Under What Rule - Picking Ball up in Hazard, Replacing

[Phil McGleno]

Posting on behalf of someone-A player is playing a stroke play competition under lift clean and place local rule through the green. They even let people rake and replace in bunkers as they were not cared for. Mistakenly a player picked up a ball in a water hazard and replaced it immediately.

Is he penalized two strokes or just one and if so under what Rule? The Local Rule?

[Club Rat]

I believe Two strokes if he picked it up without declaring he intended to Identify the ball to be sure it was his.

2 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Mistakenly a player picked up a ball in a water hazard and replaced it immediately.

 

[Phil McGleno]

2 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

I believe Two strokes if he picked it up without declaring he intended to Identify the ball to be sure it was his.

He was not trying to identify his ball. He was going to move it (lift clean place) but then realized he was in a hazard and put it back.

And I asked under what rule please.

[Fourputt]

Rule 18-2:  One stroke for lifting his ball when not allowed, then replacing it.  If he hadn't replaced it, he would have incurred 2 penalty strokes.  

[Phil McGleno]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Rule 18-2:  One stroke for lifting his ball when not allowed, then replacing it.  If he hadn't replaced it, he would have incurred 2 penalty strokes.  

Does 18-2 overrule the local rule that says a breach is two strokes?

[Club Rat]

Is it covered under here?

12-2. Lifting Ball for Identification

The responsibility for playing the proper ball rests with the player. Each player should put an identification mark on his ball.

If a player believes that a ball at rest might be his, but he cannot identify it, the player may lift the ball for identification, without penalty. The right to lift a ball for identification is in addition to the actions permitted under Rule 12-1.

Before lifting the ball, the player must announce his intention to his opponent in match play or his marker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play and mark the position of the ball. He may then lift the ball and identify it, provided that he gives his opponent, marker or fellow-competitor an opportunity to observe the lifting and replacement. The ball must not be cleaned beyond the extent necessary for identification when lifted under Rule 12-2.

Quote

If the ball is the player's ball and he fails to comply with all or any part of this procedure, or he lifts his ball in order to identify it without having good reason to do so, he incurs a penalty of one stroke

. If the lifted ball is the player's ball, he must replace it. If he fails to do so, he incurs the general penalty for a breach of Rule 12-2, but there is no additional penalty under this Rule.

Note: If the original lie of a ball to be replaced has been altered, see Rule 20-3b.

*Penalty for Breach of Rule 12-2:

Match Play - Loss of hole; Stroke Play - Two strokes.

[Fourputt]

23 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Does 18-2 overrule the local rule that says a breach is two strokes?

I would think so, because the ball was replaced.  Only if he completed his intent to improve his lie in the hazard would the 2 stroke penalty apply.  The local rule should not supersede a rule of golf unless it involves prohibiting play from a location or is an actual breach of the local rule.

@Club Rat:  Rule 12-2 doesn't apply because he was not lifting his ball for identification.

[Phil McGleno]

13 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

Is it covered under here?

12-2. Lifting Ball for Identification

No-Thank you for trying but I already said he was not lifting it for identifying it.-Please just people who know the Rules please.

13 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I would think so, because the ball was replaced.  Only if he completed his intent to improve his lie in the hazard would the 2 stroke penalty apply.  The local rule should not supersede a rule of golf unless it involves prohibiting play from a location.

Well the Local Rule is a Rule of Golf too when it is applied.

But yeah I think the Local Rule would apply in this case if he lifted, cleaned and placed in the water hazard.-Same as if he played from a wrong place basically.

[Fourputt]

4 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

No-Thank you for trying but I already said he was not lifting it for identifying it.-Please just people who know the Rules please.

Well the Local Rule is a Rule of Golf too when it is applied.

But yeah I think the Local Rule would apply in this case if he lifted, cleaned and placed in the water hazard.-Same as if he played from a wrong place basically.

Exactly.  He did not breach the  local rule because he replaced the ball.  Had he cleaned the ball before replacing it, then he would be in breach of the local rule.

[DaveP043]

21 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Does 18-2 overrule the local rule that says a breach is two strokes?

I think we'd need to read the local rule in its entirety to be certain, but I generally agree with @Fourputt.  The model local rule in Appendix I applies only to "closely mown areas through the green", so this local rule allows more extensive relief, but still doesn't apply in water hazards.  For a ball in a water hazard, I'd say Rule 18 would control.

[Phil McGleno]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think we'd need to read the local rule in its entirety to be certain, but I generally agree with @Fourputt.  The model local rule in Appendix I applies only to "closely mown areas through the green", so this local rule allows more extensive relief, but still doesn't apply in water hazards.  For a ball in a water hazard, I'd say Rule 18 would control.

The local rule was through the green. The local rule specifically says not in hazards, and says a breach of it-he was trying to lift clean and place- is two strokes. THat is the only reason I wondered if it might fall under that-2 strokes-rather than 18-2, 13, or 26.

[Rulesman]

As the local rule was inapplicable he is ruled under a rule that is. In this case 18-2.

1 penalty for lifting his ball. As he replaced it, there is no other penalty. 

 

1 hour ago, Phil McGleno said:

They even let people rake and replace in bunkers as they were not cared for.

Is that in the same local rule or a separate one?

[DeadMan]

I'm curious about that local rule that let people rake and replace in bunkers. That's not a local rule permitted under the RoG, right?

[bkuehn1952]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

I'm curious about that local rule that let people rake and replace in bunkers. That's not a local rule permitted under the RoG, right?

Correct.  A "Local Rule" is supposed to be one listed in the Appendix of the Rules of Golf or the appropriate governing organization is supposed to approve any alternate Local Rule.

That being said, sometimes situations call for a different approach. For example, a course is going to hold an event but the ground is seriously wet.  In some places casual water might require playing from a 4 inch deep puddle or going back 100 yards or more to obtain full relief.  If no one wants to cancel the event, you allow maximum relief and allow a player to drop in a wet area but at least not under water.  No one should post their scores but the event can still be held.

With the bunkers, they probably were not able to go out and work on them prior to the event.  They could have declared all bunkers as GUR.  Of course that would significantly change the game.  Allowing raking & replacing probably is a better compromise than declaring all bunkers out of play. Again, playing under those conditions would preclude posting scores.

[Martyn W]

32 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

That being said, sometimes situations call for a different approach.

Making up unauthorized Local Rules is a very dangerous 'different approach' and is asking for disaster. Serious players will treat the event as a joke and the committee loses all credibility by trashing 33-1 and  33-8. When a committee has flouted these Rules it begs the question 'why not disregard any other Rule?' 

[bkuehn1952]

21 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Making up unauthorized Local Rules is a very dangerous 'different approach' and is asking for disaster. Serious players will treat the event as a joke and the committee loses all credibility by trashing 33-1 and  33-8. When a committee has flouted these Rules it begs the question 'why not disregard any other Rule?' 

I can see where some would regard trying to create a temporary "rule" to allow the playing of an event as a slippery slope.  Most of us recognize that circumstances often call for a temporary work around and don't slide down the slope.  I am not going to try to convince everyone that playing an event is better than strict adherence to the Rules of Golf.  From my perspective sometimes letting the show go on in a modified manner is better than cancelling the show.  

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I can see where some would regard trying to create a temporary "rule" to allow the playing of an event as a slippery slope.  Most of us recognize that circumstances often call for a temporary work around and don't slide down the slope.  I am not going to try to convince everyone that playing an event is better than strict adherence to the Rules of Golf.  From my perspective sometimes letting the show go on in a modified manner is better than cancelling the show.

I agree. We have weird rules all the time in college events because coaches often make the local rules. They're all pretty much "serious" golfers.

[Fourputt]

40 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I can see where some would regard trying to create a temporary "rule" to allow the playing of an event as a slippery slope.  Most of us recognize that circumstances often call for a temporary work around and don't slide down the slope.  I am not going to try to convince everyone that playing an event is better than strict adherence to the Rules of Golf.  From my perspective sometimes letting the show go on in a modified manner is better than cancelling the show.  

 

The USGA "recommends" that if the conditions are bad enough that significant suspension of the rules is required to play, the event should be cancelled or postponed.  This obviously would apply to any serious competition.