What did she score for the hole?

[Dormie1360]

Early on I mentioned 27-1 and incorrect substitution in the same sentence.  That is incorrect.  Although a substitution was made, if the ruling was 27-1 the substitution is allowed. Colin mentioned this.

If the ruling is not 27-1, as it appears the committee ruled, I believe the governing rule is R13-2 which does not allow a substitution. 

I believe "not immediately recoverable" involves situations when the player is proceeding under an applicable rule that requires the ball to be dropped or placed.

With our OP I don't think  anyone is penalizing the player for an incorrect substitution, per the Exception to R15-2, and Note: 3 of Rule 20-7

Edit:  I'm retired, it's winter, I'm cooped up inside, and I'm studying for my upcoming rules workshop....so apologies for all the posts. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Dormie1360

[rogolf]

For interest, look at Decision 27/17.

Edited January 24, 2016 by rogolf

[Dormie1360]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

For interest, look at Decision 27/17.

I believe this help explains why the committee did not rule 27-1.  1)The player did not intend to play under 27-1 when she dropped her ball.  2) She did not drop the ball on the previous spot. (If she did, intention would not matter as that would be the applicable rule)  3)The other requirement discussed previously, I think she still must have knowledge of the location of the original ball, otherwise I don't see how one could avoid 27-1.

[rogolf]

15 minutes ago, Dormie1360 said:

I believe this help explains why the committee did not rule 27-1.  1)The player did not intend to play under 27-1 when she dropped her ball.  2) She did not drop the ball on the previous spot. (If she did, intention would not matter as that would be the applicable rule)  3)The other requirement discussed previously, I think she still must have knowledge of the location of the original ball, otherwise I don't see how one could avoid 27-1.

But the last paragraph is clear, it says that if the player had played the dropped ball, he would be considered to have proceeded under 27-1, even without the aforementioned intent and regardless of knowledge of the whereabouts of the first ball (which is not mentioned as a qualifying statement).

[Rulesman]

5 hours ago, Dormie1360 said:

I'm slow today.  What is the Issue?  Are we talking about he OP or something else?

This statement from Lew Blakey's piece

 

 

[Dormie1360]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

But the last paragraph is clear, it says that if the player had played the dropped ball, he would be considered to have proceeded under 27-1, even without the aforementioned intent and regardless of knowledge of the whereabouts of the first ball (which is not mentioned as a qualifying statement).

Understood, I guess I was not clear. My 3) above was referencing the OP where the ball was not dropped on the previous spot.

Here is the way I understand this.

Within the context of the OP:

1) The player wishes to drop a ball under 27-1. Knowledge of the original balls location doesn't matter. 

2) The player does not wish to proceed under 27-1, however does drops a ball on the previous spot and plays it.  Location knowledge does not matter, still 27-1

3) The player does not wish to proceed under 27-1 and does not drop on the previous spot.  If knowledge of location, 20-7, under the applicable rule of 13-1.  

4) The player does not wish to proceed under 27-1 and does not drop on the previous spot.  If knowledge of location is not known, the 27-1 and 20-7.

What I gather from Lew's piece covers certain situations where a player does not proceed correctly under the rules and incorrectly substitutes a ball (even in the unusual case where he did not know he actually substituted his ball) . He is talking about situations where the player does not play from the original spot. In order to determine the applicable rule to rule under, the player's knowledge of the original ball's location must be determined.  If the location is not know, the applicable rule will be 27 and 20-7.  If the location is known, most often it will be failure to play the ball as it lies, R13 and in a WP 20-7

He also includes examples on what is necessary to satisfy having knowledge of the balls location.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Dormie1360

[rogolf]

From personal experience, I realize that disagreeing with Lew is a great risk!

But in 3) you seem to be suggesting that a player can just ignore the ball they just played and, if they know its location, can just drop a ball anywhere (minus a serious breach) with a two stroke penalty.  That just doesn't sit well with me.  Have I read your 3) correctly?

[Dormie1360]

13 hours ago, rogolf said:

From personal experience, I realize that disagreeing with Lew is a great risk!

But in 3) you seem to be suggesting that a player can just ignore the ball they just played and, if they know its location, can just drop a ball anywhere (minus a serious breach) with a two stroke penalty.  That just doesn't sit well with me.  Have I read your 3) correctly?

 

Well, I'm not near as smart as Lew, and I admit  I have trouble following some of his essays, which may be the case here......but:

What I understood was in situations where a player: 

A) Incorrectly abandons his ball in play
B) Plays another (substituted) ball at a place other than where the previous stroke was made
C) Does not announce  intentions to proceed under R27-1

Possible applicable rules and penalties are:  (I switched my numbers from previous post, sorry)

1) 2PS for a WP/ no SB.  R13-1 R20-7 (Player knew the location of the abandoned ball)

2) 2PS WP with a SB.   R13-1, R20-7 and Note 1  (Player knew location of the abandoned ball, but place where substituted ball was played was a SB)

3) 1PS Lost Ball plus 2PS WP.  R27-1, R20-7  (Player did not know the location of abandoned ball)

4) 1PS Lost Ball plus 2PS WP with a SB.  R27-1, R20-7 Note 1  (Player did not know the  location of abandoned ball and the place where the substituted ball was played was a SB)

Although a substitution is not allowed with 1) and 2), there is no added penalty if the ball was played from a WP.

In the OP the player did A) and C), and we are assuming B) based on the committee's 5 PS's given.  They said no SB's so they must have ruled 1), because that's the only ruling with 2PS. (The player already had 3 PS total for teeing instead of dropping and R26-1)

If I'm not thinking through this correctly I'd definitely like to know.  Given a player does A,B,C above, are you saying 1) shouldn't be an option?  What would be your ruling?

Actually, I thought the most interesting part of the article was what is required to make the determination as to whether or not the player actually has location knowledge.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Dormie1360

[rehmwa]

On 1/22/2016 at 2:57 PM, Asheville said:

Par 3 across a pond. 

Player puts her first shot into the pond. She elects to use the dropping zone provided. But rather than dropping a ball she decides to place it on a tee within the dropping zone and subsequently hits it onto the putting green.

As she begins the walk around the pond toward the putting green, a fellow-competitor tells her that she wasn’t permitted to tee the ball in the dropping zone. Realizing her mistake she immediately returns to the dropping zone and drops another ball there, plays it onto the green and two putts later holes out.

What did she score for the hole?

If it's a tournament?  Great thread.  Hope it gets done correctly.

If it's a fun game?  write down a 5 or a 6 and tell the guy that made her go all the way back to the drop zone to have a cocktail and lighten up.  (and, to let the group behind play through if he wants to slow up the flow for these things)

Seriously though, if she teed up at the drop zone and no one said anything at that time, and she didn't know better, I really doubt this was a tourney.

[Fourputt]

24 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

If it's a tournament?  Great thread.  Hope it gets done correctly.

If it's a fun game?  write down a 5 or a 6 and tell the guy that made her go all the way back to the drop zone to have a cocktail and lighten up.  (and, to let the group behind play through if he wants to slow up the flow for these things)

Seriously though, if she teed up at the drop zone and no one said anything at that time, and she didn't know better, I really doubt this was a tourney.

Read Asheville's second post in the thread and you will see that it was a tournament situation.  

Quote

This was a junior girls event. By the time my friend arrived on the scene the damage was done! 

Sometimes it pays to read the whole thread, or at least skim it, before replying. 

[rehmwa]

4P - so sorry to waste your time.

here's the key quote to your comments - "If it's a tournament?  Great thread.  Hope it gets done correctly. "

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

 

Seriously though, if she teed up at the drop zone and no one said anything at that time, and she didn't know better, I really doubt this was a tourney.

And this is what I was replying to.  Have a nice day.

By the way, I've made the same mistake before so it's the sort of thing that catches my eye.  I did add the smiley to try and take the sting out, but I guess that didn't work.

[rehmwa]

no issues - I appreciate learning from your notes

 Poor kid - tough deal when she didn't know how to take a simple drop from a water hazard.  I'd like the junior events to have a bit more 'help' so it's a learning experience too

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

no issues - I appreciate learning from your notes

 Poor kid - tough deal when she didn't know how to take a simple drop from a water hazard.  I'd like the junior events to have a bit more 'help' so it's a learning experience too

When I refereed junior tournaments, if we had the personnel, we posted rules officials strategically, where they could observe and be available to help in the areas of the course where such problems might come up.  It wasn't always possible, but it was far more rewarding for me to help a kid learn the easy way before he made a mistake than it was to call him on it afterwards.

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, Dormie1360 said:

 

Well, I'm not near as smart as Lew, and I admit  I have trouble following some of his essays, which may be the case here......but:

What I understood was in situations where a player: 

A) Incorrectly abandons his ball in play
B) Plays another (substituted) ball at a place other than where the previous stroke was made
C) Does not announce  intentions to proceed under R27-1

Possible applicable rules and penalties are:  (I switched my numbers from previous post, sorry)

1) 2PS for a WP/ no SB.  R13-1 R20-7 (Player knew the location of the abandoned ball)

2) 2PS WP with a SB.   R13-1, R20-7 and Note 1  (Player knew location of the abandoned ball, but place where substituted ball was played was a SB)

3) 1PS Lost Ball plus 2PS WP.  R27-1, R20-7  (Player did not know the location of abandoned ball)

4) 1PS Lost Ball plus 2PS WP with a SB.  R27-1, R20-7 Note 1  (Player did not know the  location of abandoned ball and the place where the substituted ball was played was a SB)

Although a substitution is not allowed with 1) and 2), there is no added penalty if the ball was played from a WP.

In the OP the player did A) and C), and we are assuming B) based on the committee's 5 PS's given.  They said no SB's so they must have ruled 1), because that's the only ruling with 2PS. (The player already had 3 PS total for teeing instead of dropping and R26-1)

If I'm not thinking through this correctly I'd definitely like to know.  Given a player does A,B,C above, are you saying 1) shouldn't be an option?  What would be your ruling?

Actually, I thought the most interesting part of the article was what is required to make the determination as to whether or not the player actually has location knowledge.

All of the above needs to be consistent with Decision 27/17.  And the Rules do not require an announcement when proceeding under 27-1; the ball played becomes the ball in play, so C) disappears.

The Committee needs to make its ruling based on the player's actions (Decision 34-3/6).  The player played from a tee in the dropping zone.  She was permitted by Rule 26-1 to use the dropping zone for that stroke, but incurred a two stroke penalty for placing instead of dropping, plus the one stroke for Rule 26-1.

She then abandoned that ball.  We don't know why, other than some bad guidance from a fellow-competitor.  She dropped and played another ball.  We don't know if she dropped as near as possible to the spot where she played the ball that was teed.  Since she is no longer proceeding under Rule 26-1, the dropping zone itself is irrelevant.  If she did drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, and no nearer the hole, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance with its one stroke penalty (Decision 27/17). Her score would be 9.

If she didn't drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance AND from a wrong place, for a total of three penalty strokes (this is similar to Tiger at The Masters).  Her score would be 11.

I can't get to a score of 10 unless the stroke and distance penalty is somehow ignored, and I don't think it should be.

[Martyn W]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

If she didn't drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance AND from a wrong place, for a total of three penalty strokes (this is similar to Tiger at The Masters).  Her score would be 11.

I can't get to a score of 10 unless the stroke and distance penalty is somehow ignored, and I don't think it should be.

I think this is probably construed as a breach of two Rules with a single act and, as such only the more severe penalty applies (1-4/12 and 15).

Personally I would go back the the principle behind penalties (or adjustments, as Mr. Tuft's would say) that the penalty must be sufficient to offset any potential advantage gained.- I think we can all agree that the poor kid carding a 9 satisfies that principle.

 

[Dormie1360]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

All of the above needs to be consistent with Decision 27/17.  And the Rules do not require an announcement when proceeding under 27-1; the ball played becomes the ball in play, so C) disappears.

The Committee needs to make its ruling based on the player's actions (Decision 34-3/6).  The player played from a tee in the dropping zone.  She was permitted by Rule 26-1 to use the dropping zone for that stroke, but incurred a two stroke penalty for placing instead of dropping, plus the one stroke for Rule 26-1.

She then abandoned that ball.  We don't know why, other than some bad guidance from a fellow-competitor.  She dropped and played another ball.  We don't know if she dropped as near as possible to the spot where she played the ball that was teed.  Since she is no longer proceeding under Rule 26-1, the dropping zone itself is irrelevant.  If she did drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, and no nearer the hole, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance with its one stroke penalty (Decision 27/17). Her score would be 9.

If she didn't drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance AND from a wrong place, for a total of three penalty strokes (this is similar to Tiger at The Masters).  Her score would be 11.

I can't get to a score of 10 unless the stroke and distance penalty is somehow ignored, and I don't think it should be.

Hi Rogolf,

Thanks for your detailed response, it is much appreciated.

First I would agree that if location knowledge makes no difference in the ruling, you don't need C).

D27-17 deals with a player who drops and plays a ball on the previous spot.

Please look at D18-2/8.5 which seems to better fit our scenario.  It does seem to agree with this idea of only a 2 stroke penalty if the location is know.

Thanks again,

John

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Dormie1360 said:

Hi Rogolf,

Thanks for your detailed response, it is much appreciated.

First I would agree that if location knowledge makes no difference in the ruling, you don't need C).

D27-17 deals with a player who drops and plays a ball on the previous spot.

Please look at D18-2/8.5 which seems to better fit our scenario.  It does seem to agree with this idea of only a 2 stroke penalty if the location is know.

Thanks again,

John

Thanks for reminding me of Decision 18-2/8.5 as that does resolve my issue of not being able to get to a total of 10 if the location of the original ball is known (and proves that Lew is right again!)

As that Decision says, if the location is not known, there would be a total of three strokes for proceeding under 27-1 from a wrong place (D1-4/12 would not be used to only apply the most severe penalty, as Martyn had suggested.  The last paragraph of D18-2/8.5 is quite clear on three strokes.)