Decision not to take relief after all.

[Kilroy]

A player finds his ball on a cart path. He puts a tee down to mark the ball's position, then picks it up before determining his nearest point of relief. Once he discovers that his NPR is in the bush, he elects to play from the cart path.

Does he incur a penalty for moving his ball by picking it up and replacing it? I couldn't find this one in the decisions.

[Ginker]

My guess would be he has to take the relief.. Then perhaps take an unplayable? Not sure.. shoudl be interesting to see.

[acadian]

Yeah , we got caught yesterday with that situation , and i still have a hard time understanding why there isn't a one stroke penalty.(i personaly thinik there should be) , but according to the assistant pro at manderley,i was able to play my ball at the marked postion without penalty.
I still would like a professional opignion on this,,,sounds flaky
but what do i know

[bbad]

Seems logical to me (but since when is any rule in golf logical). Here goes a guess

In order to take relief from the cart path, you first must go through the formalities of marking the ball in order to see if relief is possible. Hence after marking the ball you then find the nearest point of relief and then decide if that is the place you wish to hit it from. If you decide to play it from the NPR then you are stuck with wherever the ball lands but I don`t think you are obliged to take that point if you don`t feel it is worthwhile.

I believe then if you feel that the point of relief is not beneficial then you then replace the ball back on the cartpath in the exact place you found it and then proceed to take your next shot - without penalty. It should also be noted that you are forbidden from cleaning the ball etc to improve the conditions of the situation.


Someone will surely comment on this.

[Colby]

Gary had discussed this ad nauseum in previous posts.

Here's his answer for replacing the ball on the path:

http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showpost...86&postcount=9

[Kilroy]

a. Replace the ball where it originally lay on the cart path.
This will result in a penalty of one stroke because you have not lifted your ball under a Rule (even though you intended to use Rule 24-2, you have not used that Rule).

That's what I was afraid of. That would have changed the outcome of our match. Oh well.

[Colby]

Was that from the Intersectionals yesterday Dan?

[Kilroy]

Yes. Acadian's ball. My bogey to his par. He won 2 & 1, so I may have been able to pull out a tie. I am not sure what he had on 18, but he was looking around in the fescue for his tee shot. I lost my other match with a bogey on 18. It may have mattered, it may not. We'll never know. The ruling was made and that's that.

[LobWedge]

Per the RCGA:

The player incurs a one stroke penalty for violating Rule 18-2a(i). A ball is still in play if it lies in or on an immovable obstruction. Once you decide to take relief and lift your ball you can't change your mind.

p.s. there would be no additional penalty if the player had cleaned his ball in this situation.

[LobWedge]

You could have always proceeded under Rule 3-3a...

[Kilroy]

3-3. Doubt as to Procedurea. Procedure In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.

This would not have been applicable. The only issue was weather or not to apply a penalty, which we did not due to an incorrect ruling.

[AAA]

You could have always proceeded under Rule 3-3a...

Not in matchplay.

My bogey to his par. He won 2 & 1

[Kilroy]

Please clarify AAA You quoted both of us with one comment. Not sure how it applies. We were told we must resolve it before teeing off on the next hole, hence the hurried decision. That made no sense to me, but that was the ruling.

[LobWedge]

This would not have been applicable. The only issue was weather or not to apply a penalty, which we did not due to an incorrect ruling.

Oops! Missed that. You're correct. 3-3 only applies to stroke play. There are no provisions in the rules to allow for a second ball to be played in match play (Decision 33-8/3).

[BC MIST]

Please clarify AAA You quoted both of us with one comment. Not sure how it applies. We were told we must resolve it before teeing off on the next hole, hence the hurried decision. That made no sense to me, but that was the ruling.

In a way, the predicament does NOT have to be resolved before you play from the next tee. Allow your opponent to do whatever he wishes and if you see him about to break a rule, by all means discuss it with him. However, if his drop is unsatisfactory to you, you make a claim, tell him why you are making a claim, and get a ruling after.

If he happened to have played two balls, he would have lost the hole.

[AAA]

Please clarify AAA You quoted both of us with one comment. Not sure how it applies. We were told we must resolve it before teeing off on the next hole, hence the hurried decision. That made no sense to me, but that was the ruling.

You were playing matchplay. Lobwedge was quoting a rule which only applies in strokeplay.
You should have advised your opponent, before you played from the next tee, that you were making a claim under Rule 2-5 and sorted it out at the clubhouse.

[Kilroy]

Let's be clear. None of the 4 players involved were sure if a penalty was applicable or not. We were told that we had to resolve it before teeing off at the next hole so I was in no position to make a claim. Anyway it's all good. It may have earned me a single point, but that would have had no impact on the team standing. Even if it did it's too late once the competition is closed. This was just to clarify the rule, which has been done. Thanks!

[BC MIST]

. We were told that we had to resolve it before teeing off at the next hole so I was in no position to make a claim.

All OVGA reps are told that the "dispute" has to be settled before playing from the next tee. Another truth is that only some of the reps are well versed in the rules so to avoid being put into an awkward position, they tell you to settle the issue.

However, the Committee, in this case the OVGA rep, does not have the right to change a rule of golf and a rule of golf allows you to make a claim, if you see your opponent breaking a rule that is advantageous to him.

One of our players was told he could NOT do something when in reality, he could. Instead of listening to the wrong advice, I would have dropped the ball where I felt it should be dropped and then let the opponent make the claim. Even if I happened to be wrong in what I could have done, if the opponent makes no claim, then effectively, no rule was broken.

[GarthM]

In a way, the predicament does NOT have to be resolved before you play from the next tee. Allow your opponent to do whatever he wishes and if you see him about to break a rule, by all means discuss it with him. However, if his drop is unsatisfactory to you, you make a claim, tell him why you are making a claim, and get a ruling after.

If he happened to have played two balls, he would have lost the hole.

But in the case of match play, does it not have to be resolved? Otherwise the status of the match is in question and that may affect one's decisions on subsequent holes, no?

[BC MIST]

But in the case of match play, does it not have to be resolved? Otherwise the status of the match is in question and that may affect one's decisions on subsequent holes, no?

No. It is myth, perpetuated by the OVGA reps, that any dispute has to be settled before playing from the next tee. But, if you are going to make a claim, it MUST be made before playing from the next tee. If you say "UP" and I say "DOWN," we obviously need a third party to settle our dispute and if he/she is not immediately available, the match must continue until one is.

Rule 2-5 In match play, if a doubt or dispute arises between the players, a player may make a claim. If no duly authorized representative of the Committee is available within a reasonable time, the players must continue the match without delay. The Committee may consider a claim only if the player making the claim notifies his opponent (i) that he is making a claim, (ii) of the facts of the situation and (iii) that he wants a ruling. The claim must be made before any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the match, before all players in the match leave the putting green.

[GarthM]

So any unsettled dispute should result in a claim prior to teeing off on the next hole. So in such a circumstance I suppose you just continue the match assuming that you will win your claim and base your play on that outcome and adjust once a decision is made, hopefully before you run out of holes.

[Big Johnny69]

Same sort of situation happened to me on Sunday during Intersectionals. Went for a par 5 in two and ended up just right of the green in the middle of a gravel cart path. I left the ball where it lay and proceeded to discuss with my opponents where my nearest point of relief would be. Seeing as how we agreed it would be on the other side of the cart path in some awful long grass I decided to play it from the path and chipped it on the green. I wasn't aware of the rule if you marked, picked up, then decided against relief, but I just left my ball where it was until I was ready to make a decision. Looks like I made the right decision.

[BC MIST]

So any unsettled dispute should result in a claim prior to teeing off on the next hole. So in such a circumstance I suppose you just continue the match assuming that you will win your claim and base your play on that outcome and adjust once a decision is made, hopefully before you run out of holes.

Exactly.

[Kilroy]

That's exactly what we all wanted to do, but one person told us we must settle it before teeing off, and the other got the ruling incorrect. We didn't even mention it when we got in since it was done and over in our view. Oh well.