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

[wadesworld]

It also must be within the circumference of the hole.  The definition doesn't say whether or not it must be entirely within the circumference, although the inference would be that it must.  If it has to be entirely below the lip, then by extension it should be required that it be entirely within the circumference.

The question begs an official answer - if a ball is embedded in the side of the hole but completely below the lip, is it holed?  I couldn't make an absolute ruling and be certain one way or the other, and I have a feeling that the possibility has never come to the attention of the RB's to the point that they felt it was worth writing a decision.

I had actually considered that, but knew that 16/2 covered it.  However, I guess I should have pointed out that case too.

[ColinL]

For relief from a ball in or on a movable obstruction, see Rule 24-1b:

If the ball lies in or on the obstruction , the ball may be lifted and the obstruction removed. The ball must through the green or in a hazard be dropped, or on the putting green be placed, as near as possible to the spot directly under the place where the ball lay in or on the obstruction , but not nearer the hole .

[Golfingdad]

My point is that if we move the liner out of the way the ball drops in.. The contention is no the ball is picked up, hole/liner fixed and then ball placed on lip..

It was mentioned it is just like a ball being embedded next to the hole or on the hole lip, the difference in my mind is that liner.

It's not really relevant as far as the rules are concerned, but even so ... you're failing to see how much benefit that the liner likely provided in keeping the ball there.  It's just as likely (actually, I'd wager considerably more) that were the liner not there, the ball would be nowhere near the hole.

If I hit a good drive that bounced once on a sprinkler head and then rolled into a giant divot, using your argument, I could say I deserve a free drop because if that stupid sprinkler head wasn't there I wouldn't have been in that divot.

Them's the breaks.

[Fourputt]

For relief from a ball in or on a movable obstruction, see Rule 24-1b:

If the ball lies in or on the obstruction, the ball may be lifted and the obstruction removed. The ball must through the green or in a hazard be dropped, or on the putting green be placed, as near as possible to the spot directly under the place where the ball lay in or on the obstruction, but not nearer the hole.

I don't consider that to be a movable obstruction.  It's as much a part of the course as the hole itself.  It is there to provide visibility and to keep the edges of the hole sharp and clean (although all it actually provides is visibility - on Tour they paint the dirt above the liner with white paint).  As such, it should be considered as part of the hole and immovable.  Do you really think that it would be proper for a player to remove such a strip, or even the entire liner, before putting?  If it was a movable obstruction, then such an act would be allowable, and even advisable, as I've seen a firmly struck putt hit the top of the hole liner and be rejected, even when properly installed one inch below the lip.

[Jeremie Boop]

I don't consider that to be a movable obstruction.  It's as much a part of the course as the hole itself.  It is there to provide visibility and to keep the edges of the hole sharp and clean (although all it actually provides is visibility - on Tour they paint the dirt above the liner with white paint).  As such, it should be considered as part of the hole and immovable.  Do you really think that it would be proper for a player to remove such a strip, or even the entire liner, before putting?  If it was a movable obstruction, then such an act would be allowable, and even advisable, as I've seen a firmly struck putt hit the top of the hole liner and be rejected, even when properly installed one inch below the lip.

I've watched someone hit a birdie put that bounced back out because the cup was not seated correctly and was at an angle, even though it was an opponent *match play* I still felt bad that the rules said it didn't count and he had to put again for par. I've also had a hole in one rejected by the edge of the cup, it was painful to watch that shot drop in the hole then bounce off the flag and roll 15 feet away. These things all fall under the "rub of the green" though because we've all gotten those ridiculously lucky good breaks too. To me, the situation pictured is no different that if a ball plugged 12" from the hole, because hey if it didn't plug it would have just rolled right into the hole right? Nobody knows for sure what would have happened so we can't just give them the best possible result by default.

*edit I wasn't meaning to indicate that you were advocating for anything like giving them the best result possible, was just a general statement*

[Abu3baid]

It's not really relevant as far as the rules are concerned, but even so ... you're failing to see how much benefit that the liner likely provided in keeping the ball there.  It's just as likely (actually, I'd wager considerably more) that were the liner not there, the ball would be nowhere near the hole. If I hit a good drive that bounced once on a sprinkler head and then rolled into a giant divot, using your argument, I could say I deserve a free drop because if that stupid sprinkler head wasn't there I wouldn't have been in that divot. Them's the breaks.

You misunderstood me.. I meant while the ball is sitting there right now, go and move the liner and watch the ball drop... I'm not saying "what if the liner wasn't there x would have happened".. Anyway, some good info in this thread but I'm not convinced that it would be fair to say to the guy you have to take another stroke..

[Golfingdad]

I've watched someone hit a birdie put that bounced back out because the cup was not seated correctly and was at an angle, even though it was an opponent *match play* I still felt bad that the rules said it didn't count and he had to put again for par. I've also had a hole in one rejected by the edge of the cup, it was painful to watch that shot drop in the hole then bounce off the flag and roll 15 feet away. These things all fall under the "rub of the green" though because we've all gotten those ridiculously lucky good breaks too. To me, the situation pictured is no different that if a ball plugged 12" from the hole, because hey if it didn't plug it would have just rolled right into the hole right? Nobody knows for sure what would have happened so we can't just give them the best possible result by default.

*edit I wasn't meaning to indicate that you were advocating for anything like giving them the best result possible, was just a general statement*

Well said.  It's been posted on this site before, but there is a video of a guy (sorry, don't remember his name) missing a crucial putt in PGA Tour Q-school in this exact fashion.  It's heartbreaking, but what are you going to do?

You misunderstood me.. I meant while the ball is sitting there right now, go and move the liner and watch the ball drop... I'm not saying "what if the liner wasn't there x would have happened"..

No, I understood.  You're discounted what would have happened prior if the liner weren't there but are basing your opinion on what will happen if the liner isn't there now.

I'm saying you either consider what happens if it's always there or never there.

[wadesworld]

You misunderstood me.. I meant while the ball is sitting there right now, go and move the liner and watch the ball drop... I'm not saying "what if the liner wasn't there x would have happened"..

Anyway, some good info in this thread but I'm not convinced that it would be fair to say to the guy you have to take another stroke..

There is no concept of the "fairness" of a break in golf.  A break can be a good break (ball bounces off sprinkler, kicks 30-yards dead left and goes in hole) or it can be a bad one, as shown here.  The only concept of fairness in the Rules is the concept of equity.  That is, if two players find themselves in identical situations, they will be treated equally under the Rules.

You've got at least 3 active rules officials in this thread who believe that if part of the ball extends above the level of the lip, the ball is not holed. Sucks for that player, but it's a bad break, nothing more.

[ColinL]

Put this one to bed!  The ball is not holed.

Put this one to bed!  It is completely irrelevant what might have happened to the ball if the hole liner hadn't caught it.  You can only work things out   on the basis of where the ball has come to rest.

It has come to rest on the hole liner.  The hole liner is an artificial object which is therefore by definition an obstruction whatever its purpose in life.  It can be moved and is therefore a movable obstruction.  The ball should be lifted, the obstruction removed and the ball replaced directly below where it had been.  (Rule 24-1b)   Bingo - it's in the hole and deemed to have been holed by the last stroke.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

Put this one to bed!  The ball is not holed.

Put this one to bed!  It is completely irrelevant what might have happened to the ball if the hole liner hadn't caught it.  You can only work things out   on the basis of where the ball has come to rest.

It has come to rest on the hole liner.  The hole liner is an artificial object which is therefore by definition an obstruction whatever its purpose in life.  It can be moved and is therefore a movable obstruction.  The ball should be lifted, the obstruction removed and the ball replaced directly below where it had been.  (Rule 24-1b)   Bingo - it's in the hole and deemed to have been holed by the last stroke.

Doesn't Rule 20-3d then come into play?  If the ball doesn't come to rest when placed, it must be replaced, etc.

Quote:

d . Ball Fails to Come to Rest on Spot

If a ball when placed fails to come to rest on the spot on which it was placed, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced. If it still fails to come to rest on that spot:

(i) except in a hazard , it must be placed at the nearest spot where it can be placed at rest that is not nearer the hole and not in a hazard ;

[saevel25]

It has come to rest on the hole liner.  The hole liner is an artificial object which is therefore by definition an obstruction whatever its purpose in life.  It can be moved and is therefore a movable obstruction.  The ball should be lifted, the obstruction removed and the ball replaced directly below where it had been.  (Rule 24-1b)   Bingo - it's in the hole and deemed to have been holed by the last stroke.

The USGA ruled that the hole-liner is an outside agency, not an obstruction.

17/8

Ball Strikes Hole-Liner Pulled Out with Flagstick

Q.A player played a stroke from the putting green. The ball struck the hole-liner, which had stuck to the bottom of the flagstick and had come out of the hole when the person attending the flagstick removed the flagstick. Is there any penalty?

A.No. A hole-liner is an outside agency. Accordingly, if the hole-liner was moving when the ball struck it, the stroke is canceled and the ball must be replaced - Rule 19-1b. If the hole-liner was not moving, the ball must be played as it lies - Rule 19-1. In case of doubt, the ball must be played as it lies.

[ColinL]

The USGA ruled that the hole-liner is an outside agency, not an obstruction.

There is nothing said in that Decision to the effect that the hole liner in not an obstruction and there wouldn't be because an object can be both an obstruction and an outside agency.  If your ball is deflected by a sprinkler head, for example, it has been deflected by an outside agency which is in itself an obstruction.

[ColinL]

Doesn't Rule 20-3d then come into play?  If the ball doesn't come to rest when placed, it must be replaced, etc.

Firstly, apologies for saying "replaced instead of "placed".   Secondly, this is just my reading of the situation through applying the rules as I see them to something entirely new - no higher authority than that!

We are told to place the ball directly below where it had been on the obstruction.  Directly below is at the bottom of the hole where the ball is at rest.

[Abu3baid]

Fine, if the rules say that this is not a hole out great.. This must be one of the dumbest rules I have seen.. They need to immediately change the rule so that if any of the ball is below the hole it is a hole out.. That will avoid illogical decisions like this one.. Sheesh.. Edit: not just below the hole but breaking the circumference of the hole as well.. So if it is embedded but not breaking the plane of the hole it is not a hole out obviously.

[iacas]

This must be one of the dumbest rules I have seen.. They need to immediately change the rule so that if any of the ball is below the hole it is a hole out.. That will avoid illogical decisions like this one.. Sheesh.. Edit: not just below the hole but breaking the circumference of the hole as well.. So if it is embedded but not breaking the plane of the hole it is not a hole out obviously.

No they don't. Just as a goal in hockey doesn't count if it doesn't enter the goal mouth, a ball not holed properly doesn't count. In disc golf discs can't enter by wedging through the outside.

[Abu3baid]

No they don't. Just as a goal in hockey doesn't count if it doesn't enter the goal mouth, a ball not holed properly doesn't count. In disc golf discs can't enter by wedging through the outside.

We can agree to disagree on this one.. I'm more a football guy, so the ball breaks the plane it is in.. You conveniently picked the games that support your position.. I'll play by the rules, but this one is dumb in my opinion. Edit: just so that I'm clear I'm not saying if it breaks the plane it is in, what in saying if the end position is the ball breaking the plane it is in.. So you can still have balls go in and out ect..

[iacas]

We can agree to disagree on this one.. I'm more a football guy, so the ball breaks the plane it is in.. You conveniently picked the games that support your position..

No. I picked sports where there's a 3D target (behind the net is still in play in hockey, and the net could be lifted off the ice) in play, not just a plane that needs broken.

[Abu3baid]

No. I picked sports where there's a 3D target (behind the net is still in play in hockey, and the net could be lifted off the ice) in play, not just a plane that needs broken.

last time I checked in hockey there is a straight line that needs to be crossed.. What this has to do with 3D and lifting the net I will never know.. Same with football there is a straight line to cross.. One sport says whole puck the other says part of the ball.. If anything football is closer to golf in that it is ball and not a puck or disc.. But you are more than welcome to have what ever opinion you choose.. When I see that picture in the OP I find it hard justifying that they need another stroke to get the ball in the hole.. Sometimes dumb rules are created and then they end up with these situations, it happens.. These guys that made the golf rules aren't infallible to mistakes.