Ball Held by Inner Cup Liner, Ruling? (Pictures Inside)

[Abu3baid]

I will drink to that.   Golf is hard enough already to count it as birdie instead of a hole-in-one.

I love it... Ha..

[billchao]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrvFrShow

It was ruled a Hole In One.

Here's a link to the article.

Thanks for sharing. This actually makes the ruling pretty simple:

Quote:

Ultimately, the shot was ruled as a hole-in-one, because the entire ball ended up below the level of the green.

Looks like it's entirely within the circumference of the hole to me, and since it is entirely below the lip, it is holed.

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I will drink to that.   Golf is hard enough already to count it as birdie instead of a hole-in-one.

Well it only counted because the entire ball was below the level of the green.

Quote:

Ultimately, the shot was ruled as a hole-in-one, because the entire ball ended up below the level of the green.

If not then it would have been taken out, the green repaired and the ball put on the lip so he would have to tap it in.

[wadesworld]

For the record, in a casual round, I'd count it too, even if the ball was not completely below the lip.

[Fourputt]

For the record, in a casual round, I'd count it too, even if the ball was not completely below the lip.

You would be wrong then.  D 17/6.

I'd sure like to see that from ground level.  It doesn't look from that angle like the ball is entirely below the level of the green.

[billchao]

I'd sure like to see that from ground level.

That would give you the definitive angle, for sure. Lacking that, I'd defer to the judgment of those who were there and made the ruling.

It doesn't look from that angle like the ball is entirely below the level of the green.

It's hard to tell from the high camera angle, but it could be entirely below the level of the green. I should know, since my avatar pic is a ball I plugged completely into a green, but I took the picture from a high angle and it doesn't look as buried as it actually was.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I will drink to that.   Golf is hard enough already to count it as birdie instead of a hole-in-one.

Well it only counted because the entire ball was below the level of the green.

I've made a mental note of it in case it ever happens to me.   I buy lotto tickets, too.

[wadesworld]

You would be wrong then.  D 17/6.

I'd sure like to see that from ground level.  It doesn't look from that angle like the ball is entirely below the level of the green.

I realize I'd be wrong.  But in a casual round if someone hits that shot, I'd give it to them.  That's all I'm saying.

[ColinL]

So, after all the stuff about how the ball should be considered holed even though part is above the surface and the explanations that this cannot be so, we find that the photo has deceived and the ball is wholly below the surface and therefore holed.  Great.

I'm still sticking to removing the hole liner and placing the ball in the hole if it were being held up by the hole liner above the hole  on the basis that Rule 24-1b tells us to and nothing else tells us not to. (A ball caught up in the flag a few feet above the hole is not the same).

[Fourputt]

So, after all the stuff about how the ball should be considered holed even though part is above the surface and the explanations that this cannot be so, we find that the photo has deceived and the ball is wholly below the surface and therefore holed.  Great.

I'm still sticking to removing the hole liner and placing the ball in the hole if it were being held up by the hole liner above the hole  on the basis that Rule 24-1b tells us to and nothing else tells us not to.

(A ball caught up in the flag a few feet above the hole is not the same).

Ah, but in equity it is the same.  Both cases involve a ball in or on a movable obstruction.  Both have to be treated in the same manner - that's a basic principle of the rules.  Decision 17/6 says specifically that when taking relief, a ball may not be placed in the hole.  Rule 1-4 covers this just as it does the ball lodged in the flag.

[ColinL]

Ah, but in equity it is the same.  Both cases involve a ball in or on a movable obstruction.  Both have to be treated in the same manner - that's a basic principle of the rules.  Decision 17/6 says specifically that when taking relief, a ball may not be placed in the hole.  Rule 1-4 covers this just as it does the ball lodged in the flag.

17/6 does not say a ball may not be placed in the hole; it says the ball may not be placed in the hole.  It is specific to the situation of the ball being lodged in the flag. It may be reasonable to use it as an analogy, but we cannot take the statement to be a generalisation. It does not tell us that we cannot ever place a ball in the hole.

[saevel25]

17/6 does not say a ball may not be placed in the hole; it says the ball may not be placed in the hole.  It is specific to the situation of the ball being lodged in the flag. It may be reasonable to use it as an analogy, but we cannot take the statement to be a generalisation. It does not tell us that we cannot ever place a ball in the hole.

Until the USGA makes a decision that specifically states you can, you can't not make that ruling on your own accord. The rule of Equity means, in a pinch, you make a ruling based on previous similar rulings until a firm ruling can be made if you would just ask the USGA for a decision on the question.

This situation the closest ruling is,

16/3

Ball Embedded in Side of Hole; All of Ball Not Below Lip of Hole

Q.A player's ball embeds in the side of a hole. Part of the ball is above the level of the lip of the hole. What is the ruling?

A.The ball is not holed - see Definition of "Holed." The player may play the ball as it lies or lift the ball under Rule 16-1b, repair the damage under Rule 16-1c and place the ball on the lip of the hole.

[ColinL]

Until the USGA makes a decision that specifically states you can, you can't not make that ruling on your own accord. The rule of Equity means, in a pinch, you make a ruling based on previous similar rulings until a firm ruling can be made if you would just ask the USGA for a decision on the question.

This situation the closest ruling is,

I am using the words as presented in Rule 24-1b which specifically tells me I can  remove an obstruction on which my ball rests and place the ball directly below it.  Why do I need a Decision to tell me the exactly what the Rule already says?  I suggest there needs to be a decision that specifically tells me that I can't.

If the hole were obstructed by a crisp packet and my ball was resting on top of it,  clearly directly above the hole, are you telling me that I can't remove the packet and place my ball in the hole?

By the way, if my ball is resting on top of a leaf that is blocking the hole, I can remove the leaf and my ball is holed with the previous stroke.  Why should an obstruction be different?

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

I am using the words as presented in Rule 24-1b which specifically tells me I can  remove an obstruction on which my ball rests and place the ball directly below it.  Why do I need a Decision to tell me the exactly what the Rule already says?  I suggest there needs to be a decision that specifically tells me that I can't.

Also, in this situation is 100% of the ball over the hole? If not then if you lift the ball, repair the lip and place the ball where it was then part of the ball would be in contact with the lip. If so then the ball would have to roll forward slightly to finish in the hole. If it rolls forward slightly and falls into the cup then the ball has been deemed to have moved closer to the hole. By 24-1 rule, the ball can not move closer to the hole. It must be then placed in a location where it will end up at rest, which would be the lip of the hole.

Also, another question. Since the ball has to be 100% under the circumference of the hole to be considered holed out. Does that mean, if you place the ball above the circumference of the hole and it drops, is it considered also moving closer to the hole?

I also have to question if a hole-liner should be considered a movable obstruction.

Quote:

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise, it is an immovable obstruction .

Does damaging the liner make it a movable obstruction? Does it take reasonable effort to remove that liner? I suspect the course did not put those liners in such they would be considered a movable obstruction. If they are movable obstructions to begin with then you could in theory remove every liner from every hole. That in itself seems counter to the use of the liner. As such I would suspect the liners are suppose to be considered immovable obstructions.

If they are an immovable obstruction,

Quote:

(iii) On the Putting Green : If the ball lies on the putting green , the player must lift the ball and place it, without penalty, at the nearest point of relief that is not in a hazard . The nearest point of relief may be off the putting green .

I would say the best course of action would be to have to see if the ball is below the circumference of the hole, to see if it considered holed out. If not then you must lift the ball and place it at the nearest point of relief. In cases like this you play the hole out with the damage liner. Even in cases where the hole-liner is not set deep enough the decision was made that if a person can not fix the liner then they must play the course as it is.

Quote:

16/4

Hole-Liner Not Sunk Deep Enough

Q. Players discover that a hole-liner, although sunk below the putting green surface, is not sunk at least one-inch below the surface as prescribed in the Definition of "Hole." What should they do?

A. The players should call the matter to the attention of a member of the Committee if one is present. If feasible, the member of the Committee should attempt to have the fault corrected.

However, the players must continue play in the meantime, because correction might not be possible and, if possible, might take considerable time. (Revised)

This in itself tells me that a liner might not be considered a movable obstruction if the USGA rules even state a in proper installed liner should be played as is. It doesn't state that the golfer can remove the liner.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Ah, but in equity it is the same.  Both cases involve a ball in or on a movable obstruction.  Both have to be treated in the same manner - that's a basic principle of the rules.  Decision 17/6 says specifically that when taking relief, a ball may not be placed in the hole.  Rule 1-4 covers this just as it does the ball lodged in the flag.

17/6 does not say a ball may not be placed in the hole; it says the ball may not be placed in the hole.  It is specific to the situation of the ball being lodged in the flag. It may be reasonable to use it as an analogy, but we cannot take the statement to be a generalisation. It does not tell us that we cannot ever place a ball in the hole.

What is it that you think equity means?  This is exactly the sort of situation that Rule 1-4 is intended to address.  It is exactly the same situation.  Decisions are not intended to only address specific situations, they are intended to point the direction to take for any similar rulings, and this is about as similar as it is possible to be - a ball lodged in a movable obstruction overhanging the hole.  I don't see how you can possibly see it any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Until the USGA makes a decision that specifically states you can, you can't not make that ruling on your own accord. The rule of Equity means, in a pinch, you make a ruling based on previous similar rulings until a firm ruling can be made if you would just ask the USGA for a decision on the question.

This situation the closest ruling is,

I am using the words as presented in Rule 24-1b which specifically tells me I can  remove an obstruction on which my ball rests and place the ball directly below it.  Why do I need a Decision to tell me the exactly what the Rule already says?  I suggest there needs to be a decision that specifically tells me that I can't.

If the hole were obstructed by a crisp packet and my ball was resting on top of it,  clearly directly above the hole, are you telling me that I can't remove the packet and place my ball in the hole?

By the way, if my ball is resting on top of a leaf that is blocking the hole, I can remove the leaf and my ball is holed with the previous stroke.  Why should an obstruction be different?

Where there is a decision that states you cannot place the ball in the hole, that takes precedence over the one you are trying to work around.  There is no rule or decision for any situation that allows the player to place the ball in the hole, yet there is one 17/6, that specifically prohibits it.  I have to go with the ruling bodies an this one and say that you are unequivocally wrong.

[ColinL]

A ruling in equity is only required where there isn't an applicable rule.  24-1b is the applicable rule.

What do you say about the crisp packet?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

A ruling in equity is only required where there isn't an applicable rule.  24-1b is the applicable rule.

Then why isn't 24-1 applicable for the ball caught up in the flag?  You need to use some logic here.

Quote:

What do you say about the crisp packet?

Yes I am saying that the same decision applies.  And they are chips here.

[saevel25]

A ruling in equity is only required where there isn't an applicable rule.  24-1b is the applicable rule.

What do you say about the crisp packet?

What if the crisps packet slowed the ball enough to the point it did stop over the hole? What if without the crisps packet the ball would have struck off the flagstick or maybe lipped out. You can't for certain know that the ball would have gone in the cup otherwise.