| |
Main
Date: 11 Dec 2006 04:32:42
From: bill-o
Subject: rules question
|
I saw this posted on another forum and am curious as to the ruling:
I had an interesting occurrence today. The wind was blowing pretty hard.
Probably around 30mph. I hit my second shot into number 4 and the wind blew
it into the green side bunker. As I was walking across the green to my ball,
a large tumbleweed (3-4' across) blew across the green, and into the bunker,
coming to rest EXACTLY over my ball. The tumbleweed was so dense, I could
not even see the ball unless I squatted down and looked underneath. To
strike the ball I had to hit through the tumbleweed. I blew up the
tumbleweed but left the ball in the bunker.
Did I have any other options? I was confused because you can't move a loose
impediment in a bunker, but even after hitting the tumbleweed, part of it
was blown right back on top of my ball and I had to repeat the attempt. I
did manage to get the ball on the green after the second attempt, as I was
now an "experienced" tumbleweed golfer.
I have looked at the rules again this evening, but other than a calling it
an unplayable lie, I don't see another option.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:28:55
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: rules question
|
bill-o wrote:
> I saw this posted on another forum and am curious as to the ruling:
>
> I had an interesting occurrence today. The wind was blowing pretty hard.
> Probably around 30mph. I hit my second shot into number 4 and the wind blew
> it into the green side bunker. As I was walking across the green to my ball,
> a large tumbleweed (3-4' across) blew across the green, and into the bunker,
> coming to rest EXACTLY over my ball. The tumbleweed was so dense, I could
> not even see the ball unless I squatted down and looked underneath. To
> strike the ball I had to hit through the tumbleweed. I blew up the
> tumbleweed but left the ball in the bunker.
>
> Did I have any other options? I was confused because you can't move a loose
> impediment in a bunker, but even after hitting the tumbleweed, part of it
> was blown right back on top of my ball and I had to repeat the attempt. I
> did manage to get the ball on the green after the second attempt, as I was
> now an "experienced" tumbleweed golfer.
>
> I have looked at the rules again this evening, but other than a calling it
> an unplayable lie, I don't see another option.
>
You are correct. The arrival of the tumbleweed in the bunker after your
ball has come to rest in the same bunker is a natural occurance and
there is no relief on that score. Furthermore, you cannot remove the
tumbleweed (a loose impediment) from the bunker while your ball is in
the same bunker.
Taking unplayable ball relief in accordance with Rule 28 is probably
your only practical option, however you must remember that if exercising
any option under this rule, other than replaying the stroke from where
it was last played, you must drop the ball within the bunker!
Given the size of the tumbleweed, and the generally distracting
conditions, I would be inclined to replay the ball from where it was
last played..and accept the stroke and distance penalty.
cheers
david
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:27:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: rules question
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:28:55 +1100, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>You are correct. The arrival of the tumbleweed in the bunker after your
>ball has come to rest in the same bunker is a natural occurance and
>there is no relief on that score. Furthermore, you cannot remove the
>tumbleweed (a loose impediment) from the bunker while your ball is in
>the same bunker.
I was wondering about the answer (suspecting the above was true) - in
a different circumstance - when you hit the ball onto the green, you
are entitled to repair spike marks made after your ball arrived on the
green - returning the green to the condition it was at the time. And
of course if an animal moved your ball, it can be returned. But if
the wind moves your stopped ball, that's too bad. So the rules
aren't entirely consistent in this regard.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:54:20
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: rules question
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:28:55 +1100, david s-a
> <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>You are correct. The arrival of the tumbleweed in the bunker after your
>>ball has come to rest in the same bunker is a natural occurance and
>>there is no relief on that score. Furthermore, you cannot remove the
>>tumbleweed (a loose impediment) from the bunker while your ball is in
>>the same bunker.
>
>
> I was wondering about the answer (suspecting the above was true) - in
> a different circumstance - when you hit the ball onto the green, you
> are entitled to repair spike marks made after your ball arrived on the
> green - returning the green to the condition it was at the time. And
> of course if an animal moved your ball, it can be returned. But if
> the wind moves your stopped ball, that's too bad. So the rules
> aren't entirely consistent in this regard.
Well.... they are really.
In your examples (spike marks and animals etc) you are talkng about the
effect of 'outside agencies' on your lie etc. Repair to the spike marks
(made accidentally by others on your line of putt)is specifically
authorised in Decision 16-1a/13......and, if an animal moved your ball
it is not 'can' be returned, it is 'must' be returned! (Rule 18-1).
By Definition "..neither wind nor water is an outside agency.....", and
any effect of these is a natural occurance not warranting any special
relief.
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 04:36:04
From: John Laird
Subject: Re: rules question
|
david s-a wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
> > This is an interesting area - can I pose a question ? If I play an
> > approach shot that finishes just off the green, and a fellow-competitor
> > then plays his shot which lands very close to my ball, say just in
> > front or behind, leaving a pitch-mark, can I repair that mark even
> > though it is not on the green, claiming I am entitled to the lie that
> > existed when my ball came to rest ?
> Decision 13-2/8 answers your query precisely.
>
> "...If the pitch mark was created after the player's ball came to rest,
> in equity (Rule 1-4), he may repair the pitch mark. A player is entitled
> to the lie his stroke gave him..."
Thanks, David. My detective skills are worse than ever, obviously !
> We accredited rules officials must stick together you know!
I'd have been very surprised if Malcolm had been wrong...
--
"I'd love to, but my patent is pending."
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:26:34
From: Pat Williams
Subject: Re: rules question
|
John Laird wrote:
> david s-a wrote:
>> John Laird wrote:
>
>>> This is an interesting area - can I pose a question ? If I play an
>>> approach shot that finishes just off the green, and a fellow-competitor
>>> then plays his shot which lands very close to my ball, say just in
>>> front or behind, leaving a pitch-mark, can I repair that mark even
>>> though it is not on the green, claiming I am entitled to the lie that
>>> existed when my ball came to rest ?
Difficult to believe that a player who earns millions (literally) from
the game got the "pitch mark off the green repair" wrong only this year.
I am not sure but he may have lost a tournament through the penalty
he incurred. Padraig Harrington!
Not exactly the same as John's query but within the same compass.
Pat
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:58:06
From: John Laird
Subject: Re: rules question
|
david s-a wrote:
> In your examples (spike marks and animals etc) you are talkng about the
> effect of 'outside agencies' on your lie etc. Repair to the spike marks
> (made accidentally by others on your line of putt)is specifically
> authorised in Decision 16-1a/13......and, if an animal moved your ball
> it is not 'can' be returned, it is 'must' be returned! (Rule 18-1).
This is an interesting area - can I pose a question ? If I play an
approach shot that finishes just off the green, and a fellow-competitor
then plays his shot which lands very close to my ball, say just in
front or behind, leaving a pitch-mark, can I repair that mark even
though it is not on the green, claiming I am entitled to the lie that
existed when my ball came to rest ?
I ask because this (or something very similar, my memory is notoriously
suspect at times) happened to me, and the person who advised me to
repair the mark was an accredited rules official. I had not come
across the situation before, and am struggling to find it in the rules,
other than in 1-4, to which Decision 16-1a/13 refers in justifying the
repair of spike marks.
--
"Famous last words - Don't worry, I can handle it."
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:43:50
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: rules question
|
John Laird wrote:
> david s-a wrote:
>
>
>>In your examples (spike marks and animals etc) you are talkng about the
>>effect of 'outside agencies' on your lie etc. Repair to the spike marks
>>(made accidentally by others on your line of putt)is specifically
>>authorised in Decision 16-1a/13......and, if an animal moved your ball
>>it is not 'can' be returned, it is 'must' be returned! (Rule 18-1).
>
>
> This is an interesting area - can I pose a question ? If I play an
> approach shot that finishes just off the green, and a fellow-competitor
> then plays his shot which lands very close to my ball, say just in
> front or behind, leaving a pitch-mark, can I repair that mark even
> though it is not on the green, claiming I am entitled to the lie that
> existed when my ball came to rest ?
>
> I ask because this (or something very similar, my memory is notoriously
> suspect at times) happened to me, and the person who advised me to
> repair the mark was an accredited rules official. I had not come
> across the situation before, and am struggling to find it in the rules,
> other than in 1-4, to which Decision 16-1a/13 refers in justifying the
> repair of spike marks.
>
Decision 13-2/8 answers your query precisely.
"...If the pitch mark was created after the player's ball came to rest,
in equity (Rule 1-4), he may repair the pitch mark. A player is entitled
to the lie his stroke gave him..."
We accredited rules officials must stick together you know!
cheers
david
|
|
