Lost Ball in Flower bed

[BC MIST]

From a Rules website.

Dave hits his ball into a large flower bed (Local Rule play prohibited) and asked his two FC's, to agree on the location of the free drop for a ball lost in the Flower bed. The two FC's agreed that it was known or virtually certain that the ball went into the Flower bed and the player took the drop and hit the ball onto the green. His FC's then realized he was substituting a ball and argued that he had to actually find his ball for him to get the free drop. Dave became unsure of what to actually do and therefore suggested playing 2 balls but wishing the first to count.

After Dave played the dropped ball onto the green they became very sure that the free drop was incorrect and insisted he had to play under stroke and distance which he then did.

Dave went back and played a second ball (3-3) under stroke and distance and when he reached the green one of the FC's had picked up the first ball played from the drop by the flower bed and handed it to him insisting it was played incorrectly and informing him that he had to proceed with the stroke and distance ball ball which Dave did dutifully, thereby failing to hole out with his first ball. Dave completed the hole with the second ball.

What is the ruling?

[jvincent]

My brain hurt just reading that one.

[1972Apex]

My brain hurt just reading that one.

I'm glad it wasn't only me
I believe the correct answer is that it is time to find new playing partners

[Skiddlydidly]

His FC's don't get to make that decision, right? You're supposed to play two balls and have the officials clear it up later, right?

Are his FC's penalized for picking up his ball? Regardless of wether it was eventually decided to be the correct ball?

[sensfan63]

Dave simply proceeds with the "stroke and distance" ball. Unfortunately this is a case where Dave needed to be argumentative, and even combative, with his FCs.

[jvincent]

Dave will definitely have to record a score with the ball he holed out. The part that is hurting my brain is what additional penalties, if any, need to be applied.

[BC MIST]

Dave will definitely have to record a score with the ball he holed out. The part that is hurting my brain is what additional penalties, if any, need to be applied.

From the original version I simplified the wording which also gave me an Extra Strength Tylenol head ache.

Hint: He was right/wrong/foolish. What price should he pay for the wrong(s)?

[jvincent]

I'm going to wing this one without assistance from the rule book.

He was originally correct in his decision to take free relief from the flowers and his approach to play a second ball under 3-3 was the correct one.

However, by not playing the original ball, he has now played his second ball from a wrong place and as such is subject two a two stroke penalty. I'm pretty sure that since he didn't commit a serious breach by playing from the wrong place he is not DQ'd.

What he should have done is replaced his first ball as close as possible to where it lay and holed out with that one and recorded the two scores. Both scores should then have been reported to the committee.

He also should have taken a wedge to the FCs.

[BC MIST]

Points to consider:

When did he invoke 3-3, that is, the playing two balls? If you look at 3-3/0.f (4), it says that "if the original ball is played, the score with the original ball must count, even if the rules do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball..."

What did he do with the original ball which WAS correctly substituted and played? It was picked up by an FC when he replayed from the tee.

What happens when you fail to hole out with the original ball of the ball in play? You get DQ'd.

But, 3-3/8 says that "If a player declares his intention to to invoke playing two balls he may change his mind at any time before he takes further action, such as ...putting another ball in play." In my mind ,he changed his mind, went back to the tee and incorrectly substituted another ball and played it from a wrong place. Simultaneous infractions results in a two stroke penalty so the player hit three times + two penalty strokes = lying 5.

But....?

Where is AAA when you need him?

[g8r]

Question: Although he was entitled to a free drop, why doesn't going back to the place of the previous stroke (taking the stroke/distance penalty) essentially say his ball is lost or unplayable? why wouldn't he just count his 2nd ball, lying 3, where he took stroke and distance?

[BC MIST]

Question: Although he was entitled to a free drop, why doesn't going back to the place of the previous stroke (taking the stroke/distance penalty) essentially say his ball is lost or unplayable? why wouldn't he just count his 2nd ball, lying 3, where he took stroke and distance?

Before going back he put a ball in play from adjacent to the flower bed, but before doing this he could have gone back to the tee, however, that would be silly as he was entitled to play the ball from where it crossed the "margin" of the flower bed, without penalty. What he initially did was correct.

[1dash1]

BC Mist:

It is a difficult ruling. However, I don't see any way out for the player.

There was no penalty for substituting a new ball (Ball #2) when dropping from the flower bed because Rule 25-1 allows for the substitution (mandatory relief from flower beds are usually structured under Ground Under Repair).
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...le25.html#25-1

Rule 3-3 was not applicable, because the player took further action (played Ball #2) before invoking the rule. See note under Rule 3-3a:
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...ule03.html#3-3

Therefore, Ball #2 was properly in play. There is nothing that excuses the player for discontinuing the play of the ball.

However, the player DID discontinue play with the ball dropped from the flower bed. Now what?

In my opinion, Rule 27-1 did not apply to Ball #3 (the ball played under stroke and distance). Ball #3 was neither a ball in play, a second ball, provisional ball, nor a practice ball. It was merely a ball mistakenly played. See Dec. 3-3/3:
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...c03.html#3-3/3

The act of removing Ball #2 by the fellow competitors (or even lifting Ball #2 by the player, if such had been the case) does not magically transform Ball #3 from "no status" to a ball in play.

Ball #2 was illegally moved by the fellow competitors. Per Rule 18-1/Rule 18-5, the ball must be replaced. The player failed to do so and eventually holed out with Ball #3 that was never properly substituted and never a ball in play.

IMHO, for failing to hole out with the ball in play, the player is disqualified under Rule 3-2.

I'm open to further discussion on this matter. It's not a "slam dunk" ruling. Indeed, I'm averse to penalizing players when they are doing their darndest to abide by the rules and simply get caught up in "doing the right thing" wrong.

Note: Even if we were to generously rule that the player was somehow proceeding under Rule 3-3, the final ruling would have been the same. DQ for failing to hole out with the ball that should have counted. See Decisions 3-3/7.5 and 3-3/8:
http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/decisions/dec03.html#3-3/7.5

[1dash1]

BTW, I don't think we ever get match play rulings that are this complicated.

[BC MIST]

[INDENT]In my opinion, Rule 27-1 did not apply to Ball #3 (the ball played under stroke and distance). Ball #3 was neither a ball in play, a second ball, provisional ball, nor a practice ball. It was merely a ball mistakenly played. See Dec. 3-3/3:http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo...c03.html#3-3/3

The DQ for not holing out with the original ball makes sense, but...

27-1a says that "At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played.... Except as provided in the rules, if a player makes a stroke at a ball from the spot at which the original ball; was last played, he is deemed to have proceeded under penalty of stroke and distance." Hitting again from the tee, by definition, means that the original is lost. So, even though he played the ball under S&D from the wrong place, and for which he will be further penalized, does this not give him an out from being DQ'd?

[spackler]

Are there any penalties for the partner who picked up the ball?

[1dash1]

So, even though he played the ball under S&D from the wrong place, and for which he will be further penalized, does this not give him an out from being DQ'd?

BC Mist:

That means that Ball #3 was in play as soon as it was hit (proceeded under stroke-and-distance). The player could not have played Ball #2, even if he replaced it on the putting green, because it was made lost by the player's actions.

I don't think that was the case here.

[1dash1]

Are there any penalties for the partner who picked up the ball?

Spackler:

There ought to be!

However, under the rules of stroke play, there is no penalty to either of the two fellow competitors unless they deliberately misled the other player. If they had maliciously misinformed the other player, the two fellow competitors would be DQ'd under Rule 33-7.

In my experience, when these accidental things happen, the fellow competitors suffer as much or more than the player himself. It is personally sickening to have caused the downfall of another player.

One player that I know still hasn't recovered from making a scorecard mistake while acting as the other player's marker. He subtotaled the back nine score and entered it into the 18th hole box. The player made par on the hole, but was credited with a 37. Granted, it was the player's responsibility to check the scores - but that doesn't make the marker feel any better about having caused the mess.

P.S. For those wondering why the mistake wasn't caught at the Scoring Table ...
High school junior golfers annually man the tables. They are as rules-savvy as most adult players and do a very good job. The problem with the tournament in question was that they had a talent show that they participated in that afternoon, so their parents stepped in to take up the slack (as parents typically do whenever their kids bug out at the last minute). Unfortunately, not all parents played golf or knew anything about the rules. While they were briefed on their duties, apparently the instructions didn't sink in.

[BC MIST]

That means that Ball #3 was in play as soon as it was hit (proceeded under stroke-and-distance). The player could not have played Ball #2, even if he replaced it on the putting green, because it was made lost by the player's actions.

I goofed. What I really meant was that after playing the second ball to the green, could he invoke 27-1a, play from a wrong place, add two penalty strokes and avoid the disqualification?

This incident also happened in a junior tournament and I am trying to find a "loophole" that would see him avoid being DQ'd.

BTW: I have often wondered how Tommy Aaron felt after his gaffe prevented Roberto DiVincenzo from winning The Masters. Yes, I am old enough to remember the incident.

[1dash1]

I goofed. What I really meant was that after playing the second ball to the green, could he invoke 27-1a, play from a wrong place, add two penalty strokes and avoid the disqualification?

This incident also happened in a junior tournament and I am trying to find a "loophole" that would see him avoid being DQ'd.

BTW: I have often wondered how Tommy Aaron felt after his gaffe prevented Roberto DiVincenzo from winning The Masters. Yes, I am old enough to remember the incident.

BC Mist:

You'll have to be more specifc. What happened to the first ball? When did he play a ball under Rule 27-1a?

If the player is not proceeding under any other rule, then Rule 27-1 often acts as a catch-all. However, when the player IS proceeding under another rule then that other rule applies.

In the case where the player mistakenly plays a second ball under Rule 3-3, after already having taken an action with the original ball, I suggest that the applicable rule remains Rule 3-3 - even though that second ball cannot count. (The decisions that cover such instances are not rulings in equity, they are rulings under this rule - hence my conjecture that the applicable rule remains Rule 3-3.)

As to Aaron, I have no doubt that he regrets the few seconds of inattention more than words can say.