When is a ball officially lost?

[Ignorant]

Just one further comment.

How should one determine what is significant advantage? Or significant distance? Is significant distance 10 meters? 20? 50? 100? 200? What is the determining factor in drawing the line?

I cannot see any other possible way of determining it but does the player gain in strokes or not. Dropping the ball from behind a tree on the line towards the green is not a serious breach, Fourputt says, as there is no gain in distance. What if the ball is dropped in front of the tree but the potential gain in strokes would the the same? What makes the difference, distance or the gain in strokes?

[Ignorant]

It becomes less difficult after attending one or more Rules Schools and learning from the experience of working referees.

It is very unlikely that any one else will ever have to make a ruling on a serious breach. But you will certainly know it when you see it.

With working referees I assume you are referring to professional referees?

I bet they also have some guidelines in their heads, those which they will pass over to younger professional referees. 'You will certainly know it when you see it' is just a dead phrase nothing in it. It is the phrase people use when they really do not have a clue about the issue and do not know how to deal with it rationally and consistently, let alone they could pass the knowledge on to someone in a logical manner.

[iacas]

Ignorant, this type of question is answered really well in the thread. Suffice to say you're wrong here, Fourputt is right, and the explanation (since the ones in this thread don't seem to have sunk in) can be found in the first half of that book.

[Rulesman]

With working referees I assume you are referring to professional referees?

I bet they also have some guidelines in their heads, those which they will pass over to younger professional referees. 'You will certainly know it when you see it' is just a dead phrase nothing in it. It is the phrase people use when they really do not have a clue about the issue and do not know how to deal with it rationally and consistently, let alone they could pass the knowledge on to someone in a logical manner.

No. I include qualified unpaid referees who officiate at many professional (including the Open Championship) and high level amateur events. Rules Schools are not just for professional referees (of whom there are relatively few).

There are many situations when taught or passed on experience gives good insight to 'you know it when you see it'.

The exception to 24-2 is an example. Dropping as near as possible, another.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant, this type of question is answered really well in the ​ thread. Suffice to say you're wrong here, Fourputt is right, and the explanation (since the ones in this thread don't seem to have sunk in) can be found in the first half of that book.

I studied my copy very thoroughly and found some stuff that supports my view instead that of Fourputt's. Maybe we can create a good conversation around those and also other points of view.

Page 20:

Thus ball a dropped for a lost ball a few feet nearer to the hole than the spot from which the lost ball was played would represent a violation of Rule 29, for which the penalty in stroke play is two strokes. However, if the ball was dropped where the ball was lost instead at the spot from which it was played or if it be dropped so as to avoid some interference with the flight of the ball, such as a large tree , then obviously the player will not have played the full course. He will be in violation of one of the two basic principles of golf and should be disqualified in stroke play .

Page 33:

... and the penalty applied to each particular rule must be specific and adequate at least to match the maximum advantage which the player is likely to receive. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation.

Page 34:

The penalties cannot be expected, nor are they intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation.

Having read these it sounds to me that a serious breach is not determined based on whether a penalty for a breach of a Rule is sufficient to offset the potential advantage the player has gained for his Rules violation but quite on the contrary. The penalty assessed by a Rule is there for the breach of a principle, not directly a compensation of potential or real advantage for the player. This means that if the player gains real advantage due to his breach the penalty already assessed is by far not sufficient but then we are dealing with a serious breach.

Have the princples changed since Tufts' days or is he simply wrong? Any thoughts?

[Fourputt]

You are still not reading what is there.  It says that the penalty is not " intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation".  Note the work "exactly". The penalty is intended to at the very minimum offset any possible advantage.  It may be that on some occasions the penalty will be more harsh, but it isn't the committee's job to make it so.  They must judge each case on its own merits to determine if a serious breach has occurred, and rule accordingly.  You want some sort of blanket statement that "if this occurs"  then "this is the penalty".  This is possible for some rules, and for those rules the committee has no power to change the penalty.  There are too many variables involved in this rule for such treatment, which is why it leaves this determination up to the committee.  In many cases, you have to be there to weigh all of the factors involved and make a proper ruling.

Back to the original situation, nothing has changed.  It still isn't a serious breach.  Never will be.

[wedgehammer40k]

I meant to say I walked back towards the tee because I fluffed my drive (1st stroke). I had not taken a drop yet but was hovering over the site of my second shot. I did not re-tee the ball, I was about 10 yards from it as per where I took my 2nd stroke.

[Ignorant]

You are still not reading what is there.  It says that the penalty is not "intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation".  Note the work "exactly".   The penalty is intended to at the very minimum offset any possible advantage.

How does that (red) fit to the idea of dropping substantially closer to hole? If I drop 100 meters closer to hole I am making a serious breach but I only gain one shot while being penalized by two. No offset.

Also how does that fit to dropping sideways from behind a tree to get a line of play towards the green? Again only one shot gained but Tufts is declaring a SB. No offset.

[iacas]

How does that (red) fit to the idea of dropping substantially closer to hole? If I drop 100 meters closer to hole I am making a serious breach but I only gain one shot while being penalized by two. No offset.

You missed the parts about not predicting events. It might take you one stroke to go 100 yards forward or it might take you seven.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You are still not reading what is there.  It says that the penalty is not "intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation".  Note the work "exactly".   The penalty is intended to at the very minimum offset any possible advantage.

How does that (red) fit to the idea of dropping substantially closer to hole? If I drop 100 meters closer to hole I am making a serious breach but I only gain one shot while being penalized by two. No offset.

Also how does that fit to dropping sideways from behind a tree to get a line of play towards the green? Again only one shot gained but Tufts is declaring a SB. No offset.

You still aren't getting it.  You are too hung up on the precision of the penalty.  It isn't an exact science.  The penalty simply ensures no advantage gained, it doesn't guarantee that you won't be put at a disadvantage.  100 yards (or meters if you like) closer to the hole is a serious breach of the rule by any possible interpretation, but it still doesn't cost more than 2 strokes as long as you correct the mistake.  In fact, if your fellow competitor runs over and tells you that you are doing it wrong after your drop but before you make a stroke, then you get to redrop for free, no penalty at all (except the original stroke and distance for the lost ball).

[Ignorant]

You still aren't getting it.  You are too hung up on the precision of the penalty.  It isn't an exact science.  The penalty simply ensures no advantage gained, it doesn't guarantee that you won't be put at a disadvantage.  100 yards (or meters if you like) closer to the hole is a serious breach of the rule by any possible interpretation, but it still doesn't cost more than 2 strokes as long as you correct the mistake.  In fact, if your fellow competitor runs over and tells you that you are doing it wrong after your drop but before you make a stroke, then you get to redrop for free, no penalty at all (except the original stroke and distance for the lost ball).

It seems we are not talking the same language. I'll try once more.

When does a player get so much more additional advantage that the breach in question becomes a serious one? Tufts explains this through his 2nd principle 'play the course as you find it' and further explaining why improving a line of play through dropping in a wrong place to avoid the tree is a serious breach. I understand his text so that the player gets his penalty of 2 strokes for the breach against the 2nd principle. As soon as he tries to get further advantage of his breach it becomes a serious one. Now the only question lying there is what actually constitutes 'further advantage'.

The fact that a player may correct his mistake and thus avoid DQ is irrelevant here as we are discussing what constitutes a serious breach. Should the player correct his mistake he would get no advantage in the first place so no serious breach could occur.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You still aren't getting it.  You are too hung up on the precision of the penalty.  It isn't an exact science.  The penalty simply ensures no advantage gained, it doesn't guarantee that you won't be put at a disadvantage.  100 yards (or meters if you like) closer to the hole is a serious breach of the rule by any possible interpretation, but it still doesn't cost more than 2 strokes as long as you correct the mistake.  In fact, if your fellow competitor runs over and tells you that you are doing it wrong after your drop but before you make a stroke, then you get to redrop for free, no penalty at all (except the original stroke and distance for the lost ball).

It seems we are not talking the same language. I'll try once more.

When does a player get so much more additional advantage that the breach in question becomes a serious one? Tufts explains this through his 2nd principle 'play the course as you find it' and further explaining why improving a line of play through dropping in a wrong place to avoid the tree is a serious breach. I understand his text so that the player gets his penalty of 2 strokes for the breach against the 2nd principle. As soon as he tries to get further advantage of his breach it becomes a serious one. Now the only question lying there is what actually constitutes 'further advantage'.

The fact that a player may correct his mistake and thus avoid DQ is irrelevant here as we are discussing what constitutes a serious breach. Should the player correct his mistake he would get no advantage in the first place so no serious breach could occur.

As I said, it isn't a mathematical formula.  At some point it becomes pure judgement as to whether the line has been crossed between a breach and a serious breach.  It simply cannot be filtered down any farther than that.  You are just going to have to live with that answer.  It will never be a case of 30 yards is a breach, but 31 yards is serious.

Let me give you an example:

1)  A player hits his ball into a lateral water hazard.  the ball crossed the margin at a point 150 yards from the hole.  He finds the ball in the hazard at a point only 120 yards from the hole, rescues it and drops there and plays, 30 yards closer to the hole than his correct dropping area.  The difference means that he plays a PW from the wrong place when he should be playing an 8I from 150 yards in the correct spot.

2)  Two holes later he again hits into a lateral water hazard.  This time the ball crosses the margin 250 yards from the hole, well outside of his 3 wood range.  Again he finds the ball 30 yards closer at 220 yards out, drops there and plays his next stroke.  The difference here is that now he is able to reach the green with a 3 wood.

Would you call both cases serious?  In one case the 2 stroke penalty more than makes up for the advantage, while in the other there is justification to believe that it doesn't ensure that no advantage is gained.  The second case I definitely rule as a serious breach.  The first one, barring any other influencing factors I wouldn't call a serious breach, two strokes is quite sufficient to negate any advantage gained.  Both cases have the same distance gained, but the second one changes the play of the hole to a significant degree.

Most of the time when Rule 20-7 comes into play, it's from something as insignificant as what happened with Tiger when the ball moved and he failed to replace it.  Less common is the player taking a 2 clublength drop when only entitled to one clublength (or like Tiger on 15 at the Masters, taking too much liberty with the phrase "as near as possible"), again just a simple breach.  In the more than 20 years that I've been dealing with the rules, I've never seen a serious breach committed during any round where the rules were being observed.

[Rulesman]

Try looking in the Decisions index under Serious Breach. Then check out the many examples it points to.

[Ignorant]

Try looking in the Decisions index under Serious Breach. Then check out the many examples it points to.

I am rather disappointed in your post. I have read all Decisions 2012-2013 more than 10 times and many of those much more than that. Do you really think I have not read all those dealing with serious breach before entering this discussion?

Had I found the answer in Decisions I certainly would not have bothered to start this conversation.

[Ignorant]

As I said, it isn't a mathematical formula.  At some point it becomes pure judgement as to whether the line has been crossed between a breach and a serious breach.  It simply cannot be filtered down any farther than that.  You are just going to have to live with that answer.  It will never be a case of 30 yards is a breach, but 31 yards is serious.

Let me give you an example:

1)  A player hits his ball into a lateral water hazard.  the ball crossed the margin at a point 150 yards from the hole.  He finds the ball in the hazard at a point only 120 yards from the hole, rescues it and drops there and plays, 30 yards closer to the hole than his correct dropping area.  The difference means that he plays a PW from the wrong place when he should be playing an 8I from 150 yards in the correct spot.

2)  Two holes later he again hits into a lateral water hazard.  This time the ball crosses the margin 250 yards from the hole, well outside of his 3 wood range.  Again he finds the ball 30 yards closer at 220 yards out, drops there and plays his next stroke.  The difference here is that now he is able to reach the green with a 3 wood.

Would you call both cases serious?  In one case the 2 stroke penalty more than makes up for the advantage, while in the other there is justification to believe that it doesn't ensure that no advantage is gained.  The second case I definitely rule as a serious breach.  The first one, barring any other influencing factors I wouldn't call a serious breach, two strokes is quite sufficient to negate any advantage gained.  Both cases have the same distance gained, but the second one changes the play of the hole to a significant degree.

Most of the time when Rule 20-7 comes into play, it's from something as insignificant as what happened with Tiger when the ball moved and he failed to replace it.  Less common is the player taking a 2 clublength drop when only entitled to one clublength (or like Tiger on 15 at the Masters, taking too much liberty with the phrase "as near as possible"), again just a simple breach.  In the more than 20 years that I've been dealing with the rules, I've never seen a serious breach committed during any round where the rules were being observed.

Thanks for your input. Very discriptive cases and very much in line with my own thoughts. In case 1 no real advantage, in case 2 real advantage (= 1 stroke).

How would you rule a situation where a player drops his ball 15 meters (or yards if you prefer) sideways to avoid interference by a large tree on his line of play? Would that be a serious breach or not?

[Fourputt]

Thanks for your input. Very discriptive cases and very much in line with my own thoughts. In case 1 no real advantage, in case 2 real advantage (= 1 stroke).

How would you rule a situation where a player drops his ball 15 meters (or yards if you prefer) sideways to avoid interference by a large tree on his line of play? Would that be a serious breach or not?

Once again it depends on what the shot would have required from the correct spot.  I've see trees which were of minimal effect, and trees which could just as well have been a brick wall.  That is a case where I'd have to see the correct spot and the tree and make the ruling based on what I saw there.  It still isn't an automatic call.

[Rulesman]

Once again it depends on what the shot would have required from the correct spot.  I've see trees which were of minimal effect, and trees which could just as well have been a brick wall.  That is a case where I'd have to see the correct spot and the tree and make the ruling based on what I saw there.  It still isn't an automatic call.

It may also depend upon just what his target area was. eg 50 yards up middle of the fairway to position himself for a dogleg or to stop short of water. Or going for the green 200 yards away.

[Rulesman]

I Do you really think I have not read all those dealing with serious breach before entering this discussion?

Sorry. I simply don't know anything about you.