Ball falls off the tee after a missed stroke

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he must under penalty of one stroke:

a. Play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is

dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped; or

c. Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole.

All of these options require the player to touch and lift his ball and drop/place it on another location.

How do you come to that conclusion? Rule 15-2 states: "A player may substitute a ball when proceeding under a rule that permits the player to play, drop or place another ball in completing the play of a hole."

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Status of the ball in this case can be seen very relevant as it is a solid thing pointing out that player cannot be absolved from playing from wrong place just by deciding aftwerwards he has teed a new ball.

The ball continues to be in play, no one is arguing otherwise.  But you are misunderstanding the application of the rules.  I'm not saying he is "absolved from playing from wrong place," I am saying that the same acts can be interpreted under different rules.  There is no absolution necessary.

Quote:

It is said quite clearly in R28:

If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he must under penalty of one stroke:
a. Play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b. Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is
dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped; or
c. Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole.

All of these options require the player to touch and lift his ball and drop/place it on another location. What you MAY do is use stroke and distance (so R27-1 instead of R28a) without moving your ball but that would be extremely stupid and nobody will ever do it.

No they most decidedly do NOT require this, at least, not unless you inject some interpretation that I haven't seen justification for.  Under a., when you're on the teeing ground, the only requirement is that you play from the teeing ground (see the long discussion of 20-5 above if you don't remember it).  In other locations, then yes, you do have to drop or place, which means you have to lift.  Rules 27-1 and 28 really say exactly the same thing if you play under stroke and distance.

Following Zeph's suggestion, look at the facts as they stand.  Aside from whether an act is a stroke, none of the rules we're talking about require that you offer any explanation, only that you act according to permitted procedures, so what you believe or what you say to your playing partners is irrelevant.

1. Stroke at the original teed ball, but completely miss.

2. Bump the ball from the tee in an act that is not a stroke.

3. Stroke at the ball from where it came to rest, also on the teeing ground.

Action 1 is, of course permitted, and counts the first stroke [score=1].

Action 2 incurs a penalty stroke for moving a ball at rest, and the ball must be replaced [score=2].

Action 3 could most obviously be interpreted as playing from a wrong place because the ball was not replaced.  However, Rule 27-1a could be applied instead if all its requirements are met.  These are "At any time" (which is obviously met), and that he "play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played."  The "spot" is the location the ball should be replaced to, i.e., where it was bumped from.  There is no need to actually replace it, however, because the decision that was quoted a couple times above says that you do not need to replace a ball if you are going to proceed under stroke and distance.  So now, under 20-5, "as nearly as possible..." refers to any location on the teeing ground, so playing the ball where it lies is acceptable.  Thus, you take the one-stroke penalty under 27-1 [score=3] and make the stroke [score=4].

That's my last attempt to explain my reasoning, and I think this is both completely legal and the best interpretation of events (i.e., gives the lowest acceptable score).  I think I've explained why every action is permitted under the rules, so if you want to dispute this, you need to be able to point out what step was not permitted.

Also, looking through the rules more, I think the "wrong place" approach gives a score of 5 because I don't see the reason for waiving the penalty for moving the ball.  In Decision 1-4/12, under point 4,

Quote:

This would result in a single one-stroke penalty under Rule 19-2 (See Decision 19-2/1.5 ). If the ball is not replaced before the competitor makes his next stroke, the failure to replace the ball is considered a separate act and he incurs an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 18-2a .

The situation was different, but it seems to me that by analogy, the 2-stroke penalty for wrong place would not absorb the 1-stroke penalty for the bump.  However, I haven't looked through this in detail so a correction (with citation to rule or decision) would be appreciated.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by zeg

Action 1 is, of course permitted, and counts the first stroke [score=1].

Action 2 incurs a penalty stroke for moving a ball at rest, and the ball must be replaced [score=2].

Action 3 could most obviously be interpreted as playing from a wrong place because the ball was not replaced.  However, Rule 27-1a could be applied instead if all its requirements are met.  These are "At any time" (which is obviously met), and that he "play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played."  The "spot" is the location the ball should be replaced to, i.e., where it was bumped from.  There is no need to actually replace it, however, because the decision that was quoted a couple times above says that you do not need to replace a ball if you are going to proceed under stroke and distance.  So now, under 20-5, "as nearly as possible..." refers to any location on the teeing ground, so playing the ball where it lies is acceptable.  Thus, you take the one-stroke penalty under 27-1 [score=3] and make the stroke [score=4].

Even though a player is entitled to invoke R27-1 at any time it is not always so that a player may go behind it even when he does not know he is invoking it. In this particular case there is no difference to the score but it is not always so. Normally a player must justify his acts when they are disputed. There are various examples of this in the Decision Book.

Originally Posted by zeg

Also, looking through the rules more, I think the "wrong place" approach gives a score of 5 because I don't see the reason for waiving the penalty for moving the ball.  In Decision 1-4/12, under point 4,

The situation was different, but it seems to me that by analogy, the 2-stroke penalty for wrong place would not absorb the 1-stroke penalty for the bump.  However, I haven't looked through this in detail so a correction (with citation to rule or decision) would be appreciated.

Dec 1-4/12 has nothing to do with this case. The player gets a general penalty of R18 which is in total 2 penalties instead of 1+2. Pls. read that Rule carefully and supporting Decisions, if necessary.

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Even though a player is entitled to invoke R27-1 at any time it is not always so that a player may go behind it even when he does not know he is invoking it. In this particular case there is no difference to the score but it is not always so. Normally a player must justify his acts when they are disputed. There are various examples of this in the Decision Book.

Again, I don't understand why you would say "it is not always so that a player may go behind it even when he does not know he is invoking it." A player does not need to know why his actions are permitted, the only relevant question is whether the steps he took are permitted under the rules. If there is a dispute, sure, he'll be better off if he can explain his actions, but his only responsibility is to turn in a valid score for each hole. If the score is legal under any correct interpretation of the rules, then it would be an error for the committee to decide otherwise even if the golfer cannot provide that interpretation.

Quote:

Dec 1-4/12 has nothing to do with this case. The player gets a general penalty of R18 which is in total 2 penalties instead of 1+2. Pls. read that Rule carefully and supporting Decisions, if necessary.

Thanks, I knew 1-4/12 wasn't directly applicable, but hadn't figured out what the difference was.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by zeg

Again, I don't understand why you would say "it is not always so that a player may go behind it even when he does not know he is invoking it." A player does not need to know why his actions are permitted, the only relevant question is whether the steps he took are permitted under the rules. If there is a dispute, sure, he'll be better off if he can explain his actions, but his only responsibility is to turn in a valid score for each hole. If the score is legal under any correct interpretation of the rules, then it would be an error for the committee to decide otherwise even if the golfer cannot provide that interpretation.

A correct score is naturally a requirement but in order to mark a correct score on his score card player needs to know which penalties he has suffered.

Just quickly I dug up an example where player is invoking a Rule that is not permitted but he could have done with less penalties if he had invoked the correct Rule. It is not of 27-1 but gives an idea how a player needs to know which Rule to invoke:

18-2a/3  Ball Lifted and Dropped Away from Boundary Stake Under Obstruction Rule

Q. A player's swing is interfered with by a stake defining out of bounds. The player mistakenly considers the stake an obstruction and he lifts his ball and drops it in the manner prescribed in Rule 24-2b . What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a and he must replace his ball before playing his next stroke. Otherwise, he loses the hole in match play or he incurs a total penalty of two strokes in stroke play — see penalty statement under Rule 18.

Here the player should have invoked R28 but invoked 24-2b instead. Now, after having invoked an incorrect Rule he incurs one penalty more than what he would have had he invoked a correct Rule in the first place. In this case the player gets a penalty for moving his ball in play when not permitted and an additional penalty if he decides to invoke R28 or to play his ball where it lies. Note that the player cannot shake the penalty from R18-2b even if he changed his mind after having lifted his ball and realized he should have invoked R28 in the first place.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

A correct score is naturally a requirement but in order to mark a correct score on his score card player needs to know which penalties he has suffered.

Just quickly I dug up an example where player is invoking a Rule that is not permitted but he could have done with less penalties if he had invoked the correct Rule. It is not of 27-1 but gives an idea how a player needs to know which Rule to invoke:

18-2a/3  Ball Lifted and Dropped Away from Boundary Stake Under Obstruction Rule

Q. A player's swing is interfered with by a stake defining out of bounds. The player mistakenly considers the stake an obstruction and he lifts his ball and drops it in the manner prescribed in Rule 24-2b. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a and he must replace his ball before playing his next stroke. Otherwise, he loses the hole in match play or he incurs a total penalty of two strokes in stroke play — see penalty statement under Rule 18.

Here the player should have invoked R28 but invoked 24-2b instead. Now, after having invoked an incorrect Rule he incurs one penalty more than what he would have had he invoked a correct Rule in the first place. In this case the player gets a penalty for moving his ball in play when not permitted and an additional penalty if he decides to invoke R28 or to play his ball where it lies. Note that the player cannot shake the penalty from R18-2b even if he changed his mind after having lifted his ball and realized he should have invoked R28 in the first place.

Good find.  I knew that this example was there someplace, but I haven't had time to dig it up.  Maybe we can put this one to rest now.

[ND Fan]

I think John J. should take up Tennis... had he never played golf we wouldn't be discussing the irrelevant circumstance.

Does it matter? If John is capable of such shit he probably shot 103 and what the difference between 103 and 106?

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

18-2a/3  Ball Lifted and Dropped Away from Boundary Stake Under Obstruction Rule

Q. A player's swing is interfered with by a stake defining out of bounds. The player mistakenly considers the stake an obstruction and he lifts his ball and drops it in the manner prescribed in Rule 24-2b. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a and he must replace his ball before playing his next stroke. Otherwise, he loses the hole in match play or he incurs a total penalty of two strokes in stroke play — see penalty statement under Rule 18.

Here the player should have invoked R28 but invoked 24-2b instead. Now, after having invoked an incorrect Rule he incurs one penalty more than what he would have had he invoked a correct Rule in the first place. In this case the player gets a penalty for moving his ball in play when not permitted and an additional penalty if he decides to invoke R28 or to play his ball where it lies. Note that the player cannot shake the penalty from R18-2b even if he changed his mind after having lifted his ball and realized he should have invoked R28 in the first place.

While that's a good ruling to know, it doesn't directly address the situation here.  Under 24-2b, the player is taking a drop near the point where his ball lies---he is not returning to the location of the previous stroke.  He would first have to make a stroke at the ball in its position near the OB stake for this to be an equivalent circumstance.

So I would say that this seems to confirm that to apply R28, you must affirmatively "deem" the ball unplayable, something that was unclear to me.  Given the language of R27, though, there's nothing to declare or deem, except that the rules deem you to have played under the rule if you take a certain action.  (edit: I do note that the procedures for R28 and 24-2b are not the same, as one is 1 club length from the nearest relief, the other 2 club lengths from the spot of the ball, so there's still some room for ambiguity if the procedure met both requirements.  I think it's better not to get into that, because I think it's fair to say that "deem" means you must do something affirmative)

In any case, thanks for the discussion, even if we aren't going to agree on the details, we do agree on the score, and I have definitely learned a few things.