18/7.5) that addresses the scenario that BC Mist originally framed. Like BC Mist it is not evident to me why that particular distinction is drawn between match play and stroke play. Quite frankly, I don't find the gamesmanship argument particularly convincing. But then again, no one said that the interpretation of the rules of golf is necessarily fair or reasonable. I have never been persuaded that kneeling on a towel (to avoid the wet grass) while making a stroke constituted "building a stance." At least those who interpret the rules showed compassion by accommodating those with disabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpare

I have looked at Rule 18 as well as the Decision (18/7.5) that addresses the scenario that BC Mist originally framed. Like BC Mist it is not evident to me why that particular distinction is drawn between match play and stroke play. Quite frankly, I don't find the gamesmanship argument particularly convincing. But then again, no one said that the interpretation of the rules of golf is necessarily fair or reasonable. I have never been persuaded that kneeling on a towel (to avoid the wet grass) while making a stroke constituted "building a stance." At least those who interpret the rules showed compassion by accommodating those with disabilities.

---

Your being of sounder mind than me, I am glad that I am not the only one who does not see the distinction. Perhaps the message from the experts to this and to my other previously unanswered question on Repairing Ball Mark on the Putting Green, is "I don't know," or "Go figure it out for yourself."

As I still would like an answer I will ask the questions on another forum and report back.