or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Should divots be considered ground under repair?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should divots be considered ground under repair? - Page 20

post #343 of 495

This happened today. ball ended up on fairway on par 4 after tee shot but was sitting on top of unreplaced turf from divot, the darn thing was teed up rather nicely. I asked a couple of my playing partners what's the ruling? They said play it where it lies, was that correct? I had to basically address it like a fairway bunker shot cause if I grounded the club against it the ball would probably move.

post #344 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopster View Post
 

This happened today. ball ended up on fairway on par 4 after tee shot but was sitting on top of unreplaced turf from divot, the darn thing was teed up rather nicely. I asked a couple of my playing partners what's the ruling? They said play it where it lies, was that correct? I had to basically address it like a fairway bunker shot cause if I grounded the club against it the ball would probably move.

They were correct. The piece of turf (ie the divot from the divot hole) is a Loose Impediment. 

It may be moved but only if your ball doesn't move also. As the ball would almost certainly have moved, involving one (or more) penalties, you were better playing it as it lay.

post #345 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

They were correct. The piece of turf (ie the divot from the divot hole) is a Loose Impediment.

It may be moved but only if your ball doesn't move also. As the ball would almost certainly have moved, involving one (or more) penalties, you were better playing it as it lay.

 

So how would you rule in the above situation if the player removed the divot and replaced (placed) his ball. This question has recently come up on another forum.  We've gotten conflicting answers from the USGA and R&A.

post #346 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormie1360 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

They were correct. The piece of turf (ie the divot from the divot hole) is a Loose Impediment.

It may be moved but only if your ball doesn't move also. As the ball would almost certainly have moved, involving one (or more) penalties, you were better playing it as it lay.

 

So how would you rule in the above situation if the player removed the divot and replaced (placed) his ball. This question has recently come up on another forum.  We've gotten conflicting answers from the USGA and R&A.

 

It is not possible to replace the ball when its original perch (the divot) has been removed.  You can only place it once the divot is no longer there.  Rule 18-2a requires that the ball be replaced.  Since that is not possible without also replacing the divot, I'm thinking that he incurs the general penalty of 2 strokes under Rule 18-2 for failing to properly replace the ball after he has moved it when not proceeding correctly under a rule.

post #347 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormie1360 View Post
 

 

So how would you rule in the above situation if the player removed the divot and replaced (placed) his ball. This question has recently come up on another forum.  We've gotten conflicting answers from the USGA and R&A.

I was thinking rather that he got 1sp (18-2a) when he moved the ball accidentally when removing the divot and a second if he didn't replace the ball. (18-1 General penalty).

 

If he lifted the ball in order to remove the divot, 1 sp under 18-2a and 1 sp via 23-1/7

 

Do you have both the actual Qs and As from the RBs?

post #348 of 495

If he caught his mistake before taking his next stroke, could he still declare the original ball to have been unplayable, drop and limit himself to a single stroke penalty?

post #349 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormie1360 View Post
 

 

So how would you rule in the above situation if the player removed the divot and replaced (placed) his ball. This question has recently come up on another forum.  We've gotten conflicting answers from the USGA and R&A.

I was thinking rather that he got 1sp (18-2a) when he moved the ball accidentally when removing the divot and a second if he didn't replace the ball. (18-1 General penalty).

 

If he lifted the ball in order to remove the divot, 1 sp under 18-2a and 1 sp via 23-1/7

 

Do you have both the actual Qs and As from the RBs?

 

23-1/7 doesn't apply because the player did not lift the ball under a rule which allows lifting.  Yes, he is required to replace it, but since the act of lifting was of itself a breach, 23-1/7 shouldn't apply.  As far as I can see, 18-2 is all that applies here, and since he failed to replace the ball as required to satisfy the requirement for a one stroke penalty, he is levied the general penalty of 2 strokes.

 

Quote:
 

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE:

Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.

*If a player who is required to replace a ball fails to do so, or if he makes astroke at a ball substituted under Rule 18 when such substitution is not permitted, he incurs the general penalty for breach of Rule 18, but there is no additional penalty under this Rule.

 

If the player removes a loose impediment and causes the ball to move, he is not required to replace the loose impediment.  Since the actual removal of the loose impediment was not a breach of any rule, and the ball was not lifted under a rule which allows it, the only rule which can apply is 18-2.

post #350 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

23-1/7 doesn't apply because the player did not lift the ball under a rule which allows lifting.  Yes, he is required to replace it, but since the act of lifting was of itself a breach, 23-1/7 shouldn't apply.  As far as I can see, 18-2 is all that applies here, and since he failed to replace the ball as required to satisfy the requirement for a one stroke penalty, he is levied the general penalty of 2 strokes.

 

 

If the player removes a loose impediment and causes the ball to move, he is not required to replace the loose impediment.  Since the actual removal of the loose impediment was not a breach of any rule, and the ball was not lifted under a rule which allows it, the only rule which can apply is 18-2.

 

Para 1. When I used the word via I should have been clearer. I meant using 23-1/7 in equity. 

 

Para 2. Is what I was saying in the first part of my post.

post #351 of 495

Here's the link from the other discussion.

 

http://golfrules.freeforums.org/ball-lying-on-a-leaf-t2093.html

 

When I asked a representative of the USGA I was told 1ps 18-2, no penalty under 23.  I've since asked for a clarification and have not received anything back.  In my initial question, I did try to make it clear the ball was on top of the impediment.

 

Although my initial thought on the ruling was very similar to Rick's, it did not appear to be the consensus.

post #352 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormie1360 View Post
 

Here's the link from the other discussion.

 

http://golfrules.freeforums.org/ball-lying-on-a-leaf-t2093.html

 

When I asked a representative of the USGA I was told 1ps 18-2, no penalty under 23.  I've since asked for a clarification and have not received anything back.  In my initial question, I did try to make it clear the ball was on top of the impediment.

 

Although my initial thought on the ruling was very similar to Rick's, it did not appear to be the consensus.

 

No matter what rules may be quoted, in stroke play the end result is going to be a 2 stroke penalty.  What counts is still the stroke total for the hole.  Sometimes I feel that we worry too much about how we get there.  As long as the result is the same, and would be the same under any similar situation, then the path is less relevant.  

 

However, the difference is significant in match play.  If 23-1/7 applies, then the player has only incurred 2 penalty strokes.  If 18-2 is the applicable rule, the player loses the hole.  Since the ball is not being played from the spot which his previous stroke gave him, and the lie was not altered by any procedure allowed under the rules, I still contend that 18-2 is the applicable rule.  The loose impediment was doing more than just "affecting" the player's lie, it was the player's lie.  Once it is removed, the ball cannot be replaced on the spot because the place where the ball was lying no longer exists.  No matter how carefully the ball is placed on the x-y axes, it will have moved downward on the z axis, incurring the general penalty under 18-2.  It doesn't seem to me that equity allows the player to circumvent the penalty for the clear movement of the lie of the ball with an escape clause. 

post #353 of 495

See Dec 20-3b/8 re the lie.

 

"Although the loose impediment may have affected the lie of A's ball, loose impediments are not part of the lie of the ball as contemplated by Rule20-3b."

post #354 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

See Dec 20-3b/8 re the lie.

 

"Although the loose impediment may have affected the lie of A's ball, loose impediments are not part of the lie of the ball as contemplated by Rule20-3b."

 

I read that, but I still don't buy it in such an extreme case as this is.  It still lifts the ball up higher than it will lie if the LI is removed, potentially making a dramatically different swing necessary.  If the purpose of a penalty is to ensure that the player doesn't gain from the breach, then I can't believe that a single stroke is appropriate.

post #355 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

I read that, but I still don't buy it in such an extreme case as this is.  It still lifts the ball up higher than it will lie if the LI is removed, potentially making a dramatically different swing necessary.  If the purpose of a penalty is to ensure that the player doesn't gain from the breach, then I can't believe that a single stroke is appropriate.

 

A single stroke makes sense to me. He could take an unplayable and drop it on the fairway beside the loose impediment. Or move the loose impediment and quite literally drop it exactly where it would be beneath the divot (loose impediment).

 

A leaf raises up the "lie" of the ball as well.

post #356 of 495
I think there are two different scenarios possible here -
1. the player removes the divot and the ball moves. One stroke penalty under 18-2a (via 23-1) and the player must replace the ball. I'd have him drop the ball as near as possible to the spot below the divot (much like the procedure for a ball on a movable obstruction).
2. the player lifts his ball and removes the divot. In this case, the player has breached 18-2a by purposely touching/moving his ball in play, and by the language in 23-1/7 and 23-1/8, he should receive a second one stroke penalty (two in total). He should drop the ball as above.

Just my $0.02
post #357 of 495

rather than hitting the second shot off such an unnatural and favorable lie, the player could go back under 20-5 and re-tee

post #358 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqcishark View Post

rather than hitting the second shot off such an unnatural and favorable lie, the player could go back under 20-5 and re-tee

I understand what you're saying, but the player would need to deem his ball unplayable (Rule 28) or just proceed under stroke and distance (Rule 27-1). Rule 20-5 only provides the "how to proceed".
As someone said above, he would be smarter to deem the ball unplayable and proceed under options b or c of Rule 28, not incurring the distance loss.

By the way, imo, this thread has gone way off the original topic and readers would be much better served if questions such as this one regarding loose impediments were in their own thread. Maybe we (posters) need to be more diligent in this regard.
post #359 of 495

Just a follow up re mats at St Andrews

 

Mats are used on all courses between the months of November and February each year, with The Old Course and The Castle Course retaining their use until the end of March.

With temperatures providing little growth during the winter months these small bits of Astroturf help protect the turf from divot damage which would otherwise take until the summer to repair.

They are carried by the golfer and if the ball lies on the fairway, the mat is positioned as near as possible to where it lies. The ball is then placed on and played from the mat.

On all other areas of the course the ball is played as it lies.

 

Information for 2013/14:

Fairway mats will be in operation on the Old, New, Jubilee, Eden and Strathtyrum Courses from Monday 4th November 2013 until Friday 28th February 2014.  Mats will continue to be used on the Old Course until Friday 28th March 2014.   

The Castle Course closes after play on Sunday 3rd November and when it re-opens on Saturday 1st March 2014 will remain on mats until Friday 28th March.

post #360 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

Just a follow up re mats at St Andrews

 

Mats are used on all courses between the months of November and February each year, with The Old Course and The Castle Course retaining their use until the end of March.

With temperatures providing little growth during the winter months these small bits of Astroturf help protect the turf from divot damage which would otherwise take until the summer to repair.

They are carried by the golfer and if the ball lies on the fairway, the mat is positioned as near as possible to where it lies. The ball is then placed on and played from the mat.

On all other areas of the course the ball is played as it lies.

 

Information for 2013/14:

Fairway mats will be in operation on the Old, New, Jubilee, Eden and Strathtyrum Courses from Monday 4th November 2013 until Friday 28th February 2014.  Mats will continue to be used on the Old Course until Friday 28th March 2014.   

The Castle Course closes after play on Sunday 3rd November and when it re-opens on Saturday 1st March 2014 will remain on mats until Friday 28th March.

 

Do they play competitions that count for handicap purposes in those periods?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Should divots be considered ground under repair?