Testing the break?

[the chunker]

Would it be illegal to test the break of the green by rolling a quarter and which ever way the quarter falls to is the way it is going to break? Thanks for your help

[iacas]

  the chunker said:

Originally Posted by the chunker

Would it be illegal to test the break of the green by rolling a quarter and which ever way the quarter falls to is the way it is going to break?

Thanks for your help

Absolutely illegal yes.

And dumb too since it could easily hit an imperfection and fall uphill.

[the chunker]

Thanks I just wanted to make sure because I was playing with someone who did it and I had no clue as to if it was illegal or not. It didn't really help him either as he was a pretty bad putter.

[Motown88]

I don't see how this could be beneficial, or why someone would want to do this.

[fireman1153]

  Motown88 said:

Originally Posted by Motown88

I don't see how this could be beneficial, or why someone would want to do this.

+1

[Ignorant]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

Absolutely illegal yes.

Agree it is a breach, but of which Rule? Would that be 14-3, use of an equipment in an unusual manner?

[Fourputt]

A case might be made for 16-1d too.

[Ignorant]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

A case might be made for 16-1d too.

How? Rolling a coin is not roughening or scraping the surface, nor rolling a ball.

d. Testing Surface
During the stipulated round, a player must not test the surface of any putting
green by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface.

[Rulesman]

14-3 rings the bell

[Fourputt]

  Ignorant said:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

How? Rolling a coin is not roughening or scraping the surface, nor rolling a ball.

d. Testing Surface

During the stipulated round, a player must not test the surface of any putting

green by rolling a ball or roughening or scraping the surface.

Just because you aren't doing exactly as they suggest doesn't mean that you aren't still testing the surface.  Most such rules are stated in generic terms, then clarified in the decisions if the need arises.  For instance, would any sort of a ball be a breach of 16-1d?  A basketball - an American football?  Or would that slop over into 14-3 as unusual equipment?  Using a coin is such a silly thing to do that it has never actually been tested in way that would bring it before a rules committee.

[Rulesman]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Just because you aren't doing exactly as they suggest doesn't mean that you aren't still testing the surface.  Most such rules are stated in generic terms, then clarified in the decisions if the need arises.  For instance, would any sort of a ball be a breach of 16-1d?  A basketball - an American football?  Or would that slop over into 14-3 as unusual equipment?  Using a coin is such a silly thing to do that it has never actually been tested in way that would bring it before a rules committee.

Most rules are stated in specific terms.

16-1d is specific.

As is 14-3. The use of anything which is not approved to artificial device including a basketball t hat might assist him in making a stroke or in his play or f or the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play.

[Ignorant]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Just because you aren't doing exactly as they suggest doesn't mean that you aren't still testing the surface.  Most such rules are stated in generic terms, then clarified in the decisions if the need arises.  For instance, would any sort of a ball be a breach of 16-1d?  A basketball - an American football?  Or would that slop over into 14-3 as unusual equipment?  Using a coin is such a silly thing to do that it has never actually been tested in way that would bring it before a rules committee.

  Rulesman said:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Most rules are stated in specific terms.

16-1d is specific.

As is 14-3. The use of anything which is not approved to artificial device including a basketball that might assist him in making a stroke or in his play or for the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play.

I agree with Rulesman, 14-3 (as I proposed earlier) is the appropriate Rule, not 16-1d. A breach of Rules anyway.

[zeg]

  Ignorant said:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

I agree with Rulesman, 14-3 (as I proposed earlier) is the appropriate Rule, not 16-1d. A breach of Rules anyway.

I think so, 14-3 certainly covers it. If 14-3 didn't exist, I think we could fairly apply 16-1d, using Equity to argue that a coin is not "different enough" from a ball to make it a legitimate act, but it's not necessary. (Also, since 16-1d says "a ball" and not "a golf ball," I think it already specifically covers basketballs, footballs, etc.)

In any case, we all agree it's illegal.

[Fourputt]

  zeg said:

Originally Posted by zeg

I think so, 14-3 certainly covers it. If 14-3 didn't exist, I think we could fairly apply 16-1d, using Equity to argue that a coin is not "different enough" from a ball to make it a legitimate act, but it's not necessary. (Also, since 16-1d says "a ball" and not "a golf ball," I think it already specifically covers basketballs, footballs, etc.)

In any case, we all agree it's illegal.

Let us at least be in agreement that rolling a football would be as stupid as rolling a coin.

[zeg]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Let us at least be in agreement that rolling a football would be as stupid as rolling a coin.

Yes. Now, tumbleweeds... can I get a ruling on using tumbleweeds?

[Sonny217]

Wait.......An American or European football?  How about a jelly bean? I've got 14,387 Hot Wheels all over my house, maybe one of those would be ok?

[Ignorant]

  zeg said:

Originally Posted by zeg

I think so, 14-3 certainly covers it. If 14-3 didn't exist, I think we could fairly apply 16-1d, using Equity to argue that a coin is not "different enough" from a ball to make it a legitimate act, but it's not necessary. (Also, since 16-1d says "a ball" and not "a golf ball," I think it already specifically covers basketballs, footballs, etc.)

In any case, we all agree it's illegal.

Sorry Zeg, but RoG define 'a ball' accurately to be a golf ball conforming with the Rules.

[zeg]

  Ignorant said:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Sorry Zeg, but RoG define 'a ball' accurately to be a golf ball conforming with the Rules.

Ah, ok. I wondered whether that was true as I wrote it, but figured someone would step in so I didn't bother checking. Thanks.