What's the play here?

[ghalfaire]

I read these and I don't see how you could call stopping and picking up the OP's ball accidental.  The original post made it sound like he stopped the ball and picked it up deliberately.  The fact that he thought it was his ball doesn't make this act accidental.  He should have been paying more attention to the game IMHO.  If I was playing I would say rule 1.2 applies.  So if match play he lost the hole and if stroke (metal) play he gets a two stroke penalty and had a 4 on the hole and the OP can replay the stroke from the original position.

Originally Posted by turtleback

Assuming you decide that it was accidental you have the option under 19.3 of canceling the stroke and replaying it, as nearly as possible from the original spot, or playing it as it lies.  No penalty on either side.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I read these and I don't see how you could call stopping and picking up the OP's ball accidental.  The original post made it sound like he stopped the ball and picked it up deliberately.  The fact that he thought it was his ball doesn't make this act accidental.  He should have been paying more attention to the game IMHO.  If I was playing I would say rule 1.2 applies.  So if match play he lost the hole and if stroke (metal) play he gets a two stroke penalty and had a 4 on the hole and the OP can replay the stroke from the original position.

Fair question.  I can see it either way, though.  Does anyone have an authoritative reference on how the USGA sees this one?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I read these and I don't see how you could call stopping and picking up the OP's ball accidental.  The original post made it sound like he stopped the ball and picked it up deliberately.  The fact that he thought it was his ball doesn't make this act accidental.  He should have been paying more attention to the game IMHO.  If I was playing I would say rule 1.2 applies.  So if match play he lost the hole and if stroke (metal) play he gets a two stroke penalty and had a 4 on the hole and the OP can replay the stroke from the original position.

You make a fair point.  But I was thinking accidental in the sense that he didn't know that he was stopping a fellow competitor or opponent's ball, he thought he was stopping a dead ball that had completed the hole.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I read these and I don't see how you could call stopping and picking up the OP's ball accidental.  The original post made it sound like he stopped the ball and picked it up deliberately.  The fact that he thought it was his ball doesn't make this act accidental.  He should have been paying more attention to the game IMHO.  If I was playing I would say rule 1.2 applies.  So if match play he lost the hole and if stroke (metal) play he gets a two stroke penalty and had a 4 on the hole and the OP can replay the stroke from the original position.

Originally Posted by turtleback

You make a fair point.  But I was thinking accidental in the sense that he didn't know that he was stopping a fellow competitor or opponent's ball, he thought he was stopping a dead ball that had completed the hole.

A tough call. Guy atcs as a blind horse but with all the best intentions. Should he be taught a lesson (to keep his mind on the game) by penalizing him according to 1-2 or let him off the hook by eguity? My hearty me says 1-4 but the other me says 1-2.

If we try to find some analogy from other situations, we may head the right way. What if it was match play and he had picked up his opponent's ball believing it was a stray ball? His beliefs would not change things, he would be penalized by 18-3b. So if we only look at the act instead of intentions we would head towards 1-2. However, sometimes intentions do play a role.

I would go for 1-2 and give the guy 2 penalties.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I read these and I don't see how you could call stopping and picking up the OP's ball accidental.  The original post made it sound like he stopped the ball and picked it up deliberately.  The fact that he thought it was his ball doesn't make this act accidental.  He should have been paying more attention to the game IMHO.  If I was playing I would say rule 1.2 applies.  So if match play he lost the hole and if stroke (metal) play he gets a two stroke penalty and had a 4 on the hole and the OP can replay the stroke from the original position.

1-2 applies if the player is deliberately influencing the movement of another player's ball .  This player thought that it was his ball which had been batted to him, thus 1-2 would not apply.  It would be unnecessarily harsh to penalize him for an innocent mistake.   Anyone who knows me here knows that I'm all for following the rules, but a penalty in this case is simply not warranted.  The rules are not there for the purpose of "teaching him a lesson".  They are for the purpose of telling how the game is played, and for maintaining equity when a rule is breached.  In this case I don't see a breach.  Every decision for Rule 1-2 uses the term "purposely".  Since there was no intent to influence a ball in play (he didn't know that it was another player's ball in play when he acted), I don't see how you can imply that there was purpose in this act.

In this case, he certainly gains nothing by unintentionally stopping a fellow competitor's ball from possibly rolling off the green.  Since he gains no potential advantage by his act, and since his intent was completely different from the actual result, I don't see how you can penalize his innocent act.  You are trying to make the rules punitive, which is never their intent.  A penalty is applied simply to cancel out any advantage the player might gain from a breach.  It isn't like he robbed a liquor store and must be imprisoned to be taught a lesson.  If a rule breach has the potential to give the player an advantage, then he must be penalized to cancel out any advantage he might have gained over his fellow competitors as a result of that breach.  Typically the breach must involve an intent to gain an advantage in order to invoke Rule 1-2.  Here there is no such intent or purpose, thus no penalty.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

1-2 applies if the player is deliberately influencing the movement of another player's ball.  This player thought that it was his ball which had been batted to him, thus 1-2 would not apply.  It would be unnecessarily harsh to penalize him for an innocent mistake.   Anyone who knows me here knows that I'm all for following the rules, but a penalty in this case is simply not warranted.  The rules are not there for the purpose of "teaching him a lesson".  They are for the purpose of telling how the game is played, and for maintaining equity when a rule is breached.  In this case I don't see a breach.  Every decision for Rule 1-2 uses the term "purposely".  Since there was no intent to influence a ball in play (he didn't know that it was another player's ball in play when he acted), I don't see how you can imply that there was purpose in this act.

In this case, he certainly gains nothing by unintentionally stopping a fellow competitor's ball from possibly rolling off the green.  Since he gains no potential advantage by his act, and since his intent was completely different from the actual result, I don't see how you can penalize his innocent act.  You are trying to make the rules punitive, which is never their intent.  A penalty is applied simply to cancel out any advantage the player might gain from a breach.  It isn't like he robbed a liquor store and must be imprisoned to be taught a lesson.  If a rule breach has the potential to give the player an advantage, then he must be penalized to cancel out any advantage he might have gained over his fellow competitors as a result of that breach.  Typically the breach must involve an intent to gain an advantage in order to invoke Rule 1-2.  Here there is no such intent or purpose, thus no penalty.

Excellent argumentation with a good in-depth view. Rick, you just made my 'hearty me' beat my 'punitive me' :-)

Thanks.