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

[ColinL]

You don't need to know what the ball might have done coming to rest on a packet in the hole any more than you need to know what might have happened to your ball if it hadn't landed on an obstruction  anywhere else on the course.    If it is at rest on the crisp/chip packet it is on an obstruction. It is placed directly underneath where it was once the obstruction is removed - provided the obstruction is a movable one and can be moved. That the liner may not meet the definition of a movable obstruction because it cannot be removed easily could of course be the case.  I haven't tried it and our course manager might not be pleased if I did.  Out of curiosity I will ask him how easily it could be removed by a player.  My argument is based on its meeting the definition of a movable obstruction.

What is the difference between the ball lying on a  packet (a movable obstruction)  in the hole and on a leaf (a loose impediment) on the hole?  You would not allow the ball to be placed in the hole when it is blocked by a movable obstruction  but you can remove a  loose impediment like a leaf and the ball is holed?

Our crisps, your chips are also chips in France.  Our chips you probably call French fries.

[Rulesman]

I had the ruling from the R&A; where a ball was suspended over the hole by a leaf. An equity ruling was made to allow the leaf to be removed (although this meant that the ball would move). The ball was then to be placed immediately under its original position. ie in the hole.

I have no doubt that as the consequent movement of a ball after removal of a crisp packet does not involve a penalty, the same solution would apply.

The liner does of course satisfy the definition of a movable obstruction given any unwritten intent of the committee. As a past temporary green keeper, I know they are relatively easy to remove.

[Fourputt]

I had the ruling from the R&A; where a ball was suspended over the hole by a leaf. An equity ruling was made to allow the leaf to be removed (although this meant that the ball would move). The ball was then to be placed immediately under its original position. ie in the hole.

I have no doubt that as the consequent movement of a ball after removal of a crisp packet does not involve a penalty, the same solution would apply.

The liner does of course satisfy the definition of a movable obstruction given any unwritten intent of the committee. As a past temporary green keeper, I know they are relatively easy to remove.

I ask again, how to you justify that in view of the 17/6 decision?

[saevel25]

I would think that even if it was a movable obstruction. That if you put the ball back in the exact same spot as it was, and if any of the ball touches the green then the ball would have to roll move towards the hole to move into the hole. In that regard, it would have violated the part of the rule stated it can't come nearer to the hole and must be moved to the lip of the hole so it does not move.

[ColinL]

I would think that even if it was a movable obstruction. That if you put the ball back in the exact same spot as it was, and if any of the ball touches the green then the ball would have to roll move towards the hole to move into the hole. In that regard, it would have violated the part of the rule stated it can't come nearer to the hole and must be moved to the lip of the hole so it does not move.

You do not put your ball back in the exact spot it is on when it was on a movable obstruction. You place it it directly below.  The hypothetical is that this ball is directly above the hole and so that is where you place it - in the hole.

I ask again, how to you justify that in view of the 17/6 decision?

17/6 is specifically about a ball caught up in the flag.  As I said, the wording is that you cannot place the ball in the hole which keeps that injunction specific to the situation.  It is not a generalisation that rules out placing in the hole in other situations.  Had that been the intention it would have said a ball.

We now know that there is an R&A; ruling which allows for a ball to be placed in the hole in circumstances exactly similar to the hole liner situation - a loose impediment as opposed to a movable obstruction.

I don't know why 17/6 makes the ball in the flag exceptional - but that's what it is, an exception. I can surmise that it could be because it is felt that we cannot be  sufficiently certain that the ball came to rest directly above the hole  to justify placing it in the hole. The flag is liable to movement and could have been moving when the ball hit it in which case where the ball lies may not be exactly where it came to rest in the flag.  It is also perhaps considered too far above the hole to determine accurately that it's above the hole.  The flag must be hanging to the side of the flagstick which suggests the ball is not likely to be above the hole  .......      I'm just looking for the uncertainties which might have prompted that Decision.    Such uncertainties do not exist with a ball that is clearly partially in the hole but on top of a solid object.

My ball is resting on this chip packet; it is clearly partially in the hole; it is not touching the side of the hole; but it hasn't quite got below the lip of the hole.

[Rulesman]

I ask again, how to you justify that in view of the 17/6 decision?

If the ball is in the flag there is no guarantee that it is within the perimeter of the hole when extended vertically.The ball on the leaf was.

[jamo]

The definition of "holed," per USGA.com: [QUOTE]Holed A ball is “holed” when it is at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of it is below the level of the lip of the hole.[/QUOTE] The definition of "hole," per USGA.com: [QUOTE]Hole The “hole’’ must be 4 1⁄4 inches (108 mm) in diameter and at least 4 inches (101.6 mm) deep. If a lining is used, it must be sunk at least 1 inch (25.4 mm) below the putting green surface, unless the nature of the soil makes it impracticable to do so; its outer diameter must not exceed 4 1⁄4 inches (108 mm).[/QUOTE] Is the "hole" the physical excavation of soil, or the ID of the liner?

[Rulesman]

The excavation of the soil.

It isn't anticipated that the liner will be more than 1/2 the diameter of a ball.

[saevel25]

You do not put your ball back in the exact spot it is on when it was on a movable obstruction. You place it it directly below.  The hypothetical is that this ball is directly above the hole and so that is where you place it - in the hole.

Lets say someone left a scorecard on the green. I lift my ball, remove the scorecard, then place my ball back on the green where it would have been if the scorecard was not there. I think we are talking the same thing. It isn't like I am going to lift the scorecard and push the ball into the green to make sure it is below the scorecard. ;)

Example. The black circle is the hole. The red circle is the ball. Lets say there is a scorecard laying across the hole such that the ball stops like this. You would lift the ball, remove the scorecard and put the ball back in the exact same spot as if the scorecard wasn't there. That would be the same thing as putting the ball directly below the scorecard. In this situation the edge of the ball would come in contact with the lip of the cup. In that case when you let go of the ball it would roll forward. That can not happen under rule 24-1 since it would be moved closer to the hole. Also you can't shift it forward that small distance as well since that as well would be moving the ball closer to the hole.

The liner does of course satisfy the definition of a movable obstruction given any unwritten intent of the committee. As a past temporary green keeper, I know they are relatively easy to remove.

So I can go around removing all the hole-liners if I want? I mean, just in case they would bother my putt. I am sure the course would like that. I guess I could just tell them it is with my rights as a player to remove a movable obstruction

The definition of "holed," per USGA.com:

The definition of "hole," per USGA.com:

Is the "hole" the physical excavation of soil, or the ID of the liner?

In some decisions by the USGA they said the liner is not part of the hole. Example would be if the liner was pulled out with the flagstick before the ball reached it and the ball still went in the hole. The golfer has been considered to holed out because the liner is not the hole.

---

To me there are two similar situations,

-embedded ball in the side of the cup.

-ball is wedged against the flagstick (which is a movable obstruction) and the side of the hole.

If considered embedded then the ball must be fully below the circumference of the hole to be considered holed, if not then it must be placed on the lip.

If considered wedged against the flagstick. As such the ball is considered not holed. The player may remove the flagstick and if the ball falls into the hole the player is deemed to have holed out. Otherwise the ball must be placed on the lip of the cup.

[wadesworld]

My problem with this debate is there is no way for the ball to be at rest without moving closer to the hole.  Let's take @saevel25 's example, but slightly differently.  Ball is laying on top of scorecard, within the circumference of the hole.  Ok, ball is clearly not holed.  So we remove the scorecard and attempt to place the ball on the spot (air) where it had lain.  Ball falls into the hole.  But in doing so, the ball clearly moved downwards, closer to the hole.

Now, it's possible to say the USGA would "give you that one," but what if the obstruction were something larger?  Can we always make the determination the ball would have gone in the hole had the obstruction not been there?  If it's not possible to set the ball down and have it be at rest below the lip of the hole, I'm not so sure they would ever rule the ball is holed. Since the decision Rulesman referenced is not published, does it really bring us any clarity?

[Fourputt]

My problem with this debate is there is no way for the ball to be at rest without moving closer to the hole.  Let's take @saevel25's example, but slightly differently.  Ball is laying on top of scorecard, within the circumference of the hole.  Ok, ball is clearly not holed.  So we remove the scorecard and attempt to place the ball on the spot (air) where it had lain.  Ball falls into the hole.  But in doing so, the ball clearly moved downwards, closer to the hole.

Now, it's possible to say the USGA would "give you that one," but what if the obstruction were something larger?  Can we always make the determination the ball would have gone in the hole had the obstruction not been there?  If it's not possible to set the ball down and have it be at rest below the lip of the hole, I'm not so sure they would ever rule the ball is holed. Since the decision Rulesman referenced is not published, does it really bring us any clarity?

Nope.  I see that as more a case of he says, she says.  Also the case of a ball hitting the edge of the hole on the fly from a full shot is quite different from a ball rolling over the hole on a piece of paper or the like.  What I'm seeing is that each of these situations must be taken individually.

I do not think that a ball as in the OP (but not below the lip) could be ruled the same as the ball stopping on a potato chip bag, because there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the full shot would have deflected upon contact with the flagstick had the liner ring not been there to stop it.

[Abu3baid]

Why is the discussion so much on whether the ball is holed or not - which it clearly isn't.  Start thinking about the fact that the liner is a movable obstruction.

After seeing the developement in the thread I gotta give it to you, you were ahead of the curve!

[ColinL]

My problem with this debate is there is no way for the ball to be at rest without moving closer to the hole.  Let's take @saevel25's example, but slightly differently.  Ball is laying on top of scorecard, within the circumference of the hole.  Ok, ball is clearly not holed.  So we remove the scorecard and attempt to place the ball on the spot (air) where it had lain.  Ball falls into the hole.  But in doing so, the ball clearly moved downwards, closer to the hole.

Now, it's possible to say the USGA would "give you that one," but what if the obstruction were something larger?  Can we always make the determination the ball would have gone in the hole had the obstruction not been there?  If it's not possible to set the ball down and have it be at rest below the lip of the hole, I'm not so sure they would ever rule the ball is holed. Since the decision Rulesman referenced is not published, does it really bring us any clarity?

Again, may I point out that Rule 24-1b does not tell us to place the ball in mid-air at the position it had been in on the obstruction.  For a ball on a movable  obstruction on the green,  it tells you to place the ball directly under that point - in this case that would mean placing the ball at the bottom of the hole.

Nope.  I see that as more a case of he says, she says.  Also the case of a ball hitting the edge of the hole on the fly from a full shot is quite different from a ball rolling over the hole on a piece of paper or the like.  What I'm seeing is that each of these situations must be taken individually.

I do not think that a ball as in the OP (but not below the lip) could be ruled the same as the ball stopping on a potato chip bag, because there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the full shot would have deflected upon contact with the flagstick had the liner ring not been there to stop it.

Under what rule are we required to consider where a ball might have been deflected to when it has been stopped by an obstruction?

[saevel25]

Again, may I point out that Rule 24-1b does not tell us to place the ball in mid-air at the position it had been in on the obstruction.  For a ball on a movable  obstruction on the green,  it tells you to place the ball directly under that point - in this case that would mean placing the ball at the bottom of the hole.

Under what rule are we required to consider where a ball might have been deflected to when it has been stopped by an obstruction?

I believe that is covered under the equity rule when you compare situation to situation.

A ball coming to rest on top of an obstruction is a different scenario then if the ball basically embeds itself between the edge of the hole and a hole liner. No way a ball rolling to a stop would produce that hole-liner situation. In that regard this situation clearly points towards the embedded ball rulings.

Placed directly under means you can not shift it forward if part of the ball would come in contact with the lip of the cup. As I shown in previous post, if part of the ball is over the lip, then it would have to shift forward, closer to hole to be placed in the bottom of the cup. Under section 20 for placing a ball the ball must also come to rest after being place. If it moves you must replace the ball again. So you either sit there in a futile attempt to place a ball on the lip, or just accept that it has to be placed on the lip of the cup.

That is at least how I see it.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadesworld

My problem with this debate is there is no way for the ball to be at rest without moving closer to the hole.  Let's take @saevel25's example, but slightly differently.  Ball is laying on top of scorecard, within the circumference of the hole.  Ok, ball is clearly not holed.  So we remove the scorecard and attempt to place the ball on the spot (air) where it had lain.  Ball falls into the hole.  But in doing so, the ball clearly moved downwards, closer to the hole.

Now, it's possible to say the USGA would "give you that one," but what if the obstruction were something larger?  Can we always make the determination the ball would have gone in the hole had the obstruction not been there?  If it's not possible to set the ball down and have it be at rest below the lip of the hole, I'm not so sure they would ever rule the ball is holed. Since the decision Rulesman referenced is not published, does it really bring us any clarity?

Again, may I point out that Rule 24-1b does not tell us to place the ball in mid-air at the position it had been in on the obstruction.  For a ball on a movable  obstruction on the green,  it tells you to place the ball directly under that point - in this case that would mean placing the ball at the bottom of the hole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Nope.  I see that as more a case of he says, she says.  Also the case of a ball hitting the edge of the hole on the fly from a full shot is quite different from a ball rolling over the hole on a piece of paper or the like.  What I'm seeing is that each of these situations must be taken individually.

I do not think that a ball as in the OP (but not below the lip) could be ruled the same as the ball stopping on a potato chip bag, because there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the full shot would have deflected upon contact with the flagstick had the liner ring not been there to stop it.

Under what rule are we required to consider where a ball might have been deflected to when it has been stopped by an obstruction?

In d.17/6 it seems they are assuming that the ball would not have fallen in the hole had it dropped out of the flag, yet you are assuming that the ball would have ended up in the hole had it not been stopped by the liner ring.

Let me reset the scenario that I am trying to discuss:  The ball  is embedded in the putting green and lodged against the plastic liner ring, but is not entirely below the lip and is not entirely within the circumference of the hole.  Removing the obstruction and placing the ball directly under the point where it lay on the obstruction would result in the ball rolling forward into the hole (this is the situation I have been arguing).  Even though it might only advance 1/4 inch, it would still be in opposition to the rules, which abhor any advancement of the ball by means other than a stroke.  Are you still insisting that the ball is to be placed in the hole rather than on the lip?

[iacas]

Suppose your ball is sitting on a steep hill in the fairway. A movable obstruction is blocking the ball. You move the obstruction and the ball moves. You attempt to replace it, but the ball will not stay in place.

So (and I know the answers, but it's relevant so I'm adding it like this), what's a player to do then if:

a) the ball rolls closer to the hole?

b) the ball rolls away from the hole?

P.S. If the ball was below the lip of the hole I'd call it a hole-in-one. It did not appear to be that way at all from the photos, so I voted "no."

[turtleback]

Suppose your ball is sitting on a steep hill in the fairway. A movable obstruction is blocking the ball. You move the obstruction and the ball moves. You attempt to replace it, but the ball will not stay in place.

So (and I know the answers, but it's relevant so I'm adding it like this), what's a player to do then if:

a) the ball rolls closer to the hole?

b) the ball rolls away from the hole?

P.S. If the ball was below the lip of the hole I'd call it a hole-in-one. It did not appear to be that way at all from the photos, so I voted "no."

Yup.  That is why the fact that there was ruling (by whom?  with what credentials?) which stated something that I thought was pretty clearly NOT the case in the picture that was posted with the article (the ruling claimed to be because the ball was completely below the lip which, IMO, it clearly was NOT in that picture)  did not matter one bit to me.

[jlbos83]

I didn't think it was completely below the lip, but then I noticed that I could see no sign of the shadow of the ball.  It's not conclusive, but it did make me question whether my original assessment of the photo was correct.