Rules questions - moving ball and multiple penalties?

[3somers1]

I have a few questions about a scenario I encountered this past weekend:

I hit my ball through a dog leg and it came to rest on top of thick rough on an incline.  This required a simple punch out to the 100 yard marker, but what happened next left me with several questions.

I thought the ball may have settled slightly down into the rough when I initially addressed it, but was not certain 100% certain so I did not replace the ball.  I then addressed the ball a second time and it appeared to slightly oscillate or move in the tall grass as I started my swing.  I cannot state for certain if it was still moving when I made contact.  I went on to finally break 80 for the first time with a score of 78 . . . until I started trying to decipher the oscillating/moving ball rules and potential multiple penalties.

Question 1 (initial analysis):

Assuming I caused the ball to move with my initial address, I believe Rule 18-2 applies and I should have replaced it with a 1 stroke penalty.  Since I did not, I should add a 2 stroke penalty to my score (and continue my journey to break 80).  Correct?

Question 2 (additional penalty #1?):

Assuming the ball moved when I addressed it the second time, do I incur and additional penalty under Rule 18-2?

Question 3 (additional penalty #2?):

Assuming the ball was still moving when I hit it, should I add a 2 stroke penalty under Rule 14-2 for striking a moving ball?

Needless to say . . . I have concluded I the 78 does not stand and I will continue my journey to break 80.  I realize that I would have accomplished my goal of breaking 80 with a 79 if I was certain the ball moved on initial address and I replaced it with a 1 stroke penalty (and no additional issues with ball movement).

Thanks!

[bkuehn1952]

When you took your stance and grounded the club, you need to decide whether the ball moved or not.  If you are satisfied that the ball moved, then yes, you incur a one stroke penalty for moving the ball and an additional stroke for not replacing the ball.

If as part of your 2nd address you moved the ball a 2nd time, same process.  It was not clear, however, whether the 2nd movement occurred solely after you initiated your swing.

Once you begin your swing, if the ball moves, you are allowed to hit the ball, even if it still moving, as long as you continue the stroke.  There is no penalty for hitting a moving ball or a ball that moved after the swing started.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

When you took your stance and grounded the club, you need to decide whether the ball moved or not.  If you are satisfied that the ball moved, then yes, you incur a one stroke penalty for moving the ball and an additional stroke for not replacing the ball.

If as part of your 2nd address you moved the ball a 2nd time, same process.  It was not clear, however, whether the 2nd movement occurred solely after you initiated your swing.

Once you begin your swing, if the ball moves, you are allowed to hit the ball, even if it still moving, as long as you continue the stroke.  There is no penalty for hitting a moving ball or a ball that moved after the swing started.

Actually for the second movement, there is is still a one stroke penalty under rule 18-2b for causing the ball in play to move.  There is no penalty for striking a moving ball.  The player should record 3 penalty strokes for the hole for the causing the ball to move both times.

Quote:

When the ball begins to move only after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of his club for the stroke , he incurs no penalty under this Rule for playing a moving ball, but he is not exempt from any penalty under the following Rules :

• Ball at rest moved by player - Rule 18-2a
• Ball at rest moving after address - Rule 18-2b

Note that 18-2b only says that the player incurs no additional penalty for not replacing the ball if it moves after he begins his stroke (as long as he completes the swing), but he is not absolved of the one stroke penalty for having caused the ball to move.

Quote:

b . Ball Moving After Address

If a player's ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke ), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.

The ball must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

[3somers1]

Thank you for the replies.  For GHIN recording purposes, I realized I can only take a 7 on the hole due to ESC and my current HC index.  Without the penalties, I recorded a 5.  Therefore, I have changed the score to a 7 and adjusted my round to 80.

To err on the side of caution, I would record two violations of Rule 18-2b for a total of 4 penalty strokes (or 9 on the hole) if this was tournament stroke play.  I am 90% sure the ball settled in the rough after I addressed it the first time.  I am also 90% sure the ball started to move before I started my stroke when I addressed it the second time.  Therefore, two violations of Rule 18-2b.

Again, I appreciate the input!

[David in FL]

One point/question... I appreciate and applaud your honesty, especially in light of the potential career milestone, BUT, only you can answer the question, did you actually cause the ball to move ...? If the answer is truthfully, you don't know, in the absence of that knowledge, I'm not going to penalize you and believe that your round stands as scored. A 78.

[Fourputt]

One point/question...

I appreciate and applaud your honesty, especially in light of the potential career milestone, BUT, only you can answer the question, did you actually cause the ball to move...?

If the answer is truthfully, you don't know, in the absence of that knowledge, I'm not going to penalize you and believe that your round stands as scored. A 78.

Actually the fact that he placed the club in the grass near the ball means that by rule, he is deemed to have caused the movement, if indeed the ball did move.  That is particularly true if there is no other identifiable cause.

If you are questioning whether the ball actually did move, only he can answer that question, and only he can say whether he incurred a penalty for it.

[David in FL]

Actually the fact that he placed the club in the grass near the ball means that by rule, he is deemed to have caused the movement, if indeed the ball did move.  That is particularly true if there is no other identifiable cause. If you are questioning whether the ball actually did move, only he can answer that question, and only he can say whether he incurred a penalty for it .

That's exactly what I meant. I should have been more clear. He said he wasn't sure if it had moved, and that's why he didn't replace it the first time. He mentioned that it may have been moving or oscillating when he made the actual stroke, neither of which would incur a penalty. It just doesn't strike me that, good intentions notwithstanding, he actually needs to penalize himself. As we've both said, only he can make the call. But based on what I read in the OP, I wouldn't question his decision to not penalize himself.

[3somers1]

There is enough of a question in my mind that I do not feel comfortable claiming I shot a 78 free and clear of a penalty.  I am 100% comfortable taking a 7 on the hole and recording an 80 for my HC index.  I will continue my journey to break 80 (with a clear conscience).  At this point, I am hopeful that it will come sooner than later.

Thanks again for all of the input!

[David in FL]

Breaking 80 is a huge milestone that a lot of golfers never achieve. I can understand not wanting even thought thought of an asterisk in your mind!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Actually the fact that he placed the club in the grass near the ball means that by rule, he is deemed to have caused the movement, if indeed the ball did move.  That is particularly true if there is no other identifiable cause.

If you are questioning whether the ball actually did move, only he can answer that question, and only he can say whether he incurred a penalty for it.

That's exactly what I meant. I should have been more clear. He said he wasn't sure if it had moved, and that's why he didn't replace it the first time. He mentioned that it may have been moving or oscillating when he made the actual stroke, neither of which would incur a penalty.

It just doesn't strike me that, good intentions notwithstanding, he actually needs to penalize himself. As we've both said, only he can make the call. But based on what I read in the OP, I wouldn't question his decision to not penalize himself.

Except that in most such cases, any doubt is resolved against the player.  This is to ensure that he doesn't gain any advantage from a breach.  It may seem ticky-tack in this instance, but the next time or for the the next player the advantage could be very real.  You can't rule one way for one incident and differently for another.  Only basketball refs and baseball umpires are allowed to do that.

[ColinL]

One point/question...

I appreciate and applaud your honesty, especially in light of the potential career milestone, BUT, only you can answer the question, did you actually cause the ball to move...?

If the answer is truthfully, you don't know, in the absence of that knowledge, I'm not going to penalize you and believe that your round stands as scored. A 78.

David, I think you may be overlooking that the OP wrote " I thought the ball may have settled slightly down into the rough when I initially addressed it ."    The only question is whether it moved.

[David in FL]

Except that in most such cases, any doubt is resolved against the player.  This is to ensure that he doesn't gain any advantage from a breach.  It may seem ticky-tack in this instance, but the next time or for the the next player the advantage could be very real.  You can't rule one way for one incident and differently for another.  Only basketball refs and baseball umpires are allowed to do that. :blink:

Again, only he knows. He also seems to know the rule quite well and specifically said that he did not replace the ball. That led me to believe that he felt that the ball did not move. I'd never condone applying a rule in one case, but not another.

[DrvFrShow]

Again, only he knows. He also seems to know the rule quite well and specifically said that he did not replace the ball. That led me to believe that he felt that the ball did not move.

I'd never condone applying a rule in one case, but not another.

Then why are banana peels considered moveable obstructions (you can remove it) in a bunker and pear cores considered natural objects (you cannot remove it) even though there are no pear trees on the course or in the area (i.e. both the pear core and banana peel were from some slob's lunch)?

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Again, only he knows. He also seems to know the rule quite well and specifically said that he did not replace the ball. That led me to believe that he felt that the ball did not move.

I'd never condone applying a rule in one case, but not another.

Then why are banana peels considered moveable obstructions (you can remove it) in a bunker and pear cores considered natural objects (you cannot remove it) even though there are no pear trees on the course or in the area (i.e. both the pear core and banana peel were from some slob's lunch)?

Banana peels and pear cores are both loose impediments.

[DrvFrShow]

But the banana peel can be removed from the bunker and the half-eaten pear or pear core cannot. Look up the decisions. It's asinine.

[joekelly]

Best if you provide the  relevant info, Drv4show.  Letting (making) us do it just leads us to ignore the core.

[David in FL]

But the banana peel can be removed from the bunker and the half-eaten pear or pear core cannot. Look up the decisions. It's asinine.

I think you misunderstood the decisions Julia. Both the banana peel and the pear are natural objects, and therefore loose impediments. Neither can be removed. 23/3 Half-Eaten Pear Q.A half-eaten pear lies directly in front of a ball in a bunker and there is no pear tree in the vicinity of the bunker. In the circumstances, is the pear an obstruction rather than a loose impediment, in which case the player could remove it without penalty? A.No. A pear is a natural object. When detached from a tree it is a loose impediment. The fact that a pear has been half-eaten and there is no pear tree in the vicinity does not alter the status of the pear. 23/4 Fruit Skins Q.Is a banana skin or other fruit skin a loose impediment? A.Yes.

[Asheville]

But the banana peel can be removed from the bunker and the half-eaten pear or pear core cannot. Look up the decisions. It's asinine.

23/3

Half-Eaten Pear

Q. A half-eaten pear lies directly in front of a ball in a bunker and there is no pear tree in the vicinity of the bunker. In the circumstances, is the pear an obstruction rather than a loose impediment, in which case the player could remove it without penalty?

A. No. A pear is a natural object. When detached from a tree it is a loose impediment. The fact that a pear has been half-eaten and there is no pear tree in the vicinity does not alter the status of the pear.

23/4

Fruit Skins

Q. Is a banana skin or other fruit skin a loose impediment?

A. Yes.