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!

Directly attributable

Use this forum to discuss hypos' and what meanings lie behind the rules. Owing to some unwanted visitors it is now necessary to register as a member to post any questions or answers you may have regarding the Rules of Golf.
once you have done that you will be able to post.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
We do not generally discuss H/cap questions but there is no harm in trying, someone on the forum may know the answer. For H/Cap questions WWW.handicapmaster.org is recommended.

Moderators: DC, Ron, Johanna

Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:00 pm

While removing a rake from a bunker that lay inches away from where their ball was at rest, a player accidentally kicks their ball. Do they incur a penalty?

In my opinion, this depends on whether you think that the strict definition of 'directly attributable' in Decision 20-1/15 also applies to Rule 24-1, movable obstruction. What do others think?

Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Doug » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:45 pm

It cannot apply. The decision is specific to Rules 20-1 and 20-3a regarding marking or replacing a ball. It has nothing to do with moving an MO. If it was it would have said so.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Directly attributable

Postby dormie1360 » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:23 pm

It's a penalty.
Regards,
John A.
dormie1360
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Louisville, KY
Your location: Louisville, KY

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Colin L » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:56 pm

Was he removing the rake with his foot?
Colin L
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:55 pm
Your location: Edinburgh

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:29 pm

I am confused by the brief answers/statements above. Are all three of you saying that a penalty is incurred and if so, why?

In my opinion, the term 'directly attributable', in the context of Rule 24-1a, does not have the same narrow limitation as that described in Decision 20-1/15, which only applies to Rules 20-1 and 20-3a, i.e. the act of marking, lifting and and replacing a ball. A movable obstruction can be of any size and may be located anywhere on the course, such as on a steep incline in rough ground. So, I suggest that Rule 24-1a does permit a ball to be replaced without penalty if it is moved accidentally under any circumstances that are consequential to moving the movable obstruction. To remind you, this is the wording of the Rule, which to my understanding is not limited by any Decision.
If the ball does not lie in or on the obstruction, the obstruction may be removed. If the ball moves, it must be replaced, and there is no penalty, provided that the movement of the ball is directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction. Otherwise, Rule 18-2 applies.
Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Doug » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:13 pm

I certainly don't see accidentally kicking the ball as directly attributable.
If it was necessary to move the ball or if the MO could not be moved without possibly disturbing the ball, that would be direct.
In this case the position of the ball made no difference to the ability to move the MO.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Wendy » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:57 pm

I agree with Doug. Kicking the ball, although accidental, is not directly attributable to moving the rake.
Wendy
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:45 pm

Re: Directly attributable

Postby dormie1360 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:20 pm

I think this is a good article, not long. It does address the idea of "recovery" under R24, 25,26, etc. I realize the idea of recovery is not necessarily the same as directly attributable but the article has some good stuff.

http://throughthegreen.org/linked/special_exceptions_to_the_application_of_rule_18-2_-_2016r1.pdf
Regards,
John A.
dormie1360
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Louisville, KY
Your location: Louisville, KY

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Doug » Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:41 pm

That suggests that as he was not intending to move the ball for the purpose of proceeding under a (the) rule, it is a breach.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:18 pm

I do not see that the excellent article referred to above casts any light on how broadly one can interpret the term 'directly attributable' in the original question. We know that if a ball lies close to a rake in a bunker and the ball moves while the rake is being removed there is no penalty; the player does not have to declare that their intention is to move the rake. Now, forget moving a rake and kicking a ball while doing so. Instead, consider a situation whereby a player attempts to move a rubbish bin that interferes with their intended stance. While moving this easily movable obstruction the bin tips over and causes the player's ball to move. It is my opinion that no penalty is incurred here, because the accidental movement of the ball was directly attributable to the moving of the obstruction. Does anyone agree? Decision 24-1/4 confirms that;
There is no penalty if a ball moves during removal of a movable obstruction provided the movement of the ball is directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction.
Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Doug » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:27 pm

I agree in this case. The act of moving the bin caused the ball to move.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Directly attributable

Postby dormie1360 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:32 pm

Barry, you make a good point, but the original question was about "kicking". D20-1/13 does address kicking and say's it's not directly attributable to the act of marking or lifting the ball. R24-1 also uses the same term directly attributable so I would think the same guidelines apply.
Regards,
John A.
dormie1360
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Louisville, KY
Your location: Louisville, KY

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:51 pm

John and Doug,

Now we are getting somewhere! My real question in the original post is, "whether you think that the strict definition of 'directly attributable' in Decision 20-1/15 also applies to Rule 24-1, movable obstruction." I do not, because the meaning of 'directly attributable' in D20-1/14 expressly applies to R20-1 and R20-3a. If it was intended to apply to R24-1 then surely it would have said so. So, in my opinion D20-1/13 is not relevant to R21-4.

Now let me pose a different situation more similar to the original post. A player's ball lies in a bunker several inches away from a rake in the bunker, which lies in a position that will interfere with a player's stance. As the player reaches down to pick-up the rake their foot slips in the bunker sand dislodging sand that then causes their ball to move. Penalty or not?

Bary
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby dormie1360 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:04 pm

Well, I would just say that normally, accidental tripping, falling, etc., still is a breach of R18-2 if the BIP moves. As far as "directly attributable" meaning different things, I don't know.....this conversation is exceeding my knowledge base. :)
Regards,
John A.
dormie1360
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:01 pm
Location: Louisville, KY
Your location: Louisville, KY

Re: Directly attributable

Postby RJM » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:28 pm

"directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction" is not a cover for "clumsiness while removing the obstruction". I consider the definition of "directly attributable" to be very narrow as per other examples in the Decisions.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:36 pm

999Q wrote:John and Doug,

Now we are getting somewhere! My real question in the original post is, "whether you think that the strict definition of 'directly attributable' in Decision 20-1/15 also applies to Rule 24-1, movable obstruction." I do not, because the meaning of 'directly attributable' in D20-1/14 expressly applies to R20-1 and R20-3a. If it was intended to apply to R24-1 then surely it would have said so. So, in my opinion D20-1/13 is not relevant to R21-4.

Now let me pose a different situation more similar to the original post. A player's ball lies in a bunker several inches away from a rake in the bunker, which lies in a position that will interfere with a player's stance. As the player reaches down to pick-up the rake their foot slips in the bunker sand dislodging sand that then causes their ball to move. Penalty or not?

Bary


Bary,

Directly attributable is also mentioned in R 23-1 (putting green)
I believe in R 24-1a the application of the directly attributable would be less strict than in R 20-1 and R23-1 (putting green) due to potential size, weight and shape of the moveable object. In your example of the foot slipping, in my opinion there would be no penalty.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil

Re: Directly attributable

Postby regole » Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:03 pm

Adrian Mackenzie wrote:
999Q wrote:
Now let me pose a different situation more similar to the original post. A player's ball lies in a bunker several inches away from a rake in the bunker, which lies in a position that will interfere with a player's stance. As the player reaches down to pick-up the rake their foot slips in the bunker sand dislodging sand that then causes their ball to move. Penalty or not?

Bary


Bary,

Directly attributable is also mentioned in R 23-1 (putting green)
I believe in R 24-1a the application of the directly attributable would be less strict than in R 20-1 and R23-1 (putting green) due to potential size, weight and shape of the moveable object. In your example of the foot slipping, in my opinion there would be no penalty.

:?
Sorry but, and according which rule of golf, no penalty :?:
Rule 24-1 provides that the player incurs no penalty if the movement of the ball is directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction. In this case, removal of the obstruction did not cause the ball to move. So, Rule 18-2 applies.

Regards.
regole
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:16 pm
Your location: Cagliari / Sardegna

Re: Directly attributable

Postby RJM » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:27 am

regole wrote:
Adrian Mackenzie wrote:
999Q wrote:
Now let me pose a different situation more similar to the original post. A player's ball lies in a bunker several inches away from a rake in the bunker, which lies in a position that will interfere with a player's stance. As the player reaches down to pick-up the rake their foot slips in the bunker sand dislodging sand that then causes their ball to move. Penalty or not?

Bary


Bary,

Directly attributable is also mentioned in R 23-1 (putting green)
I believe in R 24-1a the application of the directly attributable would be less strict than in R 20-1 and R23-1 (putting green) due to potential size, weight and shape of the moveable object. In your example of the foot slipping, in my opinion there would be no penalty.

:?
Sorry but, and according which rule of golf, no penalty :?:
Rule 24-1 provides that the player incurs no penalty if the movement of the ball is directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction. In this case, removal of the obstruction did not cause the ball to move. So, Rule 18-2 applies.

Regards.


I support regole's opinion - breach of Rule 18-2 with appropriate penalty.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:22 am

Regole and RJM, what would be your ruling on the bin example I posed earlier in the thread?

If I am understanding your positions correctly, it seems that you think that if the player moved the ball with their equipment or person a penalty would be incurred under Rule 18-2a, even though the movement was obviously accidental during the process of moving the obstruction. I have a problem with this, as a strict, literal translation of 'directly attrributable, means anything that happens as a result of moving the obstruction. I do not see there beind a difference of ruling if the player lets the bin fall and it moves the ball, or the player accidentally moves the ball with their foot while they are moving the large object.

Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Doug » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:58 am

The bin's moving was a result of a specific action that had to be taken in order to move the bin. ie moving the bin

The ball's moving was not as result of the specific action of moving the rake. There was no need to move the ball in order to move the rake in this situation.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Directly attributable

Postby regole » Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:53 pm

Doug wrote:The bin's moving was a result of a specific action that had to be taken in order to move the bin. ie moving the bin

The ball's moving was not as result of the specific action of moving the rake. There was no need to move the ball in order to move the rake in this situation.


Yes, I agree 102% :wink:
regole
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:16 pm
Your location: Cagliari / Sardegna

Re: Directly attributable

Postby RJM » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:36 pm

I agree also - bin example, no penalty. Others are a breach of 18-2 as not directly attributable to the act of removing the movable obstruction - just clumsy or careless.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:47 pm

So, are you saying that if while a player is moving an obstruction it knocks against the ball causing it to move it is directly attributable, whereas if while moving the obstruction a player's foot accidentally causes the ball to move it is not directly attributable? I do not see any evidence of this in the wording of Rules or Decisions relating to Rule 24-1.

Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Doug » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:23 pm

The evidence is the word 'directly'.
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:48 pm

RJM,

The system would not allow me to reply directly to your post. There was a message that I could not have more than three quotes.

R 24-1 If the player was standing on a steep slope and whist he was removing the rake his foot slipped which resulted in the ball being moved, I believe that the movement of the ball was directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:56 pm

Adrian Mackenzie wrote:RJM,

The system would not allow me to reply directly to your post. There was a message that I could not have more than three quotes.

R 24-1 If the player was standing on a steep slope and whist he was removing the rake his foot slipped which resulted in the ball being moved, I believe that the movement of the ball was directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction.


I have just realized that the OP stated kicking. I had incorrectly assumed that the foot slipped whilst the rake was being removed.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:11 pm

We seem to be getting tied up in semantics here; to Doug, the word "directly" in this context somehow implies the it was the player that touched the ball causing it to move and not the obstruction; RJM seems to think that if the ball moves because the player was 'clumsy' they incur a penalty (presumably if the ball is moved when they are careful they are not penalised); Adrian now thinks that if a foot slipped and caused the ball to move there is no penalty but if the player accidentally kicked the ball while manoevering the obstruction there is a penalty. My opinion is that the circumstances are not important to the principle that if the player accidentally causes their ball to move while they are moving the obstruction there is no penalty and the ball may be replaced.

Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby Adrian Mackenzie » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:51 pm

Barry,

I would call a breach if the player accidentally kicked the ball whilst moving towards the object to remove it. If the player accidentally kicked the ball whilst in the process of removing or placing of the moveable obstruction, I would not apply a penalty.
Adrian Mackenzie
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm
Your location: SP Brazil

Re: Directly attributable

Postby 999Q » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:54 pm

Thank you Adrian, I agree. Anyone else?
Barry
999Q
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Your location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Directly attributable

Postby RJM » Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:09 pm

Let's bin the bin part of the question.

In the other situations, whether kicking the ball or sliding and causing it to move (as has been described), he is in breach of Rule 18-2 as the actions are not "directly attributable to removing the obstruction." They are careless and clumsy.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Next

Return to Rules of Golf discussions and meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred