Dog helps player find ball

[gblackwell]

I cross-posted this on reddit , and received the following, very helpful analysis from an " R&A-certified; rules official and president of a national golf association." Seems spot on to me, and echoes some of the sentiment of above. I didn't think either scenario would be allowed, but couldn't point to anything except 1-4, which always seems like grasping at straws. I now think the dog would be considered "unusual equipment" under either scenario. I don't see how the scent applied would be an "artificial device," but maybe that's right too.

Quote:

Rule 14-3 prohibits the use of artificial devices, unusual equipment, and the unusual use of equipment. Specifically, "...during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or use any equipment in an unusual manner: a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play ; or b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or c. That might assist him in gripping the club"

Most probably the use of a scent applied to the ball would be considered and "artificial device" and a breach of Rule 14-3. The penalty for a breach is disqualification. Even is you could argue that a scent is not an "artificial device", the dog itself is unusual equipment. The Rules define "equipment" and the definition of equipment is " 'Equipment' is anything used , worn or carried by the player". If the dog is being used to find the ball, the dog is equipment and is being used by the player in his play . Because the use of dogs is neither widespread or traditional, the use of a dog would be considered unusual equipment under the rules. I would not hesitate to disqualify a player under this rule in these circumstances.

There is a decision that back this up. Decision 14-3/14 covers the use of microchips in the golf ball to aid in finding the ball. The decision basically says that the chip itself is not contrary to the rules provided the ball conforms, but the receiver used to find the ball would certainly be contrary to the rules. In this case, the dog is no different than the receiver and the scent is no different than the chip. You can use the scent (or the scent of the owner) but if you use something to track that scent, the rule is breached.

All of that said, even if you could make the argument that the dog was not unusual equipment, Rule 1-4, which covers points not covered by the rules, says that when a point isn't specifically covered by the rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity. Equity simply means "fair". If a player receives an advantage over another by using the dog, in equity, the dog should not be allowed.

The Rules of Golf include a section on etiquette, and that section requires golfers to act with consideration and sportsmanship to other golfers. A committee, under Rule 33-7, may penalize a player for breaches of etiquette. Most penalties are administrative, but a serious breach of etiquette is met with a penalty of disqualification.

[ColinL]

Wow.  That’s impressive.  It took me all of 69 words to say the same thing.

[Rulesman]

And it took me 15.

[ColinL]

And it took me 15.

I know, but it was exceedingly cryptic and begged for some expansion ..... not a lot, but some.

And, besides, 5 of mine were taken up in acknowledging your 15.

[turtleback]

I cross-posted this on reddit, and received the following, very helpful analysis from an "R&A-certified; rules official and president of a national golf association." Seems spot on to me, and echoes some of the sentiment of above. I didn't think either scenario would be allowed, but couldn't point to anything except 1-4, which always seems like grasping at straws. I now think the dog would be considered "unusual equipment" under either scenario. I don't see how the scent applied would be an "artificial device," but maybe that's right too.

Would applying the scent to the ball constitute an unusual use of equipment?  Or does the fact that the scent does not change the playing (as opposed to finding) characteristics of the ball make the difference?  Putting scent on a ball to make it easier to find is pretty analogous to putting vaseline on your clubface to make it easier to hit it straight. except that the latter affects the playing characteristics and the former does not.

[nevets88]

Wonder if there's a way to mechanize the whole dog sniffing process. Maybe RFID isn't the way to go and scenting the ball is? Just putting it out there.

[acetoolguy]

Better off taking lessons and hitting it straight.

If only it were that easy....

[VOX]

I have been told by numerous caddies that Lassie couldn't find my ball if it was wrapped in bacon

[boogielicious]

I have been told by numerous caddies that Lassie couldn't find my ball if it was wrapped in bacon

But what if the ball wrapped in bacon was down the well with Timmy?  Hmmmm?

[DrvFrShow]

Trust me, I've trained dogs. Tracking dogs. It doesn't take "applying a scent". Your own scent would be sufficient for the dog to lie down and indicate when he/she found the ball. And your scent  gets applied every time you handle the ball. The problem would be training the dog not to pick up the ball since much training uses a ball as a reward.

[ColinL]

I have no idea whether the practice still continues, but there was a day when the caddies at St Andrews trained their dogs to recover golf balls from under the plentiful and to humans impenetrable gorse bushes.  That, however, was to retrieve balls to sell and supplement their income, not to help out the players who had hired them during their games!

[dazza78]

How about this one, a member of the public is walking their dog, the dog picks the ball up and carries it closer to the green.. is that permissible and within the law of the game.  My Course has public right of way paths.. and this happened to me.  I just wondered how that would have officially went.

[turtleback]

How about this one, a member of the public is walking their dog, the dog picks the ball up and carries it closer to the green.. is that permissible and within the law of the game.  My Course has public right of way paths.. and this happened to me.  I just wondered how that would have officially went.

The dog is an Outside Agency.  You are to replace the ball (or another ball) at the spot where the ball was before it was moved/taken by the outside agency.

It is Rule 18-1.

And welcome to the board!!

[dazza78]

Thanks for clearing that and the welcome ☺️