Relief from contoured slope leading into drainage grate?

[Rulesman]

As this is not a simple ruling but relates to a situation not covered by the rules or decisions, your association would almost certainly go to the USGA for advice anyway. They cannot make that sort of decision.

Just go to

http://www.usga.org/rules/contact/Contact-Us/

I an outside the USGA area so they won't respond to me.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I would still play 2 balls.  That is what is required under Rule 3-3, and trying to shortcut it can only lead to problems.

But what if pace of play was an issue and the player was able to make a single drop that was legal under both rules?  Seems like it would be more efficient to just play out the 1 ball.  Can`t you just ask for a ruling after the fact and then fill in your score based on the ruling (and not actually proceed under 3-3)?

[Rulesman]

See Decisions 3-3/11 & 3-3/12

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-03/#3-3/11

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-03/#3-3/12

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

As this is not a simple ruling but relates to a situation not covered by the rules or decisions, your association would almost certainly go to the USGA for advice anyway. They cannot make that sort of decision.

Just go to

http://www.usga.org/rules/contact/Contact-Us/

I an outside the USGA area so they won't respond to me.

OK, I set it to them as well.  For the record, here is what I sent:

The format is match play

Player A's ball is away, and is on the edge, of but not in, a  bunker.

Player's B ball is in the same bunker.

There is a large branch lying partly in the bunker and partly outside of the bunker that interferes with both balls.

Since Player A's ball is outside of the bunker he is entitled to move the branch without penalty.

Question 1:  If Player A moves the branch so that it does not interfere with his ball but also no longer interferes with Player B's ball, must player B replace the branch before playing his shot, since he was not entitled to relief from the loose impediment?

Question 2: If player A moves the branch so that it does not interfere with his ball but still interferes with Player B's ball:

a) is it correct that Player B has the option of putting the branch back where it was originally, since he is entitled to the lie he he originally before Player A moved the branch?

b) Did Player A breach any rule by moving the branch so that it no longer interfered with his ball but still interfered with Player B's ball?

I would also be interested in your thoughts should such a situation arise in a stroke play tournament, regarding Player A's responsibility to protect the field in how he proceeds.

Thank you.

[Rulesman]

Looking forward to their response.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I would still play 2 balls.  That is what is required under Rule 3-3, and trying to shortcut it can only lead to problems.

But what if pace of play was an issue and the player was able to make a single drop that was legal under both rules?  Seems like it would be more efficient to just play out the 1 ball.  Can`t you just ask for a ruling after the fact and then fill in your score based on the ruling (and not actually proceed under 3-3)?

It's still not a good move.  See Rulesman's post under yours.  You could put yourself in a position where you end up under Rule 28 regardless of the correctness of your drop.  If the ball rolls back in a condition of interference and you redrop, then the committee rules against relief under Rule 24, then you have redropped when it wasn't allowed and you face not only the one stroke penalty under Rule 28, but an additional 2 strokes for playing from a wrong place after the redrop.

It's been my experience that trying to shortcut the rules usually gets you in trouble.  Unless you are a total klutz, playing a second ball under Rule 3-3 for part of one hole isn't going to kill your pace of play that badly as long as you don't take too long making the decision to do so.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It's been my experience that trying to shortcut the rules usually gets you in trouble.  Unless you are a total klutz, playing a second ball under Rule 3-3 for part of one hole isn't going to kill your pace of play that badly as long as you don't take too long making the decision to do so.

Sure, if it is a sprinkler on the fringe, playing two balls won`t slow you much, but if it was a second shot on a par 5 and you end up hitting one of the balls in some long native grass and then have to play a provisional and do a search, (or any number of other things) it could slow you down.  I have a tendency of over correcting misses, so if I was walking and had one ball left and one ball right, I would certainly be a bit slower.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It's been my experience that trying to shortcut the rules usually gets you in trouble.  Unless you are a total klutz, playing a second ball under Rule 3-3 for part of one hole isn't going to kill your pace of play that badly as long as you don't take too long making the decision to do so.

Sure, if it is a sprinkler on the fringe, playing two balls won`t slow you much, but if it was a second shot on a par 5 and you end up hitting one of the balls in some long native grass and then have to play a provisional and do a search, (or any number of other things) it could slow you down.  I have a tendency of over correcting misses, so if I was walking and had one ball left and one ball right, I would certainly be a bit slower.

But it's only ONE hole.  If you can't lose a couple of minutes on one hole, then catch back up with the field, you need to work on your shot routine.   I've been in situations many times in the 22 years I played in tournaments where for whatever reason we lost pace.  All you usually have to do is pick it up for the next hole or so and you will be back with the pack.  For me, pace of play is rarely a motivating factor in such a situation because I know that getting back in position isn't that difficult.  I'm rarely off the required time pace even after finishing a hole where we had a ball search or 3-3 situation.  The key is not to be out of position when there is no good reason for it.  Then you have time to properly address those occasions where it is necessary.

In the end, it's your choice.  If you'd rather risk a penalty in favor of a brief loss of pace, then go for it.  There really isn't any other option.

[Rulesman]

If there is really a PoP problem (ie you are on the clock or have been warned) then referee will give due allowance for playing two balls, searching etc as these are your rights under the rules.

[rogolf]

Pace of play is important, but seems to have become a common excuse for not playing by the Rules, viz,

- not using stroke and distance

- not taking the opportunity for 3-3

- not putting out

- not correcting serious breach

As correctly stated above, officials will make allowances in a group's pace for situations of following the Rules, but there is also an expectation to regain any lost time.  Many players do not have a second gear!

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by rogolf

Pace of play is important, but seems to have become a common excuse for not playing by the Rules, viz,

- not using stroke and distance

- not taking the opportunity for 3-3

- not putting out

- not correcting serious breach

As correctly stated above, officials will make allowances in a group's pace for situations of following the Rules, but there is also an expectation to regain any lost time.  Many players do not have a second gear!

I think you are right...one thing that I have seen commented on a lot is how CONSISTENTLY some of the better athletes in the world do things whether it be exactly 3 dribbles before shooting a free throw or a pre-shot routine that is always the same.  I know that I found it difficult to successfully adjust gears this season when I got stuck behind a slow group for a few hole who then let us play through.

[rogolf]

It's unfortunate that TV does not show PGA Tour players between shots, because they really move quickly.  For instance, in a one hundred yard walk, I'd finish 20 yards behind Mickelson or Ben Crane.  The latter is well known as being a slow player on Tour, and his pre-shot routine is very slow, but he does have a second/third gear that allows him to get back into position quickly once notified or warned.  While in position with respect to the group in front, players can take as much time on their pre-shot routine as they wish, and that's what we see on TV.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

Pace of play is important, but seems to have become a common excuse for not playing by the Rules, viz,

- not using stroke and distance

- not taking the opportunity for 3-3

- not putting out

- not correcting serious breach

As correctly stated above, officials will make allowances in a group's pace for situations of following the Rules, but there is also an expectation to regain any lost time.  Many players do not have a second gear!

I think you are right...one thing that I have seen commented on a lot is how CONSISTENTLY some of the better athletes in the world do things whether it be exactly 3 dribbles before shooting a free throw or a pre-shot routine that is always the same.  I know that I found it difficult to successfully adjust gears this season when I got stuck behind a slow group for a few hole who then let us play through.

My preshot routine is thorough, but never takes more than 30 seconds from arrival to shot on the way unless I'm waiting on someone else.  I have no trouble with playing slower aside from just not liking the slow pace.  It no longer affects my overall game because I've learned to deal with it.  I don't stand there tapping my foot or cursing or trying to stare them down.  I look away, chat with my companions, anything but think about the shot I'm waiting to make.  Once the way is almost clear, I start my routine and by the time I hit, they are gone.  Golf is a game of adjustment, and if a player can't adjust, he is never going to reach his full potential.

Generally with the guys I play with, when we need to accelerate the pace, we don't play any faster, but we just don't wait on each other or worry about honor.  Except on the green, there may be 2 or 3 balls in flight at once.  Sort of like ready golf on steroids.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Looking forward to their response.

I got a response but I am conflicted about talking about it.  At the bottom of the response it says the following:

This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting.

I will just mention that in the part of the response directed to my second question Rule 1-2 was cited with particular attention drawn to Exception 1.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by turtleback

This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting.

OT:

But it can be handwritten on a letter or printed on a newspaper?

I wonder if this actually is binding.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I got a response but I am conflicted about talking about it.  At the bottom of the response it says the following:

This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting.

I will just mention that in the part of the response directed to my second question Rule 1-2 was cited with particular attention drawn to Exception 1.

If you take that disclosure that literally you will not be able to use the info received in any situation as you would have to reveal the content.

Wake up! That disclosure is a standard one and means that you must not distribute or publish the statement you have received but you may always discuss it and reveal the content of it. This is how I have always dealt with the answers from R&A; with their consent, and even in some rare occasions quoted their answer in writing, again with their special permission case-by-case. How else the help and guidance they give would be distributed??

Afa your questions are concerned, it is my firm belief that if a player improves his opponent's or fellow-competitor's lie unintentinally the opponent or fc is not required to worsen the lie back to it's original state.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

I got a response but I am conflicted about talking about it.  At the bottom of the response it says the following:

This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting.

I will just mention that in the part of the response directed to my second question Rule 1-2 was cited with particular attention drawn to Exception 1.

If you take that disclosure that literally you will not be able to use the info received in any situation as you would have to reveal the content.

Wake up! That disclosure is a standard one and means that you must not distribute or publish the statement you have received but you may always discuss it and reveal the content of it. This is how I have always dealt with the answers from R&A; with their consent, and even in some rare occasions quoted their answer in writing, again with their special permission case-by-case. How else the help and guidance they give would be distributed??

Afa your questions are concerned, it is my firm belief that if a player improves his opponent's or fellow-competitor's lie unintentinally the opponent or fc is not required to worsen the lie back to it's original state.

Yes... this.  I've had a number of questions answered over the years and never had an issue using them in a forum.  They aren't going to hunt you down or blacklist you for sharing the information.  After all, in this respect, they are in the business of providing this information - it's what they do.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I got a response but I am conflicted about talking about it.  At the bottom of the response it says the following:

This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting.

I will just mention that in the part of the response directed to my second question Rule 1-2 was cited with particular attention drawn to Exception 1.

I get those too.  Up to you......and I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be perfectly fine to rule on the question at hand in your own words.  No need to specifically cite any communications from the USGA.  Let's face it, your gaining education on the rules.  Obviously, you are going to use this information in the future, that's the hole point of the USGA answering rules questions in the first place..