A Rules dilemma

[Ignorant]

Ben H. drives his ball into the heavy ruff. Trying to find his ball Ben accidentally kicks his ball about two feet away (not closer to the hole) and unfortunately the ball falls between a couple of embedded rocks so deep that Ben can only see his mark on the ball but cannot retrieve it.

Highly confused of the situation he declares his ball unplayable on the spot (i.e. between the rocks) and drops another ball exactly 2 club lengths away from the ball between the rocks and also away from the original place of the original ball. Then Ben hits his ball onto the green and holes out with two putts.

What is Ben's score for the hole assuming he has not committed a serious breach of any Rule?

P.S. Erik: I honestly do not know the answer but would love to.

[LeftyTrevor]

7 I believe.

[Shanks A Million]

Tough call. According to the rules, the ball must be replaced with a 1 stroke penalty. If someone else moves it during the search, it's no penalty for anyone, but if you or your caddy move it, then apparently it's a penalty, and replace the ball.

[zeg]

I probably concur with 7. Four strokes. 3 penalty strokes: 1 for moving his ball (that it was during a search is irrelevant unless it's in a bunker covered by loose impediments, in an abnormal ground condition or on an obstruction, or in a hazard, in which case no penalty), 2 for playing from wrong place by not replacing it.

However, if the spot he dropped was within 2 club lengths of BOTH the spot he kicked the ball from AND the spot he actually measured from (ie, between the rocks), then he scores a 6. It's not clear from your write-up whether this is the case, but it looks like that might be what you meant. In that case, he got lucky: you do not have to replace a ball to proceed under a drop (decision 20-3a/3).

[Jay-Bird]

Ben H. drives his ball into the heavy ruff. Trying to find his ball Ben accidentally kicks his ball about two feet away (not closer to the hole) and unfortunately the ball falls between a couple of embedded rocks so deep that Ben can only see his mark on the ball but cannot retrieve it.

Seven

Drive - One stroke. Kick ball accidentally - penalty stroke (Rule 18-2a) The fact that the original ball now lay in rocks and unretrievable is irrelevant. If a ball to be replaced under this Rule is not immediately recoverable, another ball may be substituted. **You should then have dropped a new ball as near as possible to the spot where the original ball lay as required by Rule 20-3c Since you dropped a ball in the wrong spot - you're penalized for that - Rule 20-7 ii. (Playing from Wrong Place when the Rules require a moved ball to be replaced.) - two strokes Shot to the green. 1 stroke Two Putt out. Two stroke. Seven strokes.

[zeg]

**You should then have dropped a new ball as near as possible to the spot where the original ball lay as required by Rule 20-3c

That's what I thought at first, but then I found this (as I mentioned above):

Q. If a Rule requires a ball at rest that was moved to be replaced (e.g., Rule 18-2a), must the player replace the ball if he wishes to proceed under another Rule that involves dropping or placing the ball in another place (e.g., Rule 24-2)?

So I think he's free to play under the unplayable lie rule (28c) without actually replacing the original ball. I don't think his ignorance of the rule or whether he correctly identified WHICH lie he was calling unplayable has any impact. The player has sole discretion as to whether a lie is unplayable, so it seems to me that as long as his "incorrect" drop was actually a legal drop from the original spot, he squeaks by with a 6 instead.

It wasn't totally clear whether this was meant to be what happened or not; if not, I agree it'd be 7.

[Zeph]

Isn't it strange that you are penalized for accidentially kicking your ball when looking for it? What difference does it make, when searching in deep grass, if it's you as a player or your competitor who touches it? Either way it must be replaced. If you're going to find the ball, you have to take the risk of touching it or stepping on it.

[Ignorant]

I probably concur with 7. Four strokes. 3 penalty strokes: 1 for moving his ball (that it was during a search is irrelevant unless it's in a bunker covered by loose impediments, in an abnormal ground condition or on an obstruction, or in a hazard, in which case no penalty), 2 for playing from wrong place by not replacing it.

This is exactly what makes this case very special as there are several rules one could apply.

1) Rule 20-7 does not define any penalty but the penalty comes from the applicable rule. So if a moved ball is not returned to its original position Rule 18 applies and result is 2 penalties (general penalty for breach of Rule 18). So playing from wrong place wouldnot give two additional penalties but only one. What makes this case difficult is that the ball is moved further and another Rule is applied. 2) Dec 20-3a/3 gives another view. Assuming the original place of the original ball, the place where ball ended after Ben's kick and the place where Ben drops a ball are all within 2 club lengths it seems that this Decision applies and the result would be 1 penalty for moving the ball and 1 for unplayable ball. But is it ok for a player to apply a Rule under false parameters? Would it be fair that if Ben should accidentally drop his ball within 2 club lengths from the original position but more than 2 club lengths from the unplayable position or vice versa he would incur different penalties? 3) Finally, if Ben drops his ball more than 2 club lengths from the original position but within 2 club lengths from the unplayable position, then based on Dec 20-3a/3 he would be playing from wrong place and would incur a penalty of 2 for breach of Rule 28, giving the total penalty of 3 strokes. But would that be fair as he is acting in good faith relative to the place he actually conciders being unplayable? And what would be the result if he would drop his ball more than 2 club lengths from the unplayable position but within 2 club leghts from the original position and would pick up the ball and re-drop it closer to the unplayable position? He would incur further penalties for moving his ball in play even though he again is acting in good faith. Fair or not? What I cannot help thinking is ,what is the actual spot that should be regarded as the unplayable place? Should it be the one that Ben himself declares to be unplayable? Or should it be the original place that Ben even does not consider being unplayable? So would a player be salvaged by his own ignorance due to Dec 20-3a/3 or should he be punished for being ignorant and declaring his ball unplayable at a place that he should disregard? In my mind Dec 20-3a/3 is a timesaver, i.e. the player does not have to replace the ball if he applies a different Rule relative to that particular place from which the ball was lifted/moved . As far as I have understood only Rule 27-1 can be applied by the player not knowingly. I vaguely remember that also Rule 28 used to be that way but could not find any indication of that any longer, maybe it has been changed, cannot tell for sure. I am confused with this

Isn't it strange that you are penalized for accidentially kicking your ball when looking for it? What difference does it make, when searching in deep grass, if it's you as a player or your competitor who touches it? Either way it must be replaced. If you're going to find the ball, you have to take the risk of touching it or stepping on it.

I guess the Lords have looked at this issue from the simplicity point of view. As a player incurs a penalty if he purposely touches or moves his ball it is only logical that he incurs same penalty for moving his ball accidentally. If this was not the case the player could always claim that the movement of his ball was undeliberate thus avoiding any penalty. This would lead to endless discussions whether the player is to be penalised or not.

Seven

This is an interesting view as well, thought about it myself, too. However, as Rule 18 states that if the player does not replace the ball he has moved he incurs a total of 2 penalties but no additional penalty under that Rule. As already pointed out, Rule 20-7 does not define any penalty but the penalty is incurred under teh applicable rule, i.s. Rule 18. It is totally irrelevant how the player does not replace the ball as long as it will not be replaced (serious breach of a rule excluded, of course), he will only incur 2 penalties, not 3.

But thinking like that may be kind for the player but there is another question to be answered: After a player has moved his ball is be obliged to replace his ball or may he proceed with his ball as he wishes? Answer to the first part of the question is definitively 'NO' as he may leave the ball where it is and play from that spot by accepting an additional penalty for not replacing the ball. The second part of the question is the key in my mind: If the player wishes to proceed by using Rule 28 will he then sort of renounce his right for application of e.g. Dec 20-3a/3. Naturally in this case above Ben is acting foolishly and a question of renouncing rights or something like that would propably be very academic. However, a correct answer to my question would most likely be the key for solving this case.

[Fourputt]

Ok...1 penalty stroke under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Since the original ball is not immediately recoverable, another ball can be substituted. If the lie has been altered then the ball must be placed in the nearest similar spot. If the spot cannot be determined then the ball must be dropped . In this case I'd think that the spot was determinable, so in dropping he breached 18-2 and did not correct the error as allowed under 20-6 resulting in playing from a wrong place (Rule 20-7) (two penalty strokes).

In the end, because of the way that the rules are applied, he would only incur 2 penalty strokes for playing from a wrong place. He breached 2 rules with a single act (dropping when he should have placed, and dropping in a wrong place without correcting the error), so he only gets charged with one penalty there. (Decision 1-4/12). Had he lifted the ball under Rule 20-6 and proceeded correctly he would have incurred only one penalty stroke for moving the ball in the first place. In this case that stroke for failing to replace the ball is absorbed into the 2 strokes for playing from a wrong place and he plays out the hole with that ball. Tee shot - 1 shot to the green - 2 putts - 3 and 4 playing from a wrong place - 2 penalty strtokes Total 6. If Rule 28 applies for deeming the ball unplayable, then he should incur the 2 strokes for again not replacing the ball, as well as an additional penalty under Rule 28. In that case he would make a 7 on the hole, but I'm honestly not certain in this case. Since he did proceed under a rule where he is the sole judge (Rule 28), that may take precedence over 20-7 in this case, but he can't avoid the penalty for breach of 18-2 when he moved his ball in play. I'm just not certain if Rule 28 can be applied before he replaces the ball after moving it. By not replacing the ball, he has to incur the general penalty under 18-2 of 2 strokes. The penalty statement for Rule 18 seems fairly clear that he incurs the general penalty.

*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 a stroke 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.

Was this an actual incident, or is this a hypothetical scenario? If real this guy needs to bone up on his rules knowledge. If he had a clue he wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. He'd have incurred a 1 stroke penalty for moving his ball, replaced it on the original spot with a substitute ball when he couldn't reach the original, then played on with must a one stroke penalty. A player with just a general working knowledge of rules procedures never gets into such a situation.

[iacas]

So, it seems the answer is 8.

1 – 18-2a
1 – 28c
2 – General Penalty under Rule 28 for playing from a wrong place without a serious breach.

Some other relevant decisions are 18-2a/21, 21.3 and 21.5.

I think this assumes that the drop took place more than two clublengths away from the initial spot (or best estimate). That's what the wording implies to me, though Ignorant should have taken care to clarify that as I believe it could change the answer from 8 to 6.

I'll back that up later. Just thought I'd put it up for discussion first.

[Fourputt]

So, it seems the answer is 8.

You wouldn't get the penalty for both 18-2 and 20-7. In that case 20-7 takes precedence and you only get the 2 strokes for playing from a wrong place. That aspect I'm certain of.

It's either going to be a 6 or a 7... I don't see any way it can be higher than that. My only area of doubt is whether the unplayable declaration is allowed for a ball which is already required to be replaced. I think that he is proceeding under an inapplicable rule when he declares the ball unplayable, and thus only incurs the penalty under 20-7 for not playing from the correct place. You might check your sources and see what they say. Since this has not been confirmed as a genuine on course situation, I'm not going to put it up to the USGA. They don't like it when you submit hypotheticals.

[iacas]

You wouldn't get the penalty for both 18-2 and 20-7. In that case 20-7 takes precedence and you only get the 2 strokes for playing from a wrong place. That aspect I'm certain of.

And the rules official that answered the question would tell you, I believe, that you're wrong about that aspect. I'll give you a hint, Rick: it's about whether the unplayable is a direct consequence...

Since this has not been confirmed as a genuine on course situation, I'm not going to put it up to the USGA. They don't like it when you submit hypotheticals.

I've asked a USGA guy, and I've given his answers. He's gotten several 100s on the quizzes and has been a Rules official for quite some time. Fourputt, I'm surprised you don't read his site.

[Fourputt]

And the rules official that answered the question would tell you, I believe, that you're wrong about that aspect. I'll give you a hint, Rick: it's about whether the unplayable is a direct consequence...

Without a hint, I don't even know what site that would be.

I'm still having trouble seeing how he incurs more than 3 penalty strokes. The most I can see is either 2 for not replacing the ball plus 1 for the unplayable lie; or 2 for playing from a wrong place, but with no other penalty applied. But I'm willing to believe anything on such a weird scenario as this was. I hope I never see anyone do anything this dumb on the course. The requirement for replacing the ball anytime you move it, whether under penalty or not, is so basic that I really don't see how any reasonably experienced player course make such a mistake. By the way, I will be working as a RO in some CGA tournaments this year, so I hope to gain some real on course experience in this. From what I've seen so far in my time in the game, most on course issues never get this obtuse.

[iacas]

I'm still having trouble seeing how he incurs more than 3 penalty strokes. The most I can see is either 2 for not replacing the ball plus 1 for the unplayable lie; or 2 for playing from a wrong place, but with no other penalty applied.

1 for unplayable. 1 for 1 for kicking your ball. 2 for playing from the wrong place.

[Fourputt]

1 for unplayable. 1 for 1 for kicking your ball. 2 for playing from the wrong place.

How is it then playing from the wrong place? He said the the drop spot was "exactly" 2 clublengths from both the original lie and from the unplayable lie. That seems to make it a correct drop for Rule 28. The whole thing is just confusing. If I was the RO on the spot, I'd have a better chance of determining the actual facts of the case from the parties involved. As I read the setup, the drop was ok for Rule 28, but I just don't know if it was proper to apply that rule at the time.

I admit to being confused when weird and unlikely scenarios are presented. I simply don't know what rule takes precedence in this case. Can the unplayable declaration cancel out the necessity of replacing the ball after being kicked? If so, then it should be only one stroke for moving the ball and one for the unplayable, assuming that the drop at "exactly 2 club lengths" was in fact within the 2 clublengths allowed. He makes 6. Now I think I'm going to go beat my head against the wall.

[iacas]

How is it then playing from the wrong place? He said the the drop spot was "exactly" 2 clublengths from both the original lie and from the unplayable lie.

That's why I wrote this:

I think this assumes that the drop took place more than two clublengths away from the initial spot (or best estimate). That's what the wording implies to me, though Ignorant should have taken care to clarify that as I believe it could change the answer from 8 to 6.

That's how I read it, and how the rules official read it too.

Dropping "exactly" two clublengths away from both the spot where the ball was in the rocks AND the original spot (which he never said was determined) is literally one point where the arcs would meet, not an area. That makes it unlikely. So it's 6 or 8.

Can the unplayable declaration cancel out the necessity of replacing the ball after being kicked?

No, it can't.

Here you go, Fourputt: http://freedrop.wordpress.com/2010/0...ed-unplayable/ .

[Ignorant]

Good discussion, I like this!

What I meant in my original text was that Ben dropped his ball further away from the original location, i.e. more than 2 club lengths from it. Sorry for not having been precise. On the other hand, this way both options were dealt with.

So the key question was answered although not IMO supported enough by Rules or Decisions (maybe this can still be done?): Erik wrote that the unplayable declaration canNOTcancel out the necessity of replacing the ball after being kicked. This makes all the difference as the location of the ball after it had been kicked is irrelevant and thus the solution depends on whether Ben happens to drop the ball within or outside those 2 club lengths from the original position of his ball.

I could well buy this explanation.

[Jay-Bird]

'Ben' did not need to use Rule 28 at all. His 'unplayable ball' was unplayable a result of the kick - not a stroke -, the ball isn't unplayable at all , it's to be replaced per rule 18-2a.

He's not taking an unplayable...

Rule 28 has no relevance here. The fact that his kicked ball ended up in an unplayable situation is irrelevant.
He is NOT going to play the ball in the rocks as unplayable - because rule 18-2a says that he must replace the ball in its original place.
Under rule 18-2a the ball that was illegally moved doesn't have to be recoverable. A new ball my substituted for the unrecoverable ball without penalty.

He is NOT penalized for rule 28 for playing an unplayable...He's not playing the original ball as unplayable, he's proceeding under rule 18-2a only - the fact that his ball was not replaced in the original spot and he played from the wrong spot is penalized - two strokes.

Three total penalty strokes.