Golf Rules Discussion

Above Decision is very precise at least when there is no wind.

Assuming now there is a very strong wind: what would be the right ruling?
Would the Exception of R 18-2b be applied or would above Decision prevail?

Thanks for your input. JMC

Perhaps this Decision should have been revised by including words regarding the new Exception, or maybe it was looked at and deemed to be OK? I don't think the presence of a strong wind means the Exception is automatically applied and the player excused from penalty.

JMC
well spotted. I also find it confusing to say the least. As RJM indicates, the Decision's wording could be improved by making a reference to the Exception to R-18-2.b. Now if you ask for a Ruling I would, probably, allow the player under the Rules, to consider the ball holed without penalty, R 16-2 cannot be applicable as stated in the Decision, consequently, IMO, the only applicable Rule would be 18-2 exception b
Am I too lenient>, perhaps, but I do no see any way out until the RB pronounces a verdict
regards
charles

RJM - Good point.
As the ball is at rest overhangs the lip of the hole if it is KVC that the wind was moving the ball Rule 16-2 prevails over Rule 18-2b.
Accordingly, the player is deemed to have holed out with His last stroke and must add a penalty stroke to His score for the hole.
Ciao

Regole
I believe you can't invoke 16-2 after the player has addressed the ball to putt it (however I might be proven wrong).
I think the purpose of 16-2 is to avoid delay and prolonged waiting for the ball to drop.
Addressing the ball negates the idea of seeking delay to allow the ball to drop, and makes the player responsible for what happens from then on.

If indeed it is KorVC that the wind moved the ball (tall order, but said to be the case here) then the exception to 18-2b kicks in and I cannot find a basis for a penalty.
I agree with Charles' ruling.
regards
Mario

I know that I'm repeating what I said earlier, but it is important (imho) - just because it is windy does not mean that 18-2b is not applicable. As 18-2b/11 says - it must be known or virtually certain that a ball in play has been moved by another agency in order for the Exception to apply. Known or virtually certain is a very high standard of evidence - just being windy doesn't achieve that standard.
For example, if this were the only ball to be supposedly moved by the wind during that day's play, there would be insufficient evidence to apply the Exception (imho).
As referees, we have responsibilities to the Rules and to the other players - don't abdiciate them just because an Exception may be applicable - evaluate all the facts of the situation when making a decision.

RJM
I agree with you when you say, that the fact that there is wind justifies to apply the exception. However reading JMC's original post the condition to apply the exception is there, please note that it says "very strong wind", and i assume that his statement means strong enough to move the ball.
Of course there are responsibilities to the other players, but you can not leave aside the player's rights and slap a penalty on him, that he doesn't deserve.
You used in other forum the word subjective, and I agree with you again, it will up to the RO to judge if the wind is strong enough to cause the ball to move, in the posed situation and described conditions I would give the player the benefit of the doubt.
regards
charles

Thank you to all of you who commented on my question. I noticed that opinions can differ, however, the different inputs are sufficient to guide me in taking a proper ruling should such a situation arise.
Thanks again and regards. JMC

Sorry but...once that it was established that was not the player to cause the ball movement Rule 18-2b is not applicable. but not I tell you, he says the exception of the rule 18-2b:
Exception: If it is known or Virtually Certain That the player did not cause His ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.
Therefore to proceed we return to the rule applicable to a ball that is stopped at the edge of the hole and that is 16-2. Once the case is still being moved by the wind and falls in the hole is played as it lies, but with a penalty stroke

I think I must take my previous post back.
I was hoping to contradict Regole, but in the process found D20-3d/1, which dictates that if the ball is overhanging the lip of the hole, and the ball rolls by itself into the hole (say the very strong wind moved it) the provisions of R16-2 override those of 20-3d.

In equity, it would seem to follow in our case that if the ball, after address, is moved by the wind into the hole, and the player is exonerated because it is KorVC (a tall order as RJM correctly warns) that he is not responsible for such movement, then the exception to rule 18-2b applies, and the ball is considered holed with one PS under 16-2.
Charles' penalty free holeout would apparently only ocurr if the ball is farther away from the hole than "overhanging the hole" and the same happens.

Would you all agree on this? (under the assumption made of course)
regards
Mario

Mario
Sorry everyone is discussing here is not to contradict anyone, but simply to establish and to clarify what the rules are applicable in certain circumstances. The new exception to the rule 18-2b, which is KVC if was not the player causing the ball to move, for example it was the wind, is applied throughout the range except if the ball is overhanging the lip of the hole where we have a specific rule that governs everything and which is the 16-2.
Ciao

Regole
I appologize if I created a misunderstanding. No intention to personalize at all. As you say it is all about clarifying.
I meant the comment in irony towards myself, as while I initialy disagreed with your argument and intended to further support my initial posting, I ended up finding basis to support yours.
regards
Mario

An interesting issue, indeed. The only reason I hesitate to disagree regole's ruling is the fact that Dec 18-2b/10 has not been changed.

As R18-2b was revised it should be irrelevant where on the course a ball is moved by the wind. I cannot understand why the new exception should not apply when a ball is overhanging a hole, unless more than 10 seconds has elapsed.

I am tempted to say that the Ruling Bodies forgot to update this Decision.