Rules question: Striking at a mushroom

[Fourputt]

  Ignorant said:

I am not buying that so let us enlarge the concept a bit.

First of all, you should have taken the time to identify what you were swinging at. You are required to identify your ball even when it's in a bunker or other hazard, so you were remiss in not doing so. Then you compounded your mistake by testing the hazard and incurred a 2 stroke penalty for doing so. You still did not make a stroke though, because you there was no ball there.

[ilikefishes]

  Fourputt said:

First of all, you should have taken the time to identify what you were swinging at. You are required to identify your ball even when it's in a bunker or other hazard, so you were remiss in not doing so. Then you compounded your mistake by testing the hazard and incurred a 2 stroke penalty for doing so. You still did not make a stroke though, because you there was no ball there.

I am pretty sure you are mistaken and it is only a one (1) shot penalty. I could be wrong but don't think that I am. Testing a hazard is a one shot penalty.

[iacas]

  ilikefishes said:

I am pretty sure you are mistaken and it is only a one (1) shot penalty. I could be wrong but don't think that I am. Testing a hazard is a one shot penalty.

Source: 13-4 Penalty For Breach of Rule: Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

The Rules of Golf are available online. Look things up next time please. http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules...and-Decisions/

[Ignorant]

  Fourputt said:

First of all, you should have taken the time to identify what you were swinging at. You are required to identify your ball even when it's in a bunker or other hazard, so you were remiss in not doing so. Then you compounded your mistake by testing the hazard and incurred a 2 stroke penalty for doing so. You still did not make a stroke though, because you there was no ball there.

Let us be precise. A player is not

required to identify his ball by the Rules. However, if a player fails to do so and playes with a wrong ball he incurs a penalty. Furthermore, when we look at the definition of a stroke it says: 'A “stroke’’ is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball...' If a player believes that the object he is addressing is his ball and makes a swing at it, isn't he then swinging at it with the intention to strike his own ball? I mean, he is doing this in good faith and believing he would be striking his ball instead of another object. This is a tricky (and rare...) case and I have not yet made up my mind how I would rule it so I am just fishing more arguments and points of view.

[zeg]

  Ignorant said:

If a player believes that the object he is addressing is his ball and makes a swing at it, isn't he then swinging at it

Regardless of his belief of its identity, he very clearly intends to strike the object he's addressed. It is nonsense to claim that he really intended to hit a ball that was somewhere else.

Think of it this way. If you find a ball that you believe to be your own but you fail to identify it, then make a stroke, you don't get to claim, "I didn't intend to strike someone else's ball, I intended to strike my own," and escape having made a stroke. Clearly your intent was to hit the ball at your feet; that you were mistaken about its identity is irrelevant. In that case, because the object you intended to strike was a ball, it is a stroke at a wrong ball. There's no penalty for a stroke at a wrong mushroom, because indeed there is no such thing as a stroke at a mushroom.

[goblue107501]

  Ignorant said:

Let us be precise. A player is not

You highlighted the wrong part of the stroke sentence. The ball is the key part. The person took a stroke at a bottle cap, not a ball. They intended to hit a ball, but with no ball there, it wouldn't be a stroke. Whether or not they thought it was ball is irrelevant in making a stroke. They should have identified the thing the were swing at to avoid any confusion. You have the right to identify you ball no matter where it lies, so buried or not, it could, and should, be identified.

[iacas]

How is this conversation still going on?

Whether something is a ball is not a question of "belief" or "intent." It's a question of fact, plain and simple.

The player did not make a stroke because he did not make a stroke at "THE" ball or even "A" ball. He made a practice swing at a mushroom. That's allowed unless it improves the area of his stance or swing for his actual golf ball.

As for the guy in the bunker, he gets penalized for testing the condition, plain and simple. He could have identified his ball, but chose not to, and so he's penalized for testing the condition. If his ball was NOT in the bunker, then he didn't even do that (but he may have done something to his line of play).

[Ignorant]

  iacas said:

How is this conversation still going on?

It seems I need to yield in front of all these arguments and accept that Ollie should not have counted any penalty nor stroke after his adventure. No problem, I can do that as I was not convinced which route to take and wanted to get some reinforcing or new aspects. For that I thank all those having taken a serious approach on my case (which actually happened).

However, I would like to pick up two issues in Erik's answer in order to start another conversation. 1)

  iacas said:

Whether something is a ball is not a question of "belief" or "intent." It's a question of fact, plain and simple.

Dec 15/3 describes a situation where a player hits a part of a ball. That is not a ball as defined in the Rules and the player made his stroke in good belief. How does that relate to Erik's sentence above? Is a fractured piece of a ball really a ball as far as the Rules are concerned? Or is it a question of intent and belief?

2)

  iacas said:

l. He made a practice swing at a mushroom. That's allowed unless it improves the area of his stance or swing for his actual golf ball.

This is about practising. I would like to know what kind of objects a player is allowed to strike at in order not to practise in the meaning of Rule 7-2? Some years ago there was a decision forbidding hitting of pine cones but this decision has been withdrawn (situation actually took place in US Masters many years ago). Today decisions only take a stand on range balls and practise balls but how does it go with acorns, pine cones, mushrooms and oher similar objects if the player takes a stance, addresses the object and makes a swing at it? Is that practising or not?

[iacas]

  Ignorant said:

Dec 15/3 describes a situation where a player hits a part of a ball. That is not a ball as defined in the Rules and the player made his stroke in good belief. How does that relate to Erik's sentence above? Is a fractured piece of a ball really a ball as far as the Rules are concerned? Or is it a question of intent and belief?

It's still a ball. It's not a mushroom.

  Ignorant said:

This is about practising.

You're allowed to practice on the golf course so long as you don't hit a golf ball. Seems pretty clear to me.

C'mon, Ignorant, you're doing it again.

[Ignorant]

  iacas said:

You're allowed to practice on the golf course so long as you don't hit a golf ball. Seems pretty clear to me.

A plastic ball is not a golf ball, nor are any other devices designed to be used for practising (eg. Birdie Ball) and yet they are not allowed to be used on the course:

7-2/4 Hitting Plastic Ball Before Playing Ball in Play Q. During play of a hole, a player plays a stroke with a plastic ball before playing his ball in play. Is he in breach of Rule 7-2? A. Yes

[iacas]

  Ignorant said:

A plastic ball is not a golf ball, nor are any other devices designed to be used for practising (eg. Birdie Ball) and yet they are not allowed to be used on the course:

Because they're training aids.

Last time I checked in with common sense, a mushroom isn't a training aid. Enough's enough.