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

[Rulesman]

just the same as described in d. 17/6 which specifically states that the player my NOT place the ball in the hole:

It doesn't say that this only applies in the specific case, so I read that as a statement where equity should be applied to any such situation where the ball lies on an obstruction above the hole.  How do you justify ignoring this decision in the case of either a movable obstruction or LI?

17/6 doesn't presuppose that any part of the ball is over the hole, which makes it not a good precedent.

[Rulesman]

What is the current ruling for a ball that has struck an improperly replaced flagstick that stops it from dropping when the bottom of the ball it is partially below the green surface and the bottom of the ball (and most of the ball) is within the circumference of the hole (ball hanging over the hole, but pinched against the side of the hole by a leaning flagstick)?

17-4 . Ball Resting Against Flagstick

When a player's ball rests against the flagstick in the hole and the ball is not holed , the player or another person authorized by him may move or remove the flagstick , and if the ball falls into the hole , the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke ; otherwise, the ball, if moved , must be placed on the lip of the hole , without penalty.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

just the same as described in d. 17/6 which specifically states that the player my NOT place the ball in the hole:

It doesn't say that this only applies in the specific case, so I read that as a statement where equity should be applied to any such situation where the ball lies on an obstruction above the hole.  How do you justify ignoring this decision in the case of either a movable obstruction or LI?

17/6 doesn't presuppose that any part of the ball is over the hole, which makes it not a good precedent.

And just how do you know that?  You are reading something into that decision that I can't see.

I've seen flags which were made from extremely light fabric such that when limp, the entire flag material would be hanging directly above the hole when the flagstick is properly seated in the insert.  With the added weight of the ball tangled in it, the ball would be touching the flagstick but for the thickness of fabric between them.

[Rulesman]

And just how do you know that?  You are reading something into that decision that I can't see.

I've seen flags which were made from extremely light fabric such that when limp, the entire flag material would be hanging directly above the hole when the flagstick is properly seated in the insert.  With the added weight of the ball tangled in it, the ball would be touching the flagstick but for the thickness of fabric between them.

But that may not always be the case. The fabric may be stiff, there may be a strong wind causing a change in the vertical alignment or the flagstick may not be aligned vertically.

The decision covers all situations relating to a ball in the flag.

[ColinL]

But that may not always be the case. The fabric may be stiff, there may be a strong wind causing a change in the vertical alignment or the flagstick may not be aligned vertically.

The decision covers all situations relating to a ball in the flag......

....including, as I mentioned earlier, where the flag was moving  when the ball came to rest in it.

[natureboy]

Great shot, but simply put in umpire's language, still in the ballpark. No home run.

What's is still missing? Would the suggested approach work as an actual revision of rules?

I just feel that there is sufficient ambiguity, or conflicting treatment of similar situations, that one committee might rule the ball holed while the next one could order it placed on the lip.  I would like to see a decision that absolutely clarifies each potential scenario to remove any doubt as to the correct call.

So existing decisions muddy the waters? How about clarifying the underlying rules along those lines?

[Hatchman]

What's is still missing? Would the suggested approach work as an actual revision of rules? So existing decisions muddy the waters? How about clarifying the underlying rules along those lines?

Love the discussion and your valid points. I think so. A well defined in play blocked, trapped, pinned, stuck un playable ball in this case would be removed (lifted) with hole repaired in tournament play. On the neighborhood course, lift the ball and place close proximity. Becomes an non conforming object. Repair hole. My thoughts. Liners...first look at how deep Greenbrier has set the liner flush (below) with the putting surface.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureboy

What's is still missing? Would the suggested approach work as an actual revision of rules?

So existing decisions muddy the waters? How about clarifying the underlying rules along those lines?

Love the discussion and your valid points. I think so. A well defined in play blocked, trapped, pinned, stuck un playable ball in this case would be removed (lifted) with hole repaired in tournament play. On the neighborhood course, lift the ball and place close proximity. Becomes an non conforming object. Repair hole. My thoughts.

Liners...first look at how deep Greenbrier has set the liner flush (below) with the putting surface.

Read back.  We already covered this.  That part in the photo that's bent is NOT the liner.  It is a thin plastic ring that rests on top of the liner in place of painting the top 1" for visibility on longer putts and chips.  Most courses don't bother with them because they are too easy to move when getting a ball out of the hole.

[Hatchman]

Read back.  We already covered this.  That part in the photo that's bent is NOT the liner.  It is a thin plastic ring that rests on top of the liner in place of painting the top 1" for visibility on longer putts and chips.  Most courses don't bother with them because they are too easy to move when getting a ball out of the hole.

Roger that. I'll re read although I'm heading out to golf soon. Liner, ring it's an obstructed ball in my language if it's pinned between it. Not in. Check back later.

[DrvFrShow]

Roger that. I'll re read although I'm heading out to golf soon. Liner, ring it's an obstructed ball in my language if it's pinned between it. Not in. Check back later.

According to the article in Golf Digest the ball was ruled holed. End of story.

I can't believe this thread still continues. The odds of this happening are about a million to one. And if you were in my foursome, I'd give you the shot. Even in a tournament. We don't play for a $9 million purse.

[bubble]

that was my idea anyway. liners are forbidden unless very underground. (too bad cause very practical to keep hole in correct shape when the golf can't cut new holes often).

so if the obstruction is removed the ball will obviously hole out.

[iacas]

According to the article in Golf Digest the ball was ruled holed. End of story.

Because it was below the level of the hole (which you can't quite tell from the first photos).

I think people are discussing what they think the rule should be (or what it is) if the ball is NOT below the level of the top of the hole.

[Hatchman]

According to the article in Golf Digest the ball was ruled holed. End of story. I can't believe this thread still continues. The odds of this happening are about a million to one. And if you were in my foursome, I'd give you the shot. Even in a tournament. We don't play for a $9 million purse.

Back from the course. Glad you clarified, referencing Golf Digest. A great shot as I said initially and end of story for me too.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchman

Roger that. I'll re read although I'm heading out to golf soon. Liner, ring it's an obstructed ball in my language if it's pinned between it. Not in. Check back later.

According to the article in Golf Digest the ball was ruled holed. End of story.

In what was posted it didn't say who made the ruling, and for my money if I do not know who made the ruling the fact that they made a ruling does not end the story.  It was a casual 4-ball, so my guess would be the local pro made the ruling.  It is also troubling that the basis for the ruling seems to be contradicted by the pictures.  And that the picture was not taken in a way to make clear whether the ball is completely below the level of the top of the hole or not.

So that ruling may end the story for that particular incident, but not the larger issues.  There is still plenty to discuss.

[Hatchman]

In what was posted it didn't say who made the ruling, and for my money if I do not know who made the ruling the fact that they made a ruling does not end the story.  It was a casual 4-ball, so my guess would be the local pro made the ruling.  It is also troubling that the basis for the ruling seems to be contradicted by the pictures.  And that the picture was not taken in a way to make clear whether the ball is completely below the level of the top of the hole or not. So that ruling may end the story for that particular incident, but not the larger issues.  There is still plenty to discuss.

I like your answer. Maybe I'm back in it then. No other sport would call it a goal, basket, home run, etc if blocked, trapped, pinned; inside the official field of play and object, my initial comment. I'll keep checking comments for better rationale.

[natureboy]

I like your answer. Maybe I'm back in it then. No other sport would call it a goal, basket, home run, etc if blocked, trapped, pinned; inside the official field of play and object, my initial comment. I'll keep checking comments for better rationale.

Yes, but their fields of play are generally a bit less chaotic than a golf course. Say a beach ball from the stands landed in the net at a basketball game and stopped a shot from going in? Much more unlikely than an obstructed golf hole, but do they have a rule to cover it?

[Hatchman]

Yes, but their fields of play are generally a bit less chaotic than a golf course. Say a beach ball from the stands landed in the net at a basketball game and stopped a shot from going in? Much more unlikely than an obstructed golf hole, but do they have a rule to cover it?

Yes, good question and illustration. One is interference and one in obstruction. For example, in baseball a ball trapped between netting, infield cover and wall in fair territory play is immediately dead ball and batter awarded bases from where he started at home plate. From a throw it's a different award possibility. Basketball if it's trapped between the rim and back board it's a dead ball and ball awarded to the defensive team. However, if it's caught in the net below the cylinder it's a basket and the ball is removed. Basically, the rule of thumb is you can't give a point, goal, run, etc on an assumption only make a ruling from where the play becomes dead. Although it was a fantastic shot and most likely a hole in one probably 90% of the time, ASSUMPTION, the use of the white liner that deformed trapping the ball between the liner and the hole prevented the teed ball from going in. It would be deemed, in my view, as part of the playing field if I was asked to rule on it, unless the local course had a specific rule provision that would govern.

[Rulesman]

It would be deemed, in my view, as part of the playing field if I was asked to rule on it, unless the local course had a specific rule provision that would govern.

The insert (not a liner as used in the RoG) doesn't need a Local Rule. It is an Obstruction by definition. It would need a Local Rule to make it an Integral Part of the Course.