Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kgcrawford

Ball marker moved

14 posts in this topic

I have seen the rules on a ball marker moving, relating to directly marking the ball.  The question I have is what if an opponent moves or believe they moved your marker.  If you did not see it happen, if the say it definately moved what do you do, since you do not know the original spot?  What if they say they think it moved?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

There is a decision on when an opponent's caddie accidently moves one's marker.  I think the same approach would fit when another player accidently moves your marker.  He gets a 1 stroke penalty and you replace the ball as near as possible to the spot (or estimated spot).

20-1/7

Ball-Marker Moved by Opponent's Caddie Accidentally

Q. A player's caddie accidentally kicked his opponent's ball-marker closer to the hole. What is the ruling?

A. In equity (Rule 1-4 ), the ball-marker should have been replaced as near as possible to the spot where it lay and the player should incur a penalty of one stroke .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by kgcrawford

I have seen the rules on a ball marker moving, relating to directly marking the ball.  The question I have is what if an opponent moves or believe they moved your marker.  If you did not see it happen, if the say it definately moved what do you do, since you do not know the original spot?  What if they say they think it moved?

First, are we talking an opponent or a fellow competitor - that is, match play or stroke play?  I never assume anything since the term "opponent" is one of the most misused terms in golf.  If it is stroke play there is no penalty and the marker must be replaced as nearly as possible to where it originally lay.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

To clarify it was stroke play so the correct term would be competitor.  I am asking because this happen to my daughter.  She did not see the marker move and her competitor, stated something to the effect "I think you ball marker moved", "it move a little".  Her comptetitor never showed her the direction the marker moved.  So she could not know the original spot.  Now to understand we are talking maybe no more then a 1/8 of an inch.  At the scorers table it was brought up and my daughter was given a two stroke penalty, she states she could not tell that the marker moved.  I am not sure about if there should be a penalty or not since the player had no visual klnowledge of the move and was not shown where the original spot was from her competitor.  Also, I believe rule 1-4 in reference to equity of play the player that moved the marker should also have been given a one stroke penalty under decision 20-1/7, which addresses a caddie moving an apponents ball marker..  I am trying to make this a learning lesson for her so she learns how to deal with these situations as they happen on the course.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by kgcrawford

To clarify it was stroke play so the correct term would be competitor.  I am asking because this happen to my daughter.  She did not see the marker move and her competitor, stated something to the effect "I think you ball marker moved", "it move a little".  Her comptetitor never showed her the direction the marker moved.  So she could not know the original spot.  Now to understand we are talking maybe no more then a 1/8 of an inch.  At the scorers table it was brought up and my daughter was given a two stroke penalty, she states she could not tell that the marker moved.  I am not sure about if there should be a penalty or not since the player had no visual klnowledge of the move and was not shown where the original spot was from her competitor.  Also, I believe rule 1-4 in reference to equity of play the player that moved the marker should also have been given a one stroke penalty under decision 20-1/7, which addresses a caddie moving an apponents ball marker..  I am trying to make this a learning lesson for her so she learns how to deal with these situations as they happen on the course.

Once her fellow competitor informed her that her marker moved, she was obligated to replace it in the correct position. It appears that the only person who saw the marker move was the fellow competitor and thus your daughter needed to find out where the girl thought her marker had moved from and replace it.

The responsibility to resolve the situation fell on your daughter. Once she was aware that something was amiss she needed to deal with it. If she wasn't sure on how to proceed she needed to call for a ruling, or else proceed under rule 3-3.

If your daughter questioned the fellow competitor who wasn't willing to help her determine where her marker had moved from then it would certainly need more questioning of both players but I'd say the outcomes would then either be that there wasn't enough evidence that the marker moved and no penalty or that the fellow competitor was acting contrary the spirit of the game and would be DQed.

In decision 20-1/7, it was determined that the most equitable way to resolve the situation was to use the rule of what happens if your opponent's caddie moves your ball, as the marker is effectively standing in for the ball. However the rule if a fellow competitor (or their caddie) moves your ball is different and the ball is replaced without penalty. Thus in equity there would be no penalty for a fellow competitor moving your ball marker.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that advice, sounds like sound advice to never leave an area until an issue is resolved.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by kgcrawford

Thank you for that advice, sounds like sound advice to never leave an area until an issue is resolved.

I'd encourage your daughter to learn rule 3-3. It's very helpful in situations where you're unsure of a rule and there isn't an official available. It allows you to play out the hole with two balls under different procedures and find out later which one was correct.

3-3 . Doubt As To Procedure

a . Procedure

In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.

After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.

The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified .

Note: If the competitor takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule 3-3 is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the Rules do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the competitor incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.

b . Determination of Score for Hole

(i) 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. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts if the Rules allow the procedure adopted for that ball.

(ii) If the competitor fails to announce in advance his decision to complete the hole with two balls, or which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules . If the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the first ball put into play counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules . Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts if the Rules allow the procedure adopted for that ball.

Note 1: If a competitor plays a second ball under Rule 3-3 , the strokes made after this Rule has been invoked with the ball ruled not to count and penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball are disregarded.

Note 2: A second ball played under Rule 3-3 is not a provisional ball under Rule 27-2 .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Mordan

I'd encourage your daughter to learn rule 3-3. It's very helpful in situations where you're unsure of a rule and there isn't an official available. It allows you to play out the hole with two balls under different procedures and find out later which one was correct.

3-3. Doubt As To Procedure

a. Procedure

In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.

After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, thecompetitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.

The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.

Note: If the competitor takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule 3-3 is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the Rules do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the competitor incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.

b. Determination of Score for Hole

(i) 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. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts if the Rules allow the procedure adopted for that ball.

(ii) If the competitor fails to announce in advance his decision to complete the hole with two balls, or which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules. If the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the first ball put into play counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts if the Rules allow the procedure adopted for that ball.

Note 1: If a competitor plays a second ball under Rule 3-3, the strokes made after this Rule has been invoked with the ball ruled not to count andpenaltystrokes incurred solely by playing that ball are disregarded.

Note 2: A second ball played under Rule 3-3 is not a provisional ball under Rule 27-2.

Well I guess because she is not a he the rules don't apply. I am just joking but I can't believe that in the golf decisions where they are so technical that they failed to make the ruling so it applies to both genders is pretty bad.  It might contribute to the stereotype that golf is for rich old white guys.  I am not a rabid ERA guy but this pretty is bad.  For the record I am a white guy but not rich nor do I consider myself old.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by mad max

Well I guess because she is not a he the rules don't apply.  I am just joking but I can't believe that in the golf decisions where they are so technical that they failed to make the ruling so it applies to both genders is pretty bad.  It might contribute to the stereotype that golf is for rich old white guys.  I am not a rabid ERA guy but this pretty is bad.  For the record I am a white guy but not rich nor do I consider myself old.

Why the word meaning third person in many languges does require a gender? Why it could not be genderless like "it"? In Finnish we do not have third person gender, so if you require to express the gender then you say "boy/girl/man/woman/male/female".

But to be true, the rules refer many times player as "he".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by luu5

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad max

Well I guess because she is not a he the rules don't apply.  I am just joking but I can't believe that in the golf decisions where they are so technical that they failed to make the ruling so it applies to both genders is pretty bad.  It might contribute to the stereotype that golf is for rich old white guys.  I am not a rabid ERA guy but this pretty is bad.  For the record I am a white guy but not rich nor do I consider myself old.

Why the word meaning third person in many languges does require a gender? Why it could not be genderless like "it"? In Finnish we do not have third person gender, so if you require to express the gender then you say "boy/girl/man/woman/male/female".

But to be true, the rules refer many times player as "he".

Because "he" is a common, traditionally used generic term, and doesn't bother anyone who isn't a PC snob.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Because "he" is a common, traditionally used generic term, and doesn't bother anyone who isn't a PC snob.

I am so tired of the PC snobs!! they drive me nuts, you can't say anything anymore without someone going over it with a fine-toothed comb!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by mad max

Well I guess because she is not a he the rules don't apply.  I am just joking but I can't believe that in the golf decisions where they are so technical that they failed to make the ruling so it applies to both genders is pretty bad.  It might contribute to the stereotype that golf is for rich old white guys.  I am not a rabid ERA guy but this pretty is bad.  For the record I am a white guy but not rich nor do I consider myself old.

What's even harder to believe is that anybody would get their panties in a wad over something like that.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Mac62

What's even harder to believe is that anybody would get their panties in a wad over something like that.

Said persons have also not read the Rule book, where on page 4 it clearly states:

Gender

In the Rules of golf, the gender used in relation to any person is understood to include both genders.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by 2ironfrenzy

I am so tired of the PC snobs!! they drive me nuts, you can't say anything anymore without someone going over it with a fine-toothed comb!


Bah, they're better than the Mac snobs....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Scientific Studies
      Oh, good Lord! I can't believe that you entered such a completely off the mark reply! I thought you had some smarts. Valuable eyeballs? There are no such things! There are only eyeballs. Advertising rates are established on "number of impressions", in other words the number of people who see your ad. The only "value" established for those "eyeballs" is what age they are, what demographic they belong to. If you're seeking to market to a particular demographic, you might pay more to place an ad on "this" show rather than "that" show. And who said anything about "left and right"? You did! You used the phrase "industry supported research", which is a code phrase of the left to indicate research that is suspect! When have you ever heard "Entertainment Industry supported research", or "Actor supported research" in reply! And please don't try to tell me that government sponsored research is as pure as the wind driven snow. I've just realized that you may be confining your remarks to the field of physics. In that realm, they might be valid. Besides you, me, and a couple of guys behind the tree, who the hell cares? I'm referring more to "agendized" science, like climatology, nutrition, and prescription drugs. As for blind funding, that doesn't mean throwing money at any bunch of yahoos who cook up some hare brained scheme. All it means is that the people who are doing the research don't know where the money is.coming from. So they don't know who is buttering their bread! Let's face it, scientists are people, and they need to make a living. There was a line from "The Big Bang Theory" that, while fictional, makes real world sense. In one episode another physicist, Barry Kripke, is asked why he's still studying string theory. He says, "Hey, I study a theory that can't be proven, I apply for grants, and I spend the money on booze and broads!"
    • "Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson
      I will apologize in advance if this post winds up being long. I went out for my first round of golf in 2015, shot a 110, went home, put my clubs on Craigslist, sold them within a day and decided to quit the game. I had been playing for 25 years but only felt I was getting worse. Then, while planning a summer trip to Las Vegas I stumbled upon Paul Wilson's golf videos. I watched a few and couldn't believe how simple he made the golf swing look. I picked up an extra driver from my garage, started trying to swing free and easy and went to the range 2-3 times a week to see if this method would really work. My first time out I shot 97. The second was a 92. The next was an 85. Then, I booked a pair of lessons with Wilson during my vacation. Long story short, Paul Wilson's teaching methods kept me from quitting the game. My handicap is down to an 11, and I am scheduled for two more lessons with him in July so I can confirm somebody who reads this forum is a Wilson disciple. While he can get pretty technical when describing his approach for me it's pretty simple - turn to the top, start the downswing with the lower body and let my arms swing loosely. I expect to break 80 for the first time in my life by the end of the year.               One more thing, which has been noted previously in this thread - if I get off track I immediately go to YouTube, que up a couple of Paul's videos and know exactly what I'm doing wrong. His web site is an incredible resource for me, and I assume it's the same for many others.
    • Muirfield Out of Open Rota, Denies Women Membership
      I was under the impression that Cypress Point had been removed from the "Crosby Clambake" simply because the membership at that course didn't like the idea of the general public trampling on their hallowed turf.  Part of that reasoning might be based simply upon the notion of exclusivity and status; on the other hand, the environment around the course is somewhat fragile and having thousands of golf fans moving around that delicate seaside plant life and sand dunes would not be good for it. You can't tell me that most of the pros who play in the AT&T ProAm don't try and pull whatever strings they have at their disposal to play a round at Cypress during the weekend or weekdays before the AT&T event given the spectacular design and the chance to play a relatively well-preserved MacKenzie design. So even now that Cypress Point has female members I don't believe we can expect that we will ever see it on the AT&T course rota again.
    • Carry-on one Driver golf club in airplane? US and to Eurpoe?
      Thanks, Iacas. I will carry on one Driver with me without  any packaging.  I will have to pass through security check and X-ray scanning. By the way, my flight will be from Toronto Pearson airport to EU, so I hope Canada will have the same regulation as US since they are part of NA (North America). I will let you know if I will get into any trouble.  (I will not do practice swing inside the plane, but I may try while I wait around boarding area. ) Thanks!      
    • 2016 Mets World Championship Thread
      This kind of makes me laugh. I heard the Cleveland Indians GM interviewed on radio before a series with KC. Turns out he's a big friend of the Royals GM. He said the Royals Gm told him that his players were joking with him about how full of themselves the NY media was. They would ask the Royals players "Have you ever seen a pitching staff like the Mets?" The Royals players would answer, "Yes! Every time we play the Indians, Tigers, White Sox, or Twins! We're used to seeing good pitching!"
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

  • Blog Entries