Welcome
Welcome to golfrules

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Decision 23-1/10

Use this section to get an answer to your rules questions.

Moderators: DC, Ron, Johanna

Decision 23-1/10

Postby Four Aces » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:40 pm

A player who is away has control as to whether a loose impediment may be removed or not. Does the same principle apply to an unrepaired ball mark? That is, if I wish to use the ball mark as an aim point or possibly to deflect the ball into or closer to the hole, can I insist that it NOT be repaired if I am away?
Four Aces
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:18 pm
Your location: Canada

Re: Decision 23-1/10

Postby Colin L » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:52 pm

If faced with a ruling on the course with no-one to turn to and no friend to phone, I would say yes. The reason is that it shares the same principle that leads to the answer in 23-2/10 for both loose impediments and moveable obstructions - the player is entitled to the lie and line of play he had when his ball came to rest.
Colin L
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:55 pm
Your location: Edinburgh

Re: Decision 23-1/10

Postby Mr. Bean » Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:32 am

Colin L wrote:If faced with a ruling on the course with no-one to turn to and no friend to phone, I would say yes. The reason is that it shares the same principle that leads to the answer in 23-2/10 for both loose impediments and movable obstructions - the player is entitled to the lie and line of play he had when his ball came to rest.


I believe D16-1c/2 confirms Colin's ruling.
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Decision 23-1/10

Postby Colin L » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:09 pm

I’d forgotten that one. Just as well it says the right thing. ;)
Colin L
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:55 pm
Your location: Edinburgh


Return to Get a Ruling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred