Ball dropped by flagstick attendant?

[zeg]

No, they aren't. Go buy a dictionary. If you want to keep pushing this point - which it seems you want to do just to be a pest - I'll close the thread.

I don't think he's pushing it to be a pest, and I think there's legitimate ambiguity. The rule states "anything carried by him." The tense is ambiguous. If it said "anything he is carrying" it'd be clearer. It's certainly as ambiguous as many of the things decisions have been issued on...

Further, regardless of the wording of the rules, I still think the intention is that the player is responsible for the guy holding the flag stick up. I think that is clear from the existence of rule 17-3 and its exception for unauthorized attending of the stick. If the act was intentional, it's also clear from various other rules that the opponent or fellow-competitor would incur any penalty. So I guess in a strict reading of the rules exactly as written, you're probably right. I'm not convinced that is in accordance with Equity, however.

The ball dropping has nothing to do with the flagstick attending. In all flagstick-related activities, the guy is the "flagstick attendant." Outside of that, he's a fellow competitor or opponent. Try it another way: since players and caddies incur the same penalties virtually everywhere in the rules, what if the flagstick attendant's caddie drops a ball that hits yours while it's moving? Rule 19, not 17.

The distinction between "flagstick activities" and other activities isn't delineated in the rules. I understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how to interpret rule 17 without ascribing special status to the guy who's holding the stick as your agent during that time period.

Now that puts this whole debate right where it should be. In this case I think I'll check into the legality of substituting another ball for the one that got dumped on. Even though it's recoverable, I'm not sure I want to deal with the possible consequences.

Yeah... some penalty strokes are worth it.

[iacas]

The rule states "anything carried by him." The tense is ambiguous.

The rules are written in the present tense - the ball is struck by a dropped ball, not a "carried" ball. There's no tense ambiguity. He's not "carrying" the ball when it's dropped.

So I guess in a strict reading of the rules exactly as written, you're probably right. I'm not convinced that is in accordance with Equity, however.

That the player is allowed to re-play the stroke? What could possibly be more fair? That he be assessed a penalty?

The distinction between "flagstick activities" and other activities isn't delineated in the rules. I understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how to interpret rule 17 without ascribing special status to the guy who's holding the stick as your agent during that time period.

Because he does none of the things - hitting the ball with the flagstick, not taking the flagstick out, etc. - that the "flagstick attendant" does.

I'm done now. The rule's clear as far as I'm concerned.

[Fourputt]

After taking the side of no penalty for this entire thread, I'm now going to muddy the waters. Here is another use of the word "carried" in the Rules, and it makes this debate much less clear.

From the Definitions section of the Rules of Golf:

Equipment "Equipment" is anything used, worn or carried by the player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either of their caddies, except any ball he has played at the hole being played and any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the position of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped. Equipment includes a golf cart, whether or not motorized. Note 1: A ball played at the hole being played is equipment when it has been lifted and not put back into play. Note 2: When a golf cart is shared by two or more players, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of one of the players sharing the cart. If the cart is being moved by one of the players (or the partner of one of the players) sharing it, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be that player's equipment. Otherwise, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of the player sharing the cart whose ball (or whose partner's ball) is involved.

So..... When your fellow competitor is attending the flagstick any ball he drops is his

equipment , even if it leaves his direct possession, just as his bag is still his equipment when it's lying on the ground to the side of the green. In this case neither is being actively carried, yet both are still the player's equipment . So I think that in equity , even though he is attending the flagstick, the ball still remains the equipment of the player, and has nothing to do with the act of attending. I still believe that 19-5/1.7 applies regardless of whether the player is also the attendant.

[iacas]

After taking the side of no penalty for this entire thread, I'm now going to muddy the waters.

I don't think that muddies the waters. That doesn't say that stuff you were carrying is still carried, hence the use of the word "or" and the other words like "used." Like his bag sitting there, as you mentioned - it's "used" in the round even if it's not actively being carried. Again, "or."

[Ignorant]

After taking the side of no penalty for this entire thread, I'm now going to muddy the waters. Here is another use of the word "carried" in the Rules, and it makes this debate much less clear.

If the wording would be ‘… his equipment…’ instead of ‘… anything carried by him…’ there would be no ambiquity. So I wonder if The Lords have chosen this particular wording in order to point the arrow towards Rule 19-1 (and indeed excluding dropped or misplaced equipment) or have they chosen ‘carried’ in order to refer to Definitions (and equipment)? I do not know but I’d sure like to.

So I think that

I would not take Equity here at all. If the attendant is holding a club and the ball strikes it there is no doubt, player will be penalized even though this club has nothing to do with the act of attending the flagstick. The profound question is why the ruling should be different if the object is held by the attendant or not. Rules 19-3 and 19-4 clearly say that this is not the case when opponent, fellow-competitor or their caddie is concerned.

I do not try to be a pest. My aim is purely selfish, I want to learn how The Lords think and what is the logic behind interpretations of the Rules. Seems to be a lifetime task....

[Fourputt]

If the wording would be ‘… his equipment…’ instead of ‘… anything carried by him…’ there would be no ambiquity. So I wonder if The Lords have chosen this particular wording in order to point the arrow towards Rule 19-1 (and indeed excluding dropped or misplaced equipment) or have they chosen ‘carried’ in order to refer to Definitions (and equipment)? I do not know but I’d sure like to.

In the Rules of Golf, equity means that you treat like situations in a similar manner. In this case if the fellow competitor drops the ball and deflects a player's ball in motion there is no penalty, so if the fellow competitor happens to be attending the flagstick, he doesn't stop being a fellow competitor, and so the dropped ball is still his equipment, and because it is a like (in fact, identical) situation, equity definitely applies.

What if the fellow competitor is attending the flagstick and the player hits the ball too hard and it strikes the FC's golf bag lying just off the fringe? Is that now a penalty for hitting something the the attendant had carried up to the green? You can't possibly make that sort of call because it goes against equity, and if that is the case then the dropped ball must be seen in the same light. This is how equity is applied in golf.

[Ignorant]

In the Rules of Golf, equity means that you treat like situations in a similar manner. In this case if the fellow competitor drops the ball and deflects a player's ball in motion there is no penalty, so if the fellow competitor happens to be attending the flagstick, he doesn't stop being a fellow competitor, and so the dropped ball is still his equipment, and because it is a like (in fact, identical) situation, equity definitely applies.

Well. that's exactly what I'm talking about. Same penalty/no penalty for identical calls.

So, why there is a penalty is the ball strikes the club held in flag attendant's hand but no penalty if this same happens to a fellow-competitor not attending the flag? This is the whole issue, identical rulings for identical cases. Or?

[iacas]

So, why there is a penalty is the ball strikes the club held in flag attendant's hand but no penalty if this same happens to a fellow-competitor not attending the flag? This is the whole issue, identical rulings for identical cases. Or?

Because under the rules, those aren't identical cases at all.

And I don't know about you, but when I tend the flag for someone I don't have a club or ball in my hands, and I wouldn't allow someone who was tending the flag for me to have one either.

[CarlSpackler]

I have gotten a little lost in the discussion. Not that I want to flare anything up, but is this a penalty or no penalty/rub of the green?

[Fourputt]

Because under the rules, those aren't identical cases at all.

I usually have a putter with me when I'm attending the flagstick, but It is not resting on the the ground and I've never dropped it while tending. Any ball I may have would be in my pocket. In 35 years of playing golf on a more or less regular basis I've never known anyone to drop their putter or a ball while attending the flagstick, much less have it deflect a ball in motion. For this reason, I think that this is a very long discussion over a most rare and unlikely event.

[zeg]

I certainly see the logic Iacas & others are putting forth, but it still seems ambiguous to me. A direct reading of the rules, it does seem, agree that rule 19 probably applies, but that doesn't sit right with me with respect to the intention. Already the attendant has special status -- normally rule 19 would apply if you strike an opponent, but if you ask him to attend the flag stick, you are now subject to a penalty if he isn't able (or doesn't try) to step out of the path of your overputted ball. Why should that particular event be singled out to convert from a cancelable stroke into a 2-stroke penalty? It seems unusual to me, and given the rarity of this event, I really suspect it simply hasn't come up as something that needs addressing officially.

The solution and the lesson is obviously clear, though-- only allow someone you trust not to drop a frickin ball on yours to attend the flag stick.

[Ignorant]

I usually have a putter with me when I'm attending the flagstick, but It is not resting on the the ground and I've never dropped it while tending. Any ball I may have would be in my pocket. In 35 years of playing golf on a more or less regular basis I've never known anyone to drop their putter or a ball while attending the flagstick, much less have it deflect a ball in motion.

This thing actually happened to a person two weeks ago, so these things actually happen. And reading the Decision Book there are quite a few things described that one never sees or even hears of during one’s life. Or what to You say about Decision 23/10 Ball Embedded in Fruit? Happens every other day, huh….?

For this reason, I think that this is a very long discussion over a most rare and unlikely event.

But isn’t it so that the best and most diversified discussions origin from a situation seldom or never heard? Now, who would like to take up the cudgels over a simple and straighforward matter like ‘is a car an obstruction’? What is there to argue about?

Well, I do not think there will be any more valid arguments for or against over this issue but it is an interesting one and good arguments have been presented, much obliged to all participants.

[Fourputt]

Well, I do not think there will be any more valid arguments for or against over this issue but it is an interesting one and good arguments have been presented, much obliged to all participants.

There have already been plenty of valid arguments. Some people just can't believe the evidence when they read it.

[Ignorant]

What is the ruling if a person attending the flagstick accidentally drops his ball (or any other object of his) on player’s moving ball having been putted from within the putting green? Is the player subject to two penalties based on Rule 17-3b or is his stroke cancelled and replayed according to Rule 19-1b (and Dec. 19-5/1.7)?

I got a chance to present this question to the lead referee trainer of my country. This person has undergone training in the Royal & Ancient Referee School and acts as an international referee in golf. His answer was following (free translation):

''This situation is ruled according to Rule 17-3b and in stroke play player is penalized with 2 strokes. Reason for this is that when a player allows anybody to attend the flagastick s/he sort of ‘hires’ this person to work for him/her. This means that the player is equally responsible for this person's acts in the same manner as a player is responsible for his/her caddie’s acts. Now, the ball falling is ‘anything carried by him’ even though it is not in the attendant’s immediate possession at the moment. In our language the translation is ‘anything he carries with him’ and this translation (as all translations in R&A;’s jurastiction area) has been approved by the R&A.; Thus any falling object is still ‘carried by him’ in the sense this Rule.'' So the whole issue is wrapped around the phrase 'carried by him' and what it means. I have also asked an interpretation from two separate native englishmen and they both said that 'carried by a person' in this kind of context most likely means 'items a person is transporting with him'. I cannot say for or against as far as English is concerned but as pointed out above the translation in our language leaves absolutely no doubt or hesitation.

[Fourputt]

The moral of this story is "Don't ask an idiot to attend the flagstick for you."