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

[Golfingdad]

What sort of golf course is this?

Who has ever seen a flimsy cup liner like that?

Why is it level with the surface of the green?

Is it even real grass?

It looks like a putting green.

Don't know.

Not me.

No idea.

I presume.

You're right, except it does appear that there is a little mud on the ball and in the cup, which would confirm real grass.

(But, yeah, prior to this thread, I've never heard of these cup liner thingies, and never seen one that I can recall either.)

[cipher]

Don't know.

Not me.

No idea.

I presume.

You're right, except it does appear that there is a little mud on the ball and in the cup, which would confirm real grass.

(But, yeah, prior to this thread, I've never heard of these cup liner thingies, and never seen one that I can recall either.)

Yeah I have never seen one of those either.  It obviously does not appear to be a very bright idea.  I wonder if the soil is just to sandy or something there and it collapses otherwise.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty

What sort of golf course is this?

Who has ever seen a flimsy cup liner like that?

Why is it level with the surface of the green?

Is it even real grass?

It looks like a putting green.

Don't know.

Not me.

No idea.

I presume.

You're right, except it does appear that there is a little mud on the ball and in the cup, which would confirm real grass.

(But, yeah, prior to this thread, I've never heard of these cup liner thingies, and never seen one that I can recall either.)

It's not part of the hole liner, it is just a flimsy plastic ring that is used for visibility in place of painting the inch of dirt above the liner.  They just rest on top of the actual hole liner, and are often pulled part way out of the hole just by picking up your ball.  They are more trouble than they are worth - at least that was the conclusion of the staff at my old course after using them for about a half season.

[natureboy]

Technically you can mark it like this right?

If you fix the lip and try to place your ball it would fall in? Under rule 20-1, on marking a ball.

In that case would it be a hole out, or do you just assume that you would have made a stroke to tap it in? I think the marking rules make it difficult to place the ball on the lip since you are then not marking the ball as stated in Rule 20-1. I guess the decision 16/3 you stated says to put it on the lip. Though in this case the rules are kinda conflicting on marking a ball, and then placing the ball on the lip when the marker would take up all the space the ball could be placed.

If you checked the decision above the one you posted ;)

I was thinking marking idea, but calling the lie 'in or on' an obstruction unless the cuff is defined as part of the course. Take a drop and maybe get lucky? That said is would seem to go against the precedent in the decisions.

- sorry point already covered in thread discussion.

[ColinL]

Just to be precise, you would place a ball that had been in or on movable obstruction  on the putting green.  Which is of course the basis of my stubborn insistence that you would place the ball in the hole if an obstruction was holding it above the hole ..... but let's not go there again.

[Rulesman]

24-1 . Movable Obstruction

A player may take relief, without penalty, from a movable obstruction as follows:

b. 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 .

But

20-3 . Placing and Replacing

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 ;

[natureboy]

Just to be precise, you would place a ball that had been in or on movable obstruction  on the putting green.  Which is of course the basis of my stubborn insistence that you would place the ball in the hole if an obstruction was holding it above the hole ..... but let's not go there again.

24-1. Movable Obstruction

A player may take relief, without penalty, from a movable obstruction as follows:

b. 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.

But

20-3. Placing and Replacing

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;

Thanks for the corrections. I don't face these situations on the green much so the through the green procedure was more in my mind.

So as a general interpretation of the points, if the ball is 100% below the green surface and more than half within the margin of the hole it is holed and if the entire ball is 100% within the margins of the excavated dirt sides of the hole and suspended above the bottom of the cup by an obstruction or loose impediment it would likely be deemed as holed on the prior shot because of the lift remove and place directly below option?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

Just to be precise, you would place a ball that had been in or on movable obstruction  on the putting green.  Which is of course the basis of my stubborn insistence that you would place the ball in the hole if an obstruction was holding it above the hole ..... but let's not go there again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

24-1. Movable Obstruction

A player may take relief, without penalty, from a movable obstruction as follows:

b. 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.

But

20-3. Placing and Replacing

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;

Thanks for the corrections. I don't face these situations on the green much so the through the green procedure was more in my mind.

So as a general interpretation of the points, if the ball is 100% below the green surface and more than half within the margin of the hole it is holed and if the entire ball is 100% within the margins of the excavated dirt sides of the hole and suspended above the bottom of the cup by an obstruction or loose impediment it would likely be deemed as holed on the prior shot because of the lift remove and place directly below option?

Nope.  If when the player attemps to place the ball, it strikes the edge of the hole causing it to move farther into the hole, then it would ultimately come to rest closer to the hole.  In that case the ball would be placed on the lip and the player would have to tap it in for an additional stroke.

[ColinL]

Thanks for the corrections. I don't face these situations on the green much so the through the green procedure was more in my mind.

So as a general interpretation of the points, if the ball is 100% below the green surface and more than half within the margin of the hole it is holed and if the entire ball is 100% within the margins of the excavated dirt sides of the hole and suspended above the bottom of the cup by an obstruction or loose impediment it would likely be deemed as holed on the prior shot because of the lift remove and place directly below option?

Nope.  If when the player attemps to place the ball, it strikes the edge of the hole causing it to move farther into the hole, then it would ultimately come to rest closer to the hole.  In that case the ball would be placed on the lip and the player would have to tap it in for an additional stroke.

If a ball is 100% below the green surface but held up  a loose impediment or obstruction, why would you have to remove the loose impediment or the obstruction?  Doesn't the ball meet the definition of "holed" even if the side of the hole is damaged and part of the ball is in the side of the hole, as in the embedded ball in the hole Decision?

To be clear, I have all along been talking of  a ball that is held up directly above the hole - i.e. vertical lines from its circumference would be entirely  within the hole.  When you  place it in the hole, it cannot be any nearer or further from it.

[Rulesman]

To be clear, I have all along been talking of  a ball that is held up directly above the hole - i.e. vertical lines from its circumference would be entirely  within the hole.  When you  place it in the hole, it cannot be any nearer or further from it.

In the situation you describe, being nearer the hole is somewhat irrelevant. If it is on an IO, it is placed anap immediately below its spot on the IO. I can't imagine anywhere other than in the hole would satisfy that condition. If it is on a LI, as you know I have an equity ruling that says the same thing.

The same would apply to a ball that is 50% or more over the vertical line. Or even a damaged edge preventing the ball remaining at rest.

[natureboy]

Nope.  If when the player attemps to place the ball, it strikes the edge of the hole causing it to move farther into the hole, then it would ultimately come to rest closer to the hole.  In that case the ball would be placed on the lip and the player would have to tap it in for an additional stroke.

I assume you are talking about embedded in the side of the hole but below the surface of the green situation right? Sounds like it doesn't matter for your interpretation how much of the ball is within the original excavated dirt margins of the hole. Why was the ball in the OP situation ruled a hole in one if it wasn't 100% within the original hole circumference?

I think that the second scenario of the ball not 100% below the surface of the green due to being in or on a loose impediment or moveable obstruction but 100% within the margins of the hole would allow a lift and place directly below the original spot, which would be in the hole, yes? The exception to 'not improving the lie' principle for moveable obstructions seems to be is that the object is interfering with the correct relationship to the surface of the course that would exist if the object was not there.

If a ball is 100% below the green surface but held up  a loose impediment or obstruction, why would you have to remove the loose impediment or the obstruction?  Doesn't the ball meet the definition of "holed" even if the side of the hole is damaged and part of the ball is in the side of the hole, as in the embedded ball in the hole Decision?

To be clear, I have all along been talking of  a ball that is held up directly above the hole - i.e. vertical lines from its circumference would be entirely  within the hole.  When you  place it in the hole, it cannot be any nearer or further from it.

I think you are mixing my two scenarios or my wording wasn't right / didn't cover the third in-between scenario properly. The bolded part was what the second part of what I wrote addressed and I think your interpretation makes sense. Question seems to arise with ball 100% below the green surface and ball circumference not 100% within the original hole circumference, which is closer to OP scenario.

I can kind of see Fourputt's objection if the bottom of the ball is above a spot that is not within the original hole circumference except that the hole is not defined as its central point, but the excavation from the green so if the lowest vertical point of the ball is within the hole circumference then the ball is 'within the cup' as it is defined and even if you place that bottom closer to the center of the hole (no special status / treatment under the rules) to make the whole ball fit (and not squeeze it into the wall of the hole) then you haven't actually placed nearer the hole. This would seem to support the 50%+ interpretation below, yes?

In the situation you describe, being nearer the hole is somewhat irrelevant. If it is on an IO, it is placed anap immediately below its spot on the IO. I can't imagine anywhere other than in the hole would satisfy that condition. If it is on a LI, as you know I have an equity ruling that says the same thing.

The same would apply to a ball that is 50% or more over the vertical line. Or even a damaged edge preventing the ball remaining at rest.

What would apply, an equity ruling covering a similar situation or the same in-between situation ball below green surface, but less than 100% within original circumference of hole?

[Rulesman]

50% ball

What would apply, an equity ruling covering a similar situation or the same in-between situation ball below green surface, but less than 100% within original circumference of hole?

I was assuming the ball would not remain at rest 'on the edge' so would be placed at the nearest point ....

[natureboy]

I was assuming the ball would not remain at rest 'on the edge' so would be placed at the nearest point ....

So you say place it in the hole or on the lip?

Do you agree with my interpretation that the relevant part of the hole per the rules is the outer circumference so that if the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle, placing the bottom of the ball within the hole is not placing it nearer the hole?

[Rulesman]

So you say place it in the hole or on the lip?

Do you agree with my interpretation that the relevant part of the hole per the rules is the outer circumference so that if the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle, placing the bottom of the ball within the hole is not placing it nearer the hole?

I f the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle then anywhere in the hole is nor nearer.

Of course the hole is an area not a spot.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureboy

So you say place it in the hole or on the lip?

Do you agree with my interpretation that the relevant part of the hole per the rules is the outer circumference so that if the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle, placing the bottom of the ball within the hole is not placing it nearer the hole?

If the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle then anywhere in the hole is nor nearer.

Of course the hole is an area not a spot.

We have been around so many circles that I don't even know what we are discussing any more.  There are 2 possibilities in the scenario when the ball is embedded in the side of the hole.  They are both clarified in the Decisions:

16/2

Ball Embedded in Side of Hole; All of Ball Below Lip of Hole

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

A.The ball should be considered holed even though all of the ball is not within the circumference of the hole as required by the Definition of "Holed."

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.

In the situation of the ball lying on an obstruction or loose impediment, your contention is that if the center of the ball is lying over the hole then the ball can be placed in the hole.  I dispute that to the point that if the ball is not entirely within the circumference of the hole, it will move forward when the player attempts to place it "directly under where it lies on the obstruction (or loose impediment)".  My contention is that if the ball moves forward before it is completely below the lip, it is not holed, but must be placed on the lip at the nearest place where it will remain at rest, just the same as described in d. 17/6 which specifically states that the player my NOT place the ball in the hole:

17/6

Ball Lodged in Flag Attached to Flagstick

Q.A player's ball lodges in the flag attached to a flagstick. What is the procedure?

A.A flagstick is a movable obstruction and Rule 24-1 applies. However, in taking relief the player may not place the ball in the hole. Therefore, in equity (Rule 1-4), the player must place the ball on the lip of the hole when taking relief.

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?

[natureboy]

If the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle then anywhere in the hole is nor nearer.

Of course the hole is an area not a spot.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

We have been around so many circles that I don't even know what we are discussing any more.  There are 2 possibilities in the scenario when the ball is embedded in the side of the hole.  They are both clarified in the Decisions:

In the situation of the ball lying on an obstruction or loose impediment, your contention is that if the center of the ball is lying over the hole then the ball can be placed in the hole.  I dispute that to the point that if the ball is not entirely within the circumference of the hole, it will move forward when the player attempts to place it "directly under where it lies on the obstruction (or loose impediment)".  My contention is that if the ball moves forward before it is completely below the lip, it is not holed, but must be placed on the lip at the nearest place where it will remain at rest, 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?

Given the examples of the ball on a leaf covering the hole, I wanted to extrapolate a little beyond just the OP scenario.

Re your second paragraph, I agree the ball would be move from it's actual resting spot, but not that constitutes 'forward' under the rules since the center of the cup has no special status under the rules. I would think 'no nearer the hole' on a placement to not apply to a ball with a lie (vertical bottom of the ball) directly over the hole. The ball in the flag scenario strikes me as different from the OP scenario, because the ball is well above the surface of the green and is less of a 'like' scenario as the ball is quite far from the surface of the green and its path uninterrupted by the obstruction could have put it quite far from as well as in the hole. The ball embedded in hole and ball on leaf over the hole seem more alike in that the final ball at rest lie of the ball has more of a true relationship to the hole - below the surface of the green or within the circumference of the hole.

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)?

I think there is another scenario not quite covered / contemplated. The ball embedded in the side of the hole ruling I think covered a situation where the ball flew into the side of the hole from the opposite side. What if the ball hit the surface of a very soft green near (but before the hole) and embedded below the surface, but with only a small portion (less than 50%) of its diameter within the circumference of the hole. Probably the current ball embedded in hole ruling would say it's holed, but that seems to 'place' the ball nearer the hole relative to a ball that clearly transited the hole en route to embedding.

I would suggest a synthesis interpretation of all the scenarios for a ball that has partially broken the plane of the green surface or partially broken the plane of the hole circumference might be:

If the ball has embedded in the side of the hole and it has clearly transited through the circumference of the hole and its highest vertical point is below the surface of the green it is holed. If the ball is embedded in the side of the hole not

first transiting the hole < and its lowest vertical point is within the circumference of the hole and its highest vertical point is below the surface of the green it is deemed holed, otherwise> it must be placed not nearer the hole. If the ball

lies at rest in, on, or against a loose impediment or obstruction and its lowest vertical point is both within the circumference of the hole and on or below the green surface it is deemed holed.

The part in italicized brackets would be my personal viewpoint, but could see how the scenario of 'sneaking in the back door' on a shot embedding short of the hole might not be kosher. If you took it out a ball not transiting the hole, but embedded in the side would be placed on the lip.

I don't know the correct procedure of rules officials / committees in making an interpretation. I am going by what I know of the rules and interpretations. Defer to your experience on correct ruling procedure.

[Hatchman]

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

[Fourputt]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

 

If the vertically lowest part of the ball is within that circle then anywhere in the hole is nor nearer.

Of course the hole is an area not a spot.

 

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

 

We have been around so many circles that I don't even know what we are discussing any more.  There are 2 possibilities in the scenario when the ball is embedded in the side of the hole.  They are both clarified in the Decisions:

 

 

 

In the situation of the ball lying on an obstruction or loose impediment, your contention is that if the center of the ball is lying over the hole then the ball can be placed in the hole.  I dispute that to the point that if the ball is not entirely within the circumference of the hole, it will move forward when the player attempts to place it "directly under where it lies on the obstruction (or loose impediment)".  My contention is that if the ball moves forward before it is completely below the lip, it is not holed, but must be placed on the lip at the nearest place where it will remain at rest, 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?

 

Given the examples of the ball on a leaf covering the hole, I wanted to extrapolate a little beyond just the OP scenario.

 

Re your second paragraph, I agree the ball would be move from it's actual resting spot, but not that constitutes 'forward' under the rules since the center of the cup has no special status under the rules. I would think 'no nearer the hole' on a placement to not apply to a ball with a lie (vertical bottom of the ball) directly over the hole. The ball in the flag scenario strikes me as different from the OP scenario, because the ball is well above the surface of the green and is less of a 'like' scenario as the ball is quite far from the surface of the green and its path uninterrupted by the obstruction could have put it quite far from as well as in the hole. The ball embedded in hole and ball on leaf over the hole seem more alike in that the final ball at rest lie of the ball has more of a true relationship to the hole - below the surface of the green or within the circumference of the hole.

 

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)?

 

I think there is another scenario not quite covered / contemplated. The ball embedded in the side of the hole ruling I think covered a situation where the ball flew into the side of the hole from the opposite side. What if the ball hit the surface of a very soft green near (but before the hole) and embedded below the surface, but with only a small portion (less than 50%) of its diameter within the circumference of the hole. Probably the current ball embedded in hole ruling would say it's holed, but that seems to 'place' the ball nearer the hole relative to a ball that clearly transited the hole en route to embedding.

 

I would suggest a synthesis interpretation of all the scenarios for a ball that has partially broken the plane of the green surface or partially broken the plane of the hole circumference might be: 

 

     If the ball has embedded in the side of the hole and it has clearly transited through the circumference of the hole and its highest vertical point is below the surface of the green it is holed. If the ball is embedded in the side of the hole not

     first transiting the hole it must be placed not nearer the hole. If the ball

     lies at rest in, on, or against a loose impediment or obstruction and its lowest vertical point is both within the circumference of the hole and on or below the green surface it is deemed holed.

 

The part in italicized brackets would be my personal viewpoint, but could see how the scenario of 'sneaking in the back door' on a shot embedding short of the hole might not be kosher. If you took it out a ball not transiting the hole, but embedded in the side would be placed on the lip.

 

I don't know the correct procedure of rules officials / committees in making an interpretation. I am going by what I know of the rules and interpretations. Defer to your experience on correct ruling procedure.

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.