Dave's Journey With the Rules of Golf

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, mdl said:

Yeah I agree that as a rules official it's clear enough. It's explained elsewhere what is meant by taking a stance, and what counts as reasonable for assessing penalties and free drops and the like. I meant more like there's enough wiggle room that it seems plausible that Faxon just kinda knows that when it's really wet you can probably get an official to give you a free drop and if s/he doesn't the other players will feel aggrieved with you  

I'd be surprised if he actually knows and understands the rule.  After all, he used terminology that hasn't been in the rules for more than 6 years.  

[mdl]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I'd be surprised if he actually knows and understands the rule.  After all, he used terminology that hasn't been in the rules for more than 6 years.  

Oh did the temp water rule change in the big overhaul?!

[iacas]

8 hours ago, mdl said:

Oh did the temp water rule change in the big overhaul?!

No, the term did.

[DaveP043]

9 hours ago, mdl said:

Oh did the temp water rule change in the big overhaul?!

As @iacas says, the terminology changed form "casual water".  In addition, the Definition was revised slightly, to eliminate a bit of an out that Faxon may have remembered.  See the underlined in the current definition.

Quote

Any temporary accumulation of water on the surface of the ground (such as puddles from rain or irrigation or an overflow from a body of water) that:

Is not in a penalty area, and

Can be seen before or after the player takes a stance (without pressing down excessively with their feet).

It is not enough for the ground to be merely wet, muddy or soft or for the water to be momentarily visible as the player steps on the ground; an accumulation of water must remain present either before or after the stance is taken.

I don't really remember what players used to do, but I'm guessing they would shift weight back and forth to pump up the water, and then say "See, there's water!"  Now that tactic shouldn't work with a competent referee.

[mdl]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

No, the term did.

Ha. I never even considered that casual water, a term I still use sometimes, was officially changed to temporary water!

[DaveP043]

56 minutes ago, mdl said:

Ha. I never even considered that casual water, a term I still use sometimes, was officially changed to temporary water!

Lots of us still use the old terms.  I just dont think that's good to do on television with a national championship.

[DaveP043]

Just reporting in, I've gone a number of events with no unusual or interesting Rules issues.  But there WERE some interesting happenings.  A few weeks ago, a junior set a course record at a nearby club, posting a 59, 8 strokes clear of his nearest competitor.  But even more fun, I saw a young lady make her first hole-in-one on about a 160-yard par 3.  Since she couldn't quite see the putting surface, she didn't realize it was in until she got to the green, it was great to see her reaction.

[DaveP043]

A lot less fun than watching the ace from my previous post, I had to assess a penalty against a player yesterday, breaking a rule he wasn't aware he'd broken.  He was right next to a chain-link fence that defines OB, and I watched him from a long ways away lift and drop his ball and play to the green before I could get close enough to stop him.  I talked to him on the next tee, and he said he'd taken relief from the artificial fence, and I had to inform him that he doesn't get free relief from a boundary object.  So he had lifted his ball when no rule applied (1 penalty stroke under 9.4), dropped and played it from a Wrong Place (2 PS under14.7), So 1+2=2.  His father asked (very politely) how the Player should have known this was a Boundary Object, and I responded that he was told on the first tee.  I was actually right there when his group went off, I heard the instruction.  I talked to both the player and the father later on, both understood what I had needed to do, no hard feelings.

So my advice to anyone playing moderately serious golf, READ the Notice to Players, the Conditions of Competition, the Hard Card (Local Rules in effect for all competitions) for the organization, and pay attention to first tee instructions.  

[saevel25]

Tough break there. 

Here is a question. If he dropped in the wrong place, but lets say you get to him and have him replace his ball back. Does he still take the wrong place drop? 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Here is a question. If he dropped in the wrong place, but lets say you get to him and have him replace his ball back. Does he still take the wrong place drop? 

He replaces his ball and gets the stroke for lifting his ball without having a rule allowing such.

[DaveP043]

37 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Here is a question. If he dropped in the wrong place, but lets say you get to him and have him replace his ball back. Does he still take the wrong place drop? 

As Erik says, he can correct the Wrong Place mistake by replacing the ball in its original location, see 14.5a, as long as he does it before making a Stroke at the ball.

  

37 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Tough break there. 

I agree, and that's one of the worst aspects of being a rules official.  But its also an important part, I'm sure that player learned that one rule pretty clearly, and hopefully has learned to read the NTP and listen on the first tee.

[reidsou]

On 7/17/2025 at 6:16 AM, DaveP043 said:

A lot less fun than watching the ace from my previous post, I had to assess a penalty against a player yesterday, breaking a rule he wasn't aware he'd broken.  He was right next to a chain-link fence that defines OB, and I watched him from a long ways away lift and drop his ball and play to the green before I could get close enough to stop him.  I talked to him on the next tee, and he said he'd taken relief from the artificial fence, and I had to inform him that he doesn't get free relief from a boundary object.  So he had lifted his ball when no rule applied (1 penalty stroke under 9.4), dropped and played it from a Wrong Place (2 PS under14.7), So 1+2=2.  His father asked (very politely) how the Player should have known this was a Boundary Object, and I responded that he was told on the first tee.  I was actually right there when his group went off, I heard the instruction.  I talked to both the player and the father later on, both understood what I had needed to do, no hard feelings.

So my advice to anyone playing moderately serious golf, READ the Notice to Players, the Conditions of Competition, the Hard Card (Local Rules in effect for all competitions) for the organization, and pay attention to first tee instructions.  

Would he not be entitled to unplayable relief and a one stroke penalty? And wouldn't the drop for unplayable plausibly be the same as the one he took? 

That he cited the wrong rule and no penalty makes this a two stroke penalty instead of one? I'm assuming I'm wrong and there is a rule that prevents the player from reinterpreting his actions afterwards? 

Regarding rule 14.7 - wrong place - and the general penalty. In this case, he gained a significant advantage by having an unimpeded swing? Shouldn't the penalty be for a "serious breach"? DQ?

[iacas]

11 hours ago, reidsou said:

Would he not be entitled to unplayable relief and a one stroke penalty? And wouldn't the drop for unplayable plausibly be the same as the one he took? 

That he cited the wrong rule and no penalty makes this a two stroke penalty instead of one? I'm assuming I'm wrong and there is a rule that prevents the player from reinterpreting his actions afterwards? 

You can't retroactively declare such a thing. If Dave had driven up to him after he took his drop and before he hit, and the first thing he said was "I know, I took an unplayable" Dave would have said "oh, okay, please proceed" and would have made sure the drop was good and he could play on.

11 hours ago, reidsou said:

Regarding rule 14.7 - wrong place - and the general penalty. In this case, he gained a significant advantage by having an unimpeded swing? Shouldn't the penalty be for a "serious breach"? DQ?

That's not close to a serious breach considering what you said above: for one stroke he could have gotten an unimpeded swing. He paid two to get the same thing. And generally speaking, he could have hit his ball a few feet to the side with the same one stroke and had an unimpeded swing.

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, reidsou said:

Would he not be entitled to unplayable relief and a one stroke penalty? And wouldn't the drop for unplayable plausibly be the same as the one he took? 

That he cited the wrong rule and no penalty makes this a two stroke penalty instead of one? I'm assuming I'm wrong and there is a rule that prevents the player from reinterpreting his actions afterwards? 

Regarding rule 14.7 - wrong place - and the general penalty. In this case, he gained a significant advantage by having an unimpeded swing? Shouldn't the penalty be for a "serious breach"? DQ?

Although the base rules don't make this really clear, the Player must have decided to use Unplayable Ball relief before lifting the ball.  This exact situation is discussed in the Committee Procedures section of the Rules, section 6C(8).  Section 6C addresses how to rule when a Player proceeds under a Rule that does not apply.  Note that 9.4 applies, 9.4 deals with a player moving his ball when no rule allows it.  

Quote

A player took relief away from a boundary object under Rule 16.1b. They have proceeded under a Rule that does not apply. As Rule 19.1  (Unplayable Ball) requires the player to have decided to proceed under it before taking relief, the Committee may not apply Rule 19 to the player’s actions. As there was no Rule that allowed the player to lift their ball in such a situation, the Committee should determine that Rule 9.4 applies and none of the Exceptions save the player from penalty.

Rule 9.4 penalizes the Player for lifting his ball when not permitted by the Rules, and requires him to replace it.  Since he dropped and played from a different place, the Wrong Place penalty applies.  As for a serious breach, that would only apply if the Wrong Place gave him a really significant advantage.  Since he could have taken Unplayable Ball relief in essentially the same spot, for just 1 penalty stroke, the Wrong Place penalty of 2 strokes is enough "punishment", there's no need to consider a DQ.  

[reidsou]

11 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

As for a serious breach, that would only apply if the Wrong Place gave him a really significant advantage.  Since he could have taken Unplayable Ball relief in essentially the same spot, for just 1 penalty stroke, the Wrong Place penalty of 2 strokes is enough "punishment", there's no need to consider a DQ.  

Thanks for answering. 

Is there somewhere the degree of ""significant advantage" is documented or examples given?  I searched USGA.org and randa.org without success. 

Closest I could find was this Facebook post by a USGA official. However, that post cites no sources and contradicts itself.

It says, on the one hand, "If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach." 

On the other hand, "A few years back (so old Rules but similar process), JB Holmes was determined to have committed a serious breach of playing from a wrong place when he played from FARTHER away than he was supposed to because the new position allowed him to reach a par-5 green with his next stroke where the correct location required a punch out."

Clearly JB Holmes would not have preferred the two penalty strokes to get a shot at the green instead of punching out first. So the example contradicts the first statement. 

If the definition is really the first quote above about preferring a two stroke penalty, it is hard to imagine a situation where that can happen. But, the USGA official seems to be relating an undocumented oral history(?!), and his explanation contradicts the words in the definition of serious breach. 

To me, "significant advantage" means a significantly easier shot. Like if two competitors are in the same position and one plays from the right place and the other from the wrong place. Did the one who played from the wrong place have a "significant advantage"? He did if he could hit directly to the green instead of punching out first, as in the JB Holmes example. 

I think that is why the player is required to go back and play from the right place when the wrong place was a serious breach - the score would otherwise be wrong. The two stroke penalty is exclusively for playing from a wrong place when no significant advantage was gained. 

The USGA official goes on, "a serious breach needs to be something so significant that the Committee feels it cannot accept the player's score when played from that position - even with a two-stroke penalty. " This seems to be some sort of tournament officials' tradition, but it is not the definition of serious breach, and not the purpose of the wrong place two-stroke penalty. IMHO! 

[iacas]

The definition basically tells you it's a judgment call (I made the words bold and red, but the bullet list also tells you this):

Serious Breach

In stroke play, when playing from a wrong place could give the player a significant advantage compared to the stroke to be made from the right place.

In making this comparison to decide if there was a serious breach, the factors to be taken into account include:

• The difficulty of the stroke,

• The distance of the ball from the hole,

• The effect of obstacles on the line of play, and

• The conditions affecting the stroke.

The concept of a serious breach does not apply in match play, because a player loses the hole if they play from a wrong place.

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

Is there somewhere the degree of ""significant advantage" is documented or examples given?  I searched USGA.org and randa.org without success.

Not that I know of. Bit of a judgment call. If there's a pond you have to carry and you drop on the near side instead of still needing to carry it, that's another example often given in rules schools. So there are examples that serve as the foundation for your judgment but it's your judgment really.

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

Clearly JB Holmes would not have preferred the two penalty strokes to get a shot at the green instead of punching out first. So the example contradicts the first statement.

He may have, depending on what kind of situation he was in. I've seen people in the middle of so many trees that in trying to punch out, the ball could go anywhere. Particularly if there's OB nearby, and hitting a single tree could kick you OB, in which case… you've got to try the shot again.

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

To me, "significant advantage" means a significantly easier shot.

You have a bullet list to consider.

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

I think that is why the player is required to go back and play from the right place when the wrong place was a serious breach - the score would otherwise be wrong. The two stroke penalty is exclusively for playing from a wrong place when no significant advantage was gained.

Yeah.

6 hours ago, reidsou said:

The USGA official goes on, "a serious breach needs to be something so significant that the Committee feels it cannot accept the player's score when played from that position - even with a two-stroke penalty. " This seems to be some sort of tournament officials' tradition, but it is not the definition of serious breach, and not the purpose of the wrong place two-stroke penalty. IMHO! 

It's a judgment call. They can't elaborate on every situation.

You can't just say it's an "easier" shot, and you can't even define "significantly easier" either. How much easier of a shot does it have to be before you get to "significantly"?

[DaveP043]

7 hours ago, reidsou said:

Thanks for answering. 

Is there somewhere the degree of ""significant advantage" is documented or examples given?  I searched USGA.org and randa.org without success. 

Closest I could find was this Facebook post by a USGA official. However, that post cites no sources and contradicts itself.

It says, on the one hand, "If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach." 

On the other hand, "A few years back (so old Rules but similar process), JB Holmes was determined to have committed a serious breach of playing from a wrong place when he played from FARTHER away than he was supposed to because the new position allowed him to reach a par-5 green with his next stroke where the correct location required a punch out."

Clearly JB Holmes would not have preferred the two penalty strokes to get a shot at the green instead of punching out first. So the example contradicts the first statement. 

If the definition is really the first quote above about preferring a two stroke penalty, it is hard to imagine a situation where that can happen. But, the USGA official seems to be relating an undocumented oral history(?!), and his explanation contradicts the words in the definition of serious breach. 

To me, "significant advantage" means a significantly easier shot. Like if two competitors are in the same position and one plays from the right place and the other from the wrong place. Did the one who played from the wrong place have a "significant advantage"? He did if he could hit directly to the green instead of punching out first, as in the JB Holmes example. 

I think that is why the player is required to go back and play from the right place when the wrong place was a serious breach - the score would otherwise be wrong. The two stroke penalty is exclusively for playing from a wrong place when no significant advantage was gained. 

The USGA official goes on, "a serious breach needs to be something so significant that the Committee feels it cannot accept the player's score when played from that position - even with a two-stroke penalty. " This seems to be some sort of tournament officials' tradition, but it is not the definition of serious breach, and not the purpose of the wrong place two-stroke penalty. IMHO! 

@iacas has given a pretty complete answer, I don't have much to add.  There are a few issues that become judgement calls, this is one of them.  

[p1n9183]

On 6/20/2025 at 9:03 AM, DaveP043 said:

Any temporary accumulation of water on the surface of the ground (such as puddles from rain or irrigation or an overflow from a body of water) that:

Is not in a penalty area, and

Can be seen before or after the player takes a stance (without pressing down excessively with their feet).

It is not enough for the ground to be merely wet, muddy or soft or for the water to be momentarily visible as the player steps on the ground; an accumulation of water must remain present either before or after the stance is taken.

A bit old.. but this rule is kind of unfair ... 

Lets say that you have Emiliano Grillo and Darren Clark playing together on a PGA event and on one hole both hit the ball to the middle of the fairway only 1 inch apart. When they arrive to the ball Darren take his stand and water comes out from the ground and remains there so he procceds take a free drop on a dry area and hit his shot. 
Afterwards Grillo takes his stance in the same spot as Clark, but because he is a lot ligther, no water araise from the ground. According to the rules he is not allowed a free drop from the same spot darren had a free drop seconds before. I would love to see this happenning live on TV.

Can an argument be made by grillo? could and official use the "spirit of the rule" to let him have a free drop?