Playing a 2nd Ball When Correct Ruling in Doubt

[bkuehn1952]

Here is an incident that actually took place last week in a tournament.  The tournament was held at a public access course so frankly the course was not marked as one might prefer for a tournament (e.g. hazard stakes missing in areas, GUR not marked, etc...)

A player hit is ball into an area of very rough ground.  The hazard (swampy land) had once extended into this area but the course was in the process of widening the landing area.  This area had never been planted with grass and was covered with the stubble from the native grasses and cattails that had once grown there.  We were not even sure the course intended to ever plant grass there, just make the area clear enough to allow one to find their ball.  Sort of like clearing out brush from the edge of the forest to allow one to find their ball and make punching out a bit easier.

The player's ball was in a area where the earth had been churned a bit by the machinery used to chop the native vegetation down. His ball was in a spot where some tread marks were present.  He wanted to make a drop for GUR.  The area was not marked as a hazard.  It was not marked as GUR.  The rest of the group was not really certain the area was intended to be marked as GUR.  We suggested he play 2 balls and he agreed, citing that the ball he dropped as relief from the area he wanted considered GUR was the ball he wanted to score.

He proceeded to make a hash with both balls and at some point he decided the 2nd ball was pointless and picked it up, finishing the hole with the original ball.  He never asked the committee to rule on whether he got relief.

1. Let's assume he asked the committee and they ruled the area was not GUR, count the first ball.  It seems like he would be okay.  Agree?

2. If the committee said the area was GUR and his 2nd ball should be counted, he would be DQ as he picked up, did not complete the hole and teed off on the next hole without correcting the error.  Agree?

So what happens if no one ever asks?  Is he okay with scoring the original ball since there was never a ruling that the area was GUR?

Does the initiation of the 2nd ball force one to seek a ruling or is it okay to say, "after thinking about this, the area is not marked and it was part of the hazard a week ago so I am good with just playing it as it lies."

[MEfree]

I think he should have been DQed if the area was deemed to be GUR. 3-3a says failing to report the facts to the committee is grounds for DQ. 3-3. Doubt as to Procedure a. Procedure In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls. After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit. The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified. 3-3/8 Competitor Picks Up Second Ball Q.In stroke play, a competitor, uncertain whether the road his ball lies on is an obstruction or not, invokes Rule 3-3. He plays his original ball as it lies on the road and a second ball under Rule 24-2b(i), telling his marker he wishes his score with the second ball to count if the Rules permit. Having hit his original ball onto the green and the second ball into a bunker, the competitor picks up the second ball, holes out with the original ball and plays from the next tee. At this point the matter is referred to the Committee, which establishes that the road on which the competitor's ball lay was an obstruction. What is the ruling? A.Since the road on which the competitor's ball lay was an obstruction and therefore Rule 24-2b(i) allowed the procedure selected by the competitor, the score with the second (or selected) ball would have counted if it had been holed out. However, since the competitor did not hole out with that ball, he is disqualified (Rule 3-2). If, on the other hand, the road had not been an obstruction, there would have been no penalty. In that case, since the Rules would not have allowed the selected procedure, a score with the second ball would not have counted, and the competitor's score with his original ball would have been his score for the hole. There is no penalty for picking up a ball played under Rule 3-3 if that ball cannot count.

[Golfingdad]

I think he should have been DQed if the area was deemed to be GUR. 3-3a says failing to report the facts to the committee is grounds for DQ.

3-3. Doubt as to Procedure

a. Procedure

In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.

After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.

The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.

3-3/8 Competitor Picks Up Second Ball

Q.In stroke play, a competitor, uncertain whether the road his ball lies on is an obstruction or not, invokes Rule 3-3. He plays his original ball as it lies on the road and a second ball under Rule 24-2b(i), telling his marker he wishes his score with the second ball to count if the Rules permit. Having hit his original ball onto the green and the second ball into a bunker, the competitor picks up the second ball, holes out with the original ball and plays from the next tee. At this point the matter is referred to the Committee, which establishes that the road on which the competitor's ball lay was an obstruction. What is the ruling?

A.Since the road on which the competitor's ball lay was an obstruction and therefore Rule 24-2b(i) allowed the procedure selected by the competitor, the score with the second (or selected) ball would have counted if it had been holed out. However, since the competitor did not hole out with that ball, he is disqualified (Rule 3-2).

If, on the other hand, the road had not been an obstruction, there would have been no penalty. In that case, since the Rules would not have allowed the selected procedure, a score with the second ball would not have counted, and the competitor's score with his original ball would have been his score for the hole. There is no penalty for picking up a ball played under Rule 3-3 if that ball cannot count.

Don't think you even needed to add "I think" at the beginning of your post. That decision almost exactly describes the situation the OP presented.

[Rulesman]

The only thing wrong with using the Decision is that the player reported the incident to the committee.

In the OP the player did not, so the third para of the Rule applies.

The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified

[bkuehn1952]

@MEfree Decision.

@Rulesman se.  Unless or until the Committee makes a Ruling, we don't know whether the area should have been treated as GUR so the player is required to report the situation.

As it turned out, the player was not going to win anything and whether he was DQ'd or not made no difference in the results.  In fact, he may have reported the situation and been told the ground was not GUR; I did not ask him and I was not his marker. I only started to think about the situation several days later.

Lesson learned - once a 2nd ball is put into play, it is best to finish with both.

[Golfingdad]

The only thing wrong with using the Decision is that the player reported the incident to the committee.

In the OP the player did not, so the third para of the Rule applies.

The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified

In the scenario that OP described that led to him thinking up the question, yes.  However, the question he actually asked was "Let's assume that he did ask the committee and they ruled it as GUR....."

[Rulesman]

Oops. Missed that second time I read it