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!

Deem ball unplayable

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

Moderators: DC, Ron, Johanna

Deem ball unplayable

Postby anyclues » Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:15 pm

May a player who knows or believes that his ball will be unplayable in long grass outside a WH, and has made it clear that he is not going to play the ball as it lies (R13-1) so there is no PS if he causes the ball to move when searching for the ball, identifying the ball, or recovering the ball. So to avoid a penalty under Rule 18-2, before he might cause any movement of the ball, the player announces that he intends to proceed under the unplayable ball Rule. The decisions described in Rule 18 such as 18-2/27 and 18-2/28 makes me think the player having "stated his intention" must proceed according to Rule 28.
Then along comes 18-2/30 which allows the player who has stated he will proceed under unplayable ball rule and subsequently assesses possibility of playing ball as it lies.This leads me to believe the player is not committed to proceeding under the unplayable ball rule provided he has not put a ball into play under that Rule. Moreover, I think even if you can see a ball but cannot identify it as your ball, say it is high in the branches of a tree, you can still declare it unplayable and if it turns out not to be your ball, there is no PS, and if you subsequently find your ball, you must play it with no PS incurred.
So the question I ask is, may a player protect himself against penalty by stating that he will proceed under Rule 28, by deeming his ball (outside a WH) unplayable before he starts his search to avoid a possible PS. But cancel his stated intention to proceed under R28, if he subsequently finds his ball in a playable position ?
anyclues
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:08 am
Your location: Dorset

Re: Deem ball unplayable

Postby Doug » Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:57 pm

I'm not sure how your question differs from 18-2/30.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Deem ball unplayable

Postby anyclues » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:34 pm

I see what you mean Doug, badly worded question, thanks anyway. Still unsure so I can I try a different approach and hope the hole I dug does not get any deeper.
Two players A and B play very similar tee shots into the same area of long grass. As they leave the tee, Player A says nothing, Player B deems his ball unplayable. In searching for their balls in long grass they both cause their balls to move. The movement of the ball was, in both cases, a directly result from the process of searching for their own ball.
Player A proceeds under R18-2 and then deems his ball unplayable. He is playing 4 having taken relief under R28.
If Player B proceeded directly under R28 he would be playing 3. He would not be subject to penalty under Rule 18-2 for causing his ball in play to move because before taking any action, he had announced his intentions to move the ball to proceed under a Rule other than Rule 13-1.
In my original question the ball was not moved in the process of searching. This time the ball has moved. Does Player B have the option of proceeding under either R18 or R28 for 1PS, or even R18 and then R28 for 2PS?
I have this horrible feeling I am asking another dumb question.
anyclues
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:08 am
Your location: Dorset

Re: Deem ball unplayable

Postby MikeH » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:37 pm

I think i'm getting the gist now.... IMO Player A's actions and penalties are in order.

Player B....having announced he intends to proceed under the unplayable Rule and elected not to proceed under R28a he is obliged to find his ball in order to proceed under R28b or c. His actions so far are with the intention of proceeding under R28b or c and that obviously is his first option [but not his only option]. If he lifts and drops in accordance with R28 he will now be playing 3. Should he assess the area and lie and decide to replace the ball [moved in search] it is now clear his intention to proceed under R28 has ceased. Having replaced his ball he is lying 2 [1sp under 18-2]. Should he now decide to invoke R28 he'll be dropping for 3 and playing 4. I feel 18-2/30 and 18-2/27 support this.

Then again I may have totally misunderstood your question and be totally wrong [disclaimer :D ]
User avatar
MikeH
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:09 pm
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Your location: Nelson, New Zealand

Re: Deem ball unplayable

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:50 pm

I believe that we should use D 18-2/27 as a guideline and in particular ... or it must be reasonable to assume from his actions. D 18-2/27 permits the player to proceed under the three options without an additional penalty under R 18-2, depending on the actions of the player.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil

Re: Deem ball unplayable

Postby anyclues » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:12 pm

Thanks MikeH and Adrian.
Mike, not quite the question I posed but I agree with your answers in the way you understood it. The ball was never lost, so R28b or c were always an option. My thinking is in line with Adrian when he quotes 'or it must be reasonable to assume from his actions'. Question is in this case, does deeming a ball unplayable constitute taking further action so that once a player invokes the Rule he has taken further action, and therefore bound by the procedures in that Rule.
anyclues
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:08 am
Your location: Dorset

Re: Deem ball unplayable

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:00 pm

D 18-2/30 I believe gives you the answer to your question. The player declared that he was going to proceed under R 28 but as the decision clearly states his further actions make it clear that the player no longer wished to proceed under R 28. He lost his protection if his ball had moved and might have ended up having to incur an additional penalty if he then had to proceed by declaring his ball unplayable.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil


Return to Get a Ruling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred