Ball plugged in the rough

[Ignorant]

To answer ignorant's post, I could see water in the hole, even with the ball still in the hole.  As far as lifting for identification, if you see water after lifting I would say relief under 25.  The initial lift was under R12 which is the player's right.  You then would have to replace, which would be in a hole filled with water, so 25 is now available.

Not necessarily and that is the entire point here. You can easily make a test on a moist course by stepping on your ball eg. in the fairway pushing it halfway into the ground. Then you lift your ball and, abracadabra, there is water dripping into the hole! Water that you did not see before you lifted your ball...

Furthermore, if you are entitled to a relief due to CW having lifted it for identification, wouldn't it be strange if you were not entitled to see whether there is CW in the hole in the first place? This, I believe, is the message of D20-1/0.7.

[Dormie1360]

You  would make hole/s near your ball in play to see if any water came up?  If you saw water in a hole you would want to lift your ball to see if there was any water underneath your ball in play.

I don't know, I'm losing enthusiasm for this discussion.....and my opinion.  I've got my national rules workshop this weekend,   I'll see if I can get an answer.

[luu5]

The first, the player could say he was taking an unplayable and lift the ball.  If there was water in the pitch mark he could then proceed under 25.  If there was not water in the pitch mark, he would be bound by R28.

Again, to dig/pry a ball in play out of the ground without any liability, in hopes that there might be water underneath doesn't seem correct to me. You are getting into having to decide the reasonable certainty of there being water, right?  Obviously there has to be some boundaries. How would you decide this?  Seems very subjective.

I did not suggest that he prys the ball out trying to find water. His ball was 4 inches below surface, so unplayable is most likely. If he then sees water in the hole, I would say it is casual water. I can see Ignorant's point in not giving free relief. But to say that water is not casual water would be odd, what water that then is?

[Dormie1360]

I did not suggest that he prys the ball out trying to find water. His ball was 4 inches below surface, so unplayable is most likely. If he then sees water in the hole, I would say it is casual water. I can see Ignorant's point in not giving free relief. But to say that water is not casual water would be odd, what water that then is?

No, I agree it's casual water.  Didn't mean to imply anything else if I did.

[Rulesman]

I am sensing that you are not willing to participate in the discussion. No problem.

I'm baffled by your comments.

The OP said he hit the ball into the ground 4" away. You said if he wanted to identify it he could The implication being, if he found water he could take free relief. I was asking why would he want or need to identify a ball he has just moved 4"?

[Ignorant]

I'm baffled by your comments.

The OP said he hit the ball into the ground 4" away. You said if he wanted to identify it he could The implication being, if he found water he could take free relief. I was asking why would he want or need to identify a ball he has just moved 4"?

You've lost track of the thread. There has been quite a few examples presented having nothing to do with the OP situation.

[Rulesman]

Why do people do that!

[Fourputt]

Well, better late than never.  Decision 20-1/0.7 says "if a player has reason to believe he is entitled to relief from a condition, the player may lift his ball, without penalty".  It doesn't say that he must have virtual certainty - in other words, it doesn't say that he must see water to hold such a belief.  If the ball is embedded deeply in a soft, mushy area it is entirely conceivable that he could have good reason to believe that the ball might lie in casual water, and that is all that is required to be able to lift the ball under this decision.  Any such case would have to be evaluated on its own merits.  I don't see any way that one could make a blanket ruling and feel confident that it would cover all cases.

20-1/0.7

Lifting Ball to Determine Application of Rule

Q.May a player lift his ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief under a Rule (e.g., to determine whether his ball is in a hole made by a burrowing animal or is embedded)?

A.In equity (Rule 1-4), if a player has reason to believe he is entitled to relief from a condition, the player may lift his ball, without penalty, provided he announces his intention in advance to his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play, marks the position of the ball before lifting it, does not clean the ball and gives his opponent or fellow-competitor an opportunity to observe the lifting.

If the ball lies in a position that entitles the player to relief, he may take relief under the applicable Rule. If the player is entitled to relief and fails to comply with this procedure, there is no penalty provided he takes relief under the applicable Rule (see Decision 18-2a/12).

If the ball does not lie in a position from which the player is entitled to relief, or if the player is entitled to relief but decides not to take it, the ball must be replaced, and the opponent, marker or fellow-competitor must be given the opportunity to observe the replacement. If a player who is required to replace the ball fails to do so before making a stroke, he incurs a penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play under Rule 20-3a, but there is no additional penalty for failure to comply with the procedure for lifting or under Rule 20-1 or 21.

If the player lifts a ball without having reason to believe that it lies in a position from which he is entitled to relief without penalty or if the ball does not lie in a position which entitles the player to relief and the player fails to comply with this procedure, he incurs a penalty of one stroke but there is no additional penalty under Rule 20-1 or 21.

[Dormie1360]

@Ignorant @rogolf

Just finished my workshop.  I asked a person who's committee is responsible for actually righting the rules and a PGA official with a ton of experience.   My opinion was wrong.  Although not specifically contemplated, they both felt they would allow relief per the decision.  I also asked about whether the depth of the ball in the ground could be a factor as far as not allowing the relief because it would be unreasonable for the player to play the stroke.  On this point the opinions were less definite. I think they would rule based on the facts at the time.

The PGA fellow also mentioned he had a similar ruling with Tiger.  The ball was embedded in the first cut with relief allowed because of being embedded.  When he lifted his ball there was water in the hole.  Although he did not lift under the casual water rule, because of the water, he was able to drop under the casual water rule ....which got him in the fairway.

[Ignorant]

@Ignorant @rogolf

Just finished my workshop.  I asked a person who's committee is responsible for actually righting the rules and a PGA official with a ton of experience.   My opinion was wrong.  Although not specifically contemplated, they both felt they would allow relief per the decision.  I also asked about whether the depth of the ball in the ground could be a factor as far as not allowing the relief because it would be unreasonable for the player to play the stroke.  On this point the opinions were less definite. I think they would rule based on the facts at the time.

The PGA fellow also mentioned he had a similar ruling with Tiger.  The ball was embedded in the first cut with relief allowed because of being embedded.  When he lifted his ball there was water in the hole.  Although he did not lift under the casual water rule, because of the water, he was able to drop under the casual water rule ....which got him in the fairway.

Thanks for the info, John.

[rogolf]

@Ignorant @rogolf Just finished my workshop.  I asked a person who's committee is responsible for actually righting the rules and a PGA official with a ton of experience.   My opinion was wrong.  Although not specifically contemplated, they both felt they would allow relief per the decision.  I also asked about whether the depth of the ball in the ground could be a factor as far as not allowing the relief because it would be unreasonable for the player to play the stroke.  On this point the opinions were less definite. I think they would rule based on the facts at the time. The PGA fellow also mentioned he had a similar ruling with Tiger.  The ball was embedded in the first cut with relief allowed because of being embedded.  When he lifted his ball there was water in the hole.  Although he did not lift under the casual water rule, because of the water, he was able to drop under the casual water rule ....which got him in the fairway.

Thanks. Glad for the readers of this site that it's been sorted out. Doesn't matter who's opinion was right as long as it's concluded correctly. That's how Committees work also.

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

@Ignorant @rogolf

I also asked about whether the depth of the ball in the ground could be a factor as far as not allowing the relief because it would be unreasonable for the player to play the stroke.  On this point the opinions were less definite. I think they would rule based on the facts at the time.

This is the interesting question to me, and it would be interesting to see a decision at some point clarifying this.  To me, if the ball is 4 inches deep, that sounds to me clearly unplayable, in which case no free relief would be allowed even if it is in casual water.  Ruling 25-3 doesn't even address this, it only answers whether a ball is in casual water or not; whether relief was allowed is a separate question dependent on the specific condition the ball was in.

To me, it would likely still be practical to make a stroke if the ball is dug in only an inch or two, in which case some part of the ball would be either above the ground or at least very close to the surface.   And if the ground is very soft, like sand, maybe even deeper.  But 4 inches into heavey mud? The ball itself is under 2 inches in diameter.  So we are talking about the top of the ball being more than a golf ball deep. Is anyone arguing this ball was playable?

If it's not playable, I think this is similar to ruling 24-2b/16:

Quote:

Q.A player's ball lies between two exposed tree roots. The ball is clearly unplayable due to the roots. An immovable obstruction is so located that it would interfere with the player's backswing if the player could play the ball. The player claims he is entitled to relief, without penalty, under Rule 24-2b(i) . Is the player correct?

A.No. See Exception under Rule 24-2b . The player must invoke Rule 28 .

Also of interest is 24-2b/19:

Quote:

Q.A player's ball lies against an immovable obstruction in casual water. It is clearly impracticable for him to make a stroke because of interference by either of them. The Exceptions to Rule 24-2b and Rule 25-1b appear to preclude free relief from either because of interference by the other. Is this correct?

A.No. The player may take relief without penalty under either Rule 24-2b or Rule 25-1b . The purpose of the Exception to each of these Rules is to prevent the player from fortuitously obtaining free relief when it is clearly impracticable for him to make a stroke because of interference by something from which free relief is not available.

This maybe isn't directly applicable, but what is interesting is the reasoning. The literal language of the rules appears to say one thing, but that interpretation is rejected because of the intent of these rules is "to prevent the player from fortuitously obtaining free relief when it is clearly impracticable for him to make a stroke because of interference by something from which free relief is not available."  I think similar logic would apply to any unplayable ball for which free relief is sought from an abnormal ground condition.

Absent a ruling specifically addressing this though, I think it would be difficult to enforce. Just as it is up to the players own consciense to decide whether he has reason to check whether the ball might be in casual water, it is really entirely up to the player's own conscience to determine whether the ball is unplayable. Rule 28 says specifically:

Quote:

The player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is unplayable.

So in this situation I think you would be right to say that relief from casual water is not available if the ball is clearly unplayable. I think a ground condition apart from an abnormal ground condition can clearly still cause a ball to be unplayable, and the exception to 25-1 applies to "anything other than an abnormal ground condition"; so I would reject the argument that the ground doesn't count, as the ground is still something .  But if the player asserts that the ball is playable, that's his call, and you would really have no argument, absent a decision which specifically says otherwise about this type of ball.

[Rulesman]

But if the player asserts that the ball is playable, that's his call, and you would really have no argument, absent a decision which specifically says otherwise about this type of ball.

The Referee or Committee has the final call about whether relief is available. No specific decision is required, the Exception to 25-1 is sufficient. The tree root decision you mention is simply an example to demonstrate the point. The exceptions to 25-1 and 24-2 are something referees deal with all the time.

[FooFader]

Thank you all for coming to a sort of conclusion. A very interesting read and I've certainly learnt a lot from what you've all said

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The Referee or Committee has the final call about whether relief is available. No specific decision is required, the Exception to 25-1 is sufficient. The tree root decision you mention is simply an example to demonstrate the point. The exceptions to 25-1 and 24-2 are something referees deal with all the time.

Yes, if you're in a tournament where there's a referee, or there's a committee you can appeal to, you can leave it up to them to decide.

But in a casual round where you are pretty much acting as your own committee, the best course of action is probably to inform your opponent of the rule, and leave the actual decision whether the ball is "clearly unplayable" or not to him.  Keep in mind you can ordinarily run afoul of the advice rule if you even try to influence another player's decision on whether a ball is unplayable:

Quote:

8-1/16

Suggesting to Competitor That He Deem His Ball Unplayable

Q.B's ball was lying badly. B was deliberating what action to take when A, his fellow-competitor, said: "You have no shot at all. If I were you, I would deem the ball unplayable." Was A giving advice, contrary to Rule 8-1 ?

A.Yes. A's suggestion could have influenced B "in determining his play." Thus, it constituted advice – see Definition of "Advice." It did not constitute "information on the Rules," which is not advice.

Now there is an important distiction here between suggesting a player deem a ball unplayable, and expressing an opinion that it is "clearly unplayable".  The latter wouldn't really violate 8-1.  But as a general rule of thumb, it's best only to advise other players during a round about: a) what the rules actually are, b) distance information, c) direction information (but not on the putting green). It's best not to get into the habit of suggesting to other players how to proceed, or how to apply the rules.