Golf Rules Discussion

Here's a reportedly true situation that was discussed by a group last week.
In stroke play, a player's ball came to rest in the fairway resting up against a completely detached divot. Unsure of how to proceed, he said he would invoke Rule 3-3 and said he wanted his second ball to count. He played the original ball as it lay, without removing the divot. Then, as the original lie was altered, he placed another ball in the nearest most similar lie (without the divot) and played it. He holed out with both balls and consulted the Committee before returning his scorecard.
How should the Committee rule in this situation?

Good question. I would assume that the player was uncertain whether he was allowed to move the divot. He is entitled to play under 3-3, but he must make a good faith effort to represent the two options he is considering-Playing the ball as it lies with the divot in place OR removing the divot (with the risk of an 18-2) violation. His first ball accurately represented the first option, but the second ball did not. If he played the balls in reverse order, he could have done both. I would rule that since the second ball was not played according to the rules (ref. D23-1/7) , the first ball must count.

I take it then that for his second ball he should have found the nearest most similar lie, placed the divot or a similar divot on the ground then placed the ball against the divot before attempting to remove the divot as he would have done originally? A tricky one to re-create!

He should have FIRST removed the divot (if that was one of his options) and take a chance that the ball would move. Play that ball in.
Then find the nearest similar lie and recreate the lie with the divot. Play that ball in.

I might accept if he at least tried to recreate the lie with the divot and then removed the divot. But he didn't even try that.

Hi RJ,
An interesting question and thanks for raising it here. No doubt just as interesting as the ensuing discussions.
Ed's ruling may well be correct and easy to agree with. However, given my dislike of sitting on the fence, and trying to learn regardless of ending up with egg on my face, unlike Ed, I think both balls have been played in accordance with the Rules.

D20-3b/8 in particular states, in part,"loose impediments are not part of the lie as contemplated by R20-3b. Therefore, A is not required to replace the looose impediment before his next stroke"
Thus,IMO, based solely on D20-3b/8, the score with the nominated ball counts in his score.

Regards,
Ron.

I would be uncomfortable if that were the case, Ron. Without being able to argue the merits of that judgement, it does seem to allow the player to get round the risk of moving the ball when trying to take away the divot by invoking 3-3. I wonder if playing a second ball should be about doubt as to how to proceed, rather than circumvention of a rule.

Is there something odd, by the way, in a player who is apparently ignorant of such a commonplace matter as moving a loose impediment being so well versed in the application of R3-3, or is that just my suspicious mind?

Hello to all
In substance I agree with the rulings of Edw and Colin
Rule 3-3b(i) states in part: “If the ball that the competitor selected in advance to count has been played in accordance with the Rules, the score with that ball is the competitor's score for the hole”.
In this case, the ball selected in advance to count (i.e. the second ball) was not played in accordance with the Rules since it was he placed another ball in the nearest most similar lie (without the divot) and played it. Accordingly, the score with the original ball counts. It may support D. 3-3/5
Sorry but the decision 20-3b/8 covers a loose impediment which involves balls of two players and can not be comparable to the situation in question.
IMHO
Regards

regole wrote:Hello to all
In substance I agree with the rulings of Edw and Colin
Rule 3-3b(i) states in part: “If the ball that the competitor selected in advance to count has been played in accordance with the Rules, the score with that ball is the competitor's score for the hole”.
In this case, the ball selected in advance to count (i.e. the second ball) was not played in accordance with the Rules since it was he placed another ball in the nearest most similar lie (without the divot) and played it. Accordingly, the score with the original ball counts. It may support D. 3-3/5
Sorry but the decision 20-3b/8 covers a loose impediment which involves balls of two players and can not be comparable to the situation in question.
IMHO
Regards

Let's remove the action of placing the ball and say that he dropped the second ball, obviously as near as possible to the original spot and no nearer the hole. Now what is the opinion?

Interesting indeed. The player had no reason to get a free relief so as described his 2nd ball cannot count, because that ball was not played acc to the Rules. In my eyes this is very clear. This view is also supported by several Dcisions under R3-3.

As far as what the player should have done to get his second ball to have been played acc to the Rules, I agree with Ed in post #4, i.e. he should have recreated the lie and only then remove the divot. Should the ball move a penalty would be incurred.

RJM wrote:
Let's remove the action of placing the ball and say that he dropped the second ball, obviously as near as possible to the original spot and no nearer the hole. Now what is the opinion?

Why should there be a difference? Pls. see my post just before this one.

RJM wrote:
Let's remove the action of placing the ball and say that he dropped the second ball, obviously as near as possible to the original spot and no nearer the hole. Now what is the opinion?

Sorry if I reply to a question with another question.
What is the reason why the player invokes rule 3-3? Replying to this question we find the reason why the second ball is not played in accordance with the rules.
Let's think about this scenario.
The ball is under a stone (loose impediment) and the player invokes rule 3-3. Play the OB with the stone above, which has the consequence which the stone flies off. At this point the player what he must do before playing second ball if not perfectly recreating the original lie? Or, as previously mentioned, by some, this rule is invoked in order to "bypass" the rules?

And I add, if we make the bad guys .
The Committee, after hearing the player on the motivations that have led him to play two balls, would be justified to impose two penalty strokes under Rule 7-2 (practice during a round), or the 6-7 undue delay.
Ciao

Hi RJ,
For completeness, what conclusions were drawn by the group on how the Committee should Rule?

Regards,
Ron.

The group determined that the score with the original ball must count as it was played in accordance with the Rules. If the player wanted to play without the divot touching his ball, the Rules said he could remove it.

RJM, just to clarify, if both balls were played according to the rules, the second ball would count. So they must have ruled that the second ball was not played according to the rules. Is that right?

The concensus was that the player was attempting to use 3-3 to avoid moving the divot and having his ball move as a result.

Ah ha! My suspicious mind is vindicated.

RJM wrote:The concensus was that the player was attempting to use 3-3 to avoid moving the divot and having his ball move as a result.

Not to be argumentative, but there is nothing in the rules to prohibit a player from using 3-3 to gain an advantage. If he proceeds properly under the procedure of 3-3 and plays both balls according to the rules, then his choice of ball to count should be honored by the committee. I argue that his second ball was not played according to the rules because he did not reproduce his lie prior to removing the LI. They may have reached the correct conclusion, but IMHO, they have reached it for the wrong reason. That's my opinion anyway.

As noted above, Decision 20-3b/8 is clear that a loose impediment is not part of the lie of the ball as contemplated by Rule 20-3b. There was no need for him to replace it when recreating the lie.

It is not part of the lie, but it affects the lie. 23-1/7 and 23-1/8 tell us that when a ball must be replaced, a loose impediment affecting the lie must also be replaced.

If replacing the loose impediment were necessary, that would mean that the second ball was not played in accordance with the Rules. Same concludsion - score with original ball counts.

Yeah, I know that it didn't affect the conclusion, I was just being pedantic.
We can't be penalizing players for taking advantage of the rules, just for breaking them.