Golf Rules Discussion

Player putts and his caddie attends the flagstick. Caddie lifts the flagstick but the liner comes up with it and remains in elevated position preventing the ball from entering the hole. Before the ball reaches the liner caddie pushes the liner back into the hole and the ball falls in. Does the player get 2 PS's for breach of R24-1 / R1-2 being responsible for his caddies actions? Is this also serious breach resulting in DQ?

I'm not certain that there is any penalty involved in the situation you've described. Why do you think there is?

RJM wrote:I'm not certain that there is any penalty involved in the situation you've described. Why do you think there is?

R24-1:

'When a ball is in motion, an obstruction that might influence the movement of the ball, other than equipment of any player or the flagstick when attended, removed or held up, must not be moved.'

I think an equity ruling is required and would suggest the ball is holed without penalty.

Mr. Bean wrote:

RJM wrote:I'm not certain that there is any penalty involved in the situation you've described. Why do you think there is?

R24-1:

'When a ball is in motion, an obstruction that might influence the movement of the ball, other than equipment of any player or the flagstick when attended, removed or held up, must not be moved.'

If there was a penalty under 24-1 for moving the hole liner, I think it would have been noted in Decisions 17/7 or 17/8.

RJM wrote:If there was a penalty under 24-1 for moving the hole liner, I think it would have been noted in Decisions 17/7 or 17/8.

In those Decs the liner is moving by accident. A deliberate action in order to influence the movement of a ball is something very different.

Doug wrote:I think an equity ruling is required and would suggest the ball is holed without penalty.

Why do you think equity is not used in Dec 17/8 and especially in the part when the liner is static and prevents the ball from entering the hole? In the very least the player should be allowed to replay the stroke in both events but this is not the case. Why?

My initial thoughts are I would attack this starting with Decisions where a player is entitled to the lie and line of his putt/play after his ball has come to rest. I need to think about this some more.

Without referring to the Rules or Decisions, my immediate thought simply derives from a sense of what seems fair. The caddie pulls the pin out and the liner comes with it and his understandable reaction is to push it back in - which he manages to do in time then to remove the pin for the ball to fall into the hole. Well done him, we might think, to act promptly to avoid the player's incurring a penalty. As this is probably all one continuous action it seems unfair to penalise. Had the caddie done the opposite - pulled pin & liner out, realised it was in the way of the ball and then carried on with the movement to ensure the liner was out of the way - would we be even considering a penalty? Again we might be saying, well done him.

So my sense of fairness makes me hope you guys will come up with no penalty under the rules as the answer!

Colin, fair answer

My first thought was 2 PS for breach of R1-2, second thought was 'this cannot be fair'. Then I read Dec 17/8 and asked myself 'is it fair that the liner is pulled in the way of the ball and as the ball subsequently collides with the liner the ball is played as it lies?'.

Then I started this thread...

Colin L wrote:So my sense of fairness makes me hope you guys will come up with no penalty under the rules as the answer!

This guy agrees with you !

I would not consider a penalty for the player just because the person attending the flagstick returned the hole liner to its original position.
Equity or whatever, a penalty is not appropriate, imho.

I sincerely appreciate all the answers you guys (and Johanna ) have written as I have had a hard time putting this case into perspective. As I am still on my way to perfect expertise (...) I want to find a logic and coherent explanation to all raised issues I confront.

Having said that I can see that a hole liner could be regarded as a normal obstruction and should not be moved away while a ball is moving. Then again it does not seem fair if someone is punished for accidentally removing the liner and then returning it into it's original position. On the other hand, Dec 17/8 gives some hint that sometimes a player has to suffer from unfortunate accidental occurrencies. All this is rather confusing from the Rules point of view, at least for me. Then again, applying Equity requires thorough understanding that there is neither Rule covering that particular situation nor fairness in the ruling given by strict Rules. Most of the time fairness as interpreted in common sense does not fit to the world of Rules of Golf so one has to put aside one’s layman perspective for a while.

So, what am I trying to say with all this? To be honest, I already forgot as I was interrupted a multitude of time by my family members while I was writing this stuff. However, I feel quite relieved by the reaction of you all as a penalty in this case did not sound right to me but I could not find any other solution from the Rules.

Thank You all for participating, once again.

I have given this case a lot of thought and would like to continue and ask all of you to substantiate your thoughts much more than so far.

I have gone through all possible Rules and Decisions that could have any relation to this kind of case and I have not found any single support for no penalty –option. In my mind I feel it is wrong to penalize a player in this kind of case but a mere feeling is and can not be a support for a ruling. So I ask you all to give your best reasoning why the player in this case should not be penalized for a breach of R24-1 (by his caddie). After all, the caddie moves an obstruction from the line of putt while the player’s ball was moving.

Pls. contribute.

Mr. Bean wrote:

Doug wrote:I think an equity ruling is required and would suggest the ball is holed without penalty.

Why do you think equity is not used in Dec 17/8 and especially in the part when the liner is static and prevents the ball from entering the hole? In the very least the player should be allowed to replay the stroke in both events but this is not the case. Why?

Equity is used when there isn't a rule covering the situation.
17/8 is covered by rule 19-1b or 19-1, so equity is not needed.

The situation you are describing isn't covered by a rule, so equity must be used.

It wasn't there (in his way) when he made his stroke, so it should be able to be removed (ie, put back in place).

Why don't you ask your national Rules Committee or the R&A if you want a definitive answer? What you get here are predominantly just opinions - and everyone is entitled to their own!

RJM wrote:It wasn't there (in his way) when he made his stroke, so it should be able to be removed (ie, put back in place).

Why don't you ask your national Rules Committee or the R&A if you want a definitive answer? What you get here are predominantly just opinions - and everyone is entitled to their own!

Well, I thought this is a discussion forum

Doug wrote:

Mr. Bean wrote:

Doug wrote:I think an equity ruling is required and would suggest the ball is holed without penalty.

Why do you think equity is not used in Dec 17/8 and especially in the part when the liner is static and prevents the ball from entering the hole? In the very least the player should be allowed to replay the stroke in both events but this is not the case. Why?

Equity is used when there isn't a rule covering the situation.
17/8 is covered by rule 19-1b or 19-1, so equity is not needed.

The situation you are describing isn't covered by a rule, so equity must be used.

The situation is covered by R24-1, an obstruction is removed from the line of play while the ball is in motion. The only question is whether the outcome is fair or not, equal to Dec 17/8 (is it fair that the player suffers?). After all, responsibility of attending the flagstick lies with the player, any screw up with the flagstick has to be born by him. What makes this issue quite different from a normal act of attending is the role of the hole liner as it is not a part of the flagstick.

What if the caddie dropped something else (an obstruction) on the line of play, e.g. his cap or a pack of cigarettes? Would he be allowed to remove it while the ball is in motion? Just because it sounds fair?

Mr. Bean wrote:The situation is covered by R24-1, an obstruction is removed from the line of play while the ball is in motion. The only question is whether the outcome is fair or not, equal to Dec 17/8 (is it fair that the player suffers?). After all, responsibility of attending the flagstick lies with the player, any screw up with the flagstick has to be born by him. What makes this issue quite different from a normal act of attending is the role of the hole liner as it is not a part of the flagstick.

What if the caddie dropped something else (an obstruction) on the line of play, e.g. his cap or a pack of cigarettes? Would he be allowed to remove it while the ball is in motion? Just because it sounds fair?

IMHO I don't see the situation being solely covered by R24-1. Decision 17/8 and 17/9 are giving us guidance when dealing with flagsticks. It seems to me the intent of the decisions is to help the player out. The difference between 17/8 and your scenario is the caddie was able to get the liner back in the hole and then remove the flag before the ball struck the liner. Good for him, the player got his original line of putt back, the line he had before he made a stroke.

Because of Decision 17/9 and 17/8 I do see a difference between a hole liner and some other obstruction like a pack of cigarettes.

dormie1360 wrote:

Mr. Bean wrote:The situation is covered by R24-1, an obstruction is removed from the line of play while the ball is in motion. The only question is whether the outcome is fair or not, equal to Dec 17/8 (is it fair that the player suffers?). After all, responsibility of attending the flagstick lies with the player, any screw up with the flagstick has to be born by him. What makes this issue quite different from a normal act of attending is the role of the hole liner as it is not a part of the flagstick.

What if the caddie dropped something else (an obstruction) on the line of play, e.g. his cap or a pack of cigarettes? Would he be allowed to remove it while the ball is in motion? Just because it sounds fair?

IMHO I don't see the situation being solely covered by R24-1. Decision 17/8 and 17/9 are giving us guidance when dealing with flagsticks. It seems to me the intent of the decisions is to help the player out. The difference between 17/8 and your scenario is the caddie was able to get the liner back in the hole and then remove the flag before the ball struck the liner. Good for him, the player got his original line of putt back, the line he had before he made a stroke.

Because of Decision 17/9 and 17/8 I do see a difference between a hole liner and some other obstruction like a pack of cigarettes.

Dormie,

Once again, Dec 17/8 and 17/9 describe situations where objects are moved involuntarily. Pushing a hole liner back in place is a voluntary and deliberate act. In my mind this makes such a difference that no Decision gives any guidance. Despite of that I do not want to punish the player for doing so.

To take this a bit further, would you penalize the player if his caddie picked up his pack of cigarette from the line of putt?

Mr. Bean wrote:

dormie1360 wrote:

Mr. Bean wrote:The situation is covered by R24-1, an obstruction is removed from the line of play while the ball is in motion. The only question is whether the outcome is fair or not, equal to Dec 17/8 (is it fair that the player suffers?). After all, responsibility of attending the flagstick lies with the player, any screw up with the flagstick has to be born by him. What makes this issue quite different from a normal act of attending is the role of the hole liner as it is not a part of the flagstick.

What if the caddie dropped something else (an obstruction) on the line of play, e.g. his cap or a pack of cigarettes? Would he be allowed to remove it while the ball is in motion? Just because it sounds fair?

IMHO I don't see the situation being solely covered by R24-1. Decision 17/8 and 17/9 are giving us guidance when dealing with flagsticks. It seems to me the intent of the decisions is to help the player out. The difference between 17/8 and your scenario is the caddie was able to get the liner back in the hole and then remove the flag before the ball struck the liner. Good for him, the player got his original line of putt back, the line he had before he made a stroke.

Because of Decision 17/9 and 17/8 I do see a difference between a hole liner and some other obstruction like a pack of cigarettes.

Dormie,

Once again, Dec 17/8 and 17/9 describe situations where objects are moved involuntarily. Pushing a hole liner back in place is a voluntary and deliberate act. In my mind this makes such a difference that no Decision gives any guidance. Despite of that I do not want to punish the player for doing so.

To take this a bit further, would you penalize the player if his caddie picked up his pack of cigarette from the line of putt?

Hi Mr Bean,

I've pretty much covered all I can say on the matter in my last post. I think this is one of those agree to disagree. If you ever get anything definitive from a RB I'd be interested to hear what they say.

Mr. Bean
According to D17/8 a hole liner is defined to be an outside agency. This being so a penalty under R24-1 could not be applied.
The "removal" of an outside agency that might influence the movement of the ball is not penalized under the rules. We all duck or scatter when we hear FORE, trying to get out of the way of a moving ball, don't we?
This considered, IMHO there is no foul (infraction) in the action, therefore no penalty.
I hope this helps.
regards
Mario

marfo53 wrote:Mr. Bean
According to D17/8 a hole liner is defined to be an outside agency. This being so a penalty under R24-1 could not be applied.
The "removal" of an outside agency that might influence the movement of the ball is not penalized under the rules. We all duck or scatter when we hear FORE, trying to get out of the way of a moving ball, don't we?
This considered, IMHO there is no foul (infraction) in the action, therefore no penalty.
I hope this helps.
regards
Mario

Mario,

a hole liner is by definition an outside agency but also a movable obstruction. It depends on the situation which role is the active one.

Mr. Bean wrote:
Mario,

a hole liner is by definition an outside agency but also a movable obstruction. It depends on the situation which role is the active one.

If it is defined as an outside agency how can it become an obstruction? What definition, rule or decision do you base your assertion on?

marfo53 wrote:

Mr. Bean wrote:
Mario,

a hole liner is by definition an outside agency but also a movable obstruction. It depends on the situation which role is the active one.

If it is defined as an outside agency how can it become an obstruction? What definition, rule or decision do you base your assertion on?

All possible loose items you may find on a golf course are outside agencies; leaves, dogs, tvigs, pine cones, trash bins, golf carts, etc. See Definition of Outside agency.

On the other hand, definition of an obstruction is extremely clear: all items manufactured by man are obstructions, with 3 exceptions mentioned in the Definition of Obstruction. Thus a hole liner is an obstruction and nothing can change that. Let us take an example. Your ball comes to rest against of a hole liner that had accidentally been dropped from a greenkeeper's cart while passing by. Are you entitled to move the hole liner and replace your ball as described in R24-1? Of course you are.

Another example. You hit your approach shot towards the green but your ball lands before the green and hits a sprinkler head. As a result your ball ricochets 40 meters sideways into a water hazard. Now, what has caused your ball to change direction? An outside agency. However, as R19-1 says you play your ball as it lies because this outside agency was static, i.e. it was not moving or animate. Yet it is an outside agency, AND an obstruction.

As you can see, many items have two roles. Do not get mixed up

Mr. Bean wrote:
As you can see, many items have two roles. Do not get mixed up

You say then that one "item"can be both an outside agency and an obstuction at the same time?

I believe that when a liner is used to line a hole, by definition of D17/8 it is an outside agency and nothing else.
When it falls off the back of a buggy, then I agree with you that it is an obstruction.
I for one believe that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Thus, while it is in use as a liner it must be considered for every purpose as an outside agency. Therefore no penalty under R26-1.
regards
Mario

marfo53 wrote:

Mr. Bean wrote:
As you can see, many items have two roles. Do not get mixed up

You say then that one "item"can be both an outside agency and an obstuction at the same time?

Exactly. Depending what happens an applicable Rule is then used but you cannot choose wich role you want an item to have, Rules decide that for you.

marfo53 wrote:I believe that when a liner is used to line a hole, by definition of D17/8 it is an outside agency and nothing else.

You may believe what you want but that does not change the facts. As I have written earlier I would not penalize the player in this case, so I agree with you afa the outcome is concerned but your reasoning is incorrect.

The reason why hole liner is described as an outside agency in D17/8 is because of the chain of events, i.e. a ball has been deflected by an item and that item is an outside agency, by definition (but also a movable obstruction). There is no need to apply R24-1 as the hole liner is not interfering the player's stance, swing, etc. In the OP case situation is different as the hole liner is deliberately removed from the player's line of putt and at that time the role of the hole liner is movable obstruction and R24-1 is applied. Should the ball strike the hole liner then the applicable role would change and it would be an outside agency and R19-1 would apply. However, in the very end we all have agreed that this should go under Equity so the correct Rule to apply would be 1-4. Despite of this a hole liner is an outside agency AND a movable obstruction, both by definition.

Do note that in order to apply a correct Rule to any incident one needs to understand the role of each and every agency having taken part to that particular chain of events. That is why the Definitions are extremely accurate in defining who and what are and are not outside agencies, obstructions or loose impediments, just to mention a few.

I hope this helps.

P.S. By the way, all loose impediments are also outside agencies

Mr. Bean wrote:

Doug wrote:I think an equity ruling is required and would suggest the ball is holed without penalty.

Why do you think equity is not used in Dec 17/8 and especially in the part when the liner is static and prevents the ball from entering the hole? In the very least the player should be allowed to replay the stroke in both events but this is not the case. Why?

IMO Equity is not necessary because the explanation is directly in the rules.
D17/8 has all the reference and is perfectly coherent.
First the hole liner is defined as an outside agency (It cannot be deemed to be an obstruction while it is serving as a hole liner).
This is the foundation for the rest of the decision. If you question this then you must take up this discussion with the RB directly.

On that basis, if the hole liner is struck by a ball while the liner is in motion R19-1b kicks in: "if a player's ball in motion after a stroke on the putting green is deflected or stopped by ... any moving or animate outside agency...the stroke is cancelled."
If the hole liner is static R19-1 kicks in: "If a player's ball in motion is accidentally deflected or stopped by an outside agency, it is a rub of the green, there is no penalty and the ball must be played as it lies"
The decision is the consequence of applying the rules based on the definition of a hole liner, in it's intended function, as an outside agency.
The decision clearly states this is how the RB views the matter.

I believe that you are forcing an arbitrary mutation of the hole liner from outside agency to obstruction, and this is the basis of your conflict.
Should you decide to agree with the interpretation of the RB, IMHO your conflict would vanish.

I fear I have no more to contribute to you on this topic.
regards
Mario

Mario,

I am obviously incapable of explaining this issue to you but I will try once more and then I'll give up.

A, B and C are playing and all their balls are on the green, 10-15 meters from the hole. On A's line of putt there is a nut or a washer, obviously detached from a grass-cutting machine but noboby notices it in the beginning. A strikes his ball and it starts to roll directly towards the hole.

Scenario 1: Nobody sees the nut before A's ball strikes it and is deflected thus failing to go into the hole. Which Rule(s) would you apply and what is the role/status of the nut?

Scenario 2: B sees the nut while A's ball is rolling and quickly rushes out and picks the nut up before A's ball strikes it (otherwise it would have) and A's ball goes into the hole. Which Rule(s) would you apply and what is the role/status of the nut?

Scenario 3: B sees the nut while A's ball is rolling and quickly rushes out and picks the nut up before A's ball strikes it (otherwise it would have). Unfortunately he drops the nut from his hand onto A's ball still in motion and A's ball is deflected and does not go into the hole. Which Rule(s) would you apply and what is the role/status of the nut?

Last question: is it possible that one item may have two different roles/status' and none of these roles may nullify the other role but it is the applicable Rule that decides which role in which case is the one to be used?

Look forward to reading your answers.

Mr. Bean
Sorry, you lost me! I thought we were talking about a hole liner, being used as a hole liner, which under the definiton of the ROG it is an outside agency.
regards
Mario