GUR determination in midst of tournament

[bkuehn1952]

I was playing in a tournament yesterday.  One of the players in our group had actually been the person who went around and marked the hazards, GUR, etc...

At one point another member of the group ended up in a patch of 3 foot tall grass between two fairways.  The patch was maybe 6 feet by 6 feet.  There may or may not have been some sort of rope & metal post set-up to prevent carts from driving into it (like one will see lining cart paths where a course wants carts to remain on the path).  At any rate, the course set-up guy said, "Oh, you get relief from that, I meant to mark it GUR but ran out of paint."

I did not think anything of it at the time.  Clearly there was some sort of wet spot that the mowers avoided.  While it wasn't explicitly marked GUR, the rope/posts sort of implied the area was something other than "through the green".

So let's get in a time machine.  I think I should have suggested the player play 2 balls and/or notify the "committee" of the condition so perhaps it could be marked for everyone else.  Any other suggestions for next time?

[Fourputt]

39 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I was playing in a tournament yesterday.  One of the players in our group had actually been the person who went around and marked the hazards, GUR, etc...

At one point another member of the group ended up in a patch of 3 foot tall grass between two fairways.  The patch was maybe 6 feet by 6 feet.  There may or may not have been some sort of rope & metal post set-up to prevent carts from driving into it (like one will see lining cart paths where a course wants carts to remain on the path).  At any rate, the course set-up guy said, "Oh, you get relief from that, I meant to mark it GUR but ran out of paint."

I did not think anything of it at the time.  Clearly there was some sort of wet spot that the mowers avoided.  While it wasn't explicitly marked GUR, the rope/posts sort of implied the area was something other than "through the green".

So let's get in a time machine.  I think I should have suggested the player play 2 balls and/or notify the "committee" of the condition so perhaps it could be marked for everyone else.  Any other suggestions for next time?

My question would be what does the next guy do who doesn't have the guy who failed to mark the course properly around to ask?  You can't make such decisions in the middle of a tournament, because they can affect the field unevenly.  Your guy gives Joe relief, but Sam was in the same position earlier, and Johnny and Doug run into the same issue later, and all 3 of them try to play the ball from a horrible lie rather than take what they think is going to be a penalty stroke for an unplayable lie.  They just got screwed for one or more strokes that Joe didn't have to deal with.

[iacas]

What Rick said.

Though "I ran out of paint" is a pretty weak excuse.

[Martyn W]

Playing two balls would obviously be the smart thing to do but it is permissible to mark an area GUR after the tournament has started even if earlier players have played the hole:

33-2a/2

 

Declaring Area as Ground Under Repair During Competition Round

Q.A's ball is in a poor lie in a washed-out area which warrants being marked as ground under repair but is not so marked. He deems the ball unplayable and proceeds under Rule 28, incurring a one-stroke penalty.

Subsequently, in the same competition round, B's ball is in the same area. B requests the Committee to declare the area ground under repair. Would the Committee be justified in declaring the area ground under repair in such circumstances?

A.Yes; this applies in either match or stroke play. However, it is preferable that all areas which warrant marking as ground under repair should be so marked before the start of a competition.

[Asheville]

45 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

My question would be what does the next guy do who doesn't have the guy who failed to mark the course properly around to ask?  You can't make such decisions in the middle of a tournament, because they can affect the field unevenly.  Your guy gives Joe relief, but Sam was in the same position earlier, and Johnny and Doug run into the same issue later, and all 3 of them try to play the ball from a horrible lie rather than take what they think is going to be a penalty stroke for an unplayable lie.  They just got screwed for one or more strokes that Joe didn't have to deal with.

They merely "screwed" themselves. Had they known how to exercise their prerogative under R3-3, no one would have been "screwed." 

In stroke play, a thorough knowledge of the Rules has never harmed a player. Ignorance of the Rules, on the otherhand . . . . 

[Fourputt]

29 minutes ago, Asheville said:

They merely "screwed" themselves. Had they known how to exercise their prerogative under R3-3, no one would have been "screwed." 

In stroke play, a thorough knowledge of the Rules has never harmed a player. Ignorance of the Rules, on the otherhand . . . . 

I guess that I've never been in a situation where I would assume that deep rough was anything but what it looks like.  GUR usually has a different connotation.  Most average players are going to make the same assumption that I would, and I'm significant'y better with the rules than most amateurs.  

Maybe you are prescient that you would just assume that a patch of rough is supposed to be marked, but I'd bet that 99.9% of amateur players are just going to play it as rough.  The guy in the OP would have done so had he not been told differently by the person who did such a poor job of marking the course.  Since nobody else had that gentleman in their group to poll, I still say that it was done in poor form.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I guess that I've never been in a situation where I would assume that deep rough was anything but what it looks like.  GUR usually has a different connotation, and most average players are going to make the same assumption that I would, and I'm significant'y better with the rules than most amateurs.  

Maybe you are prescient that you would just assume that a patch of rough is supposed to be marked, but I'd bet that 99.9% of amateur players are just going to play it as rough.  The guy in the OP would have done so had he not been told differently by the person who did such a poor job of marking the course.  Since nobody else had that gentleman in their group to poll, I still say that it was done in poor form.

I think the point is that you can play 3-3 under a lot of conditions, even if there's roughly a 0% chance that the committee will agree with you on the reason for your doubt.

I agree, though, too that an area just with long rough I wouldn't consider GUR. Not without significant damage, water, exposed dangerous tree roots that haven't yet been ground up, etc. contributing.

[Asheville]

Think what you like, but as a player, I wouldn't hesitate to consider the proper application of R3-3 to an unmarked but unusual situation on the golf course. The player's not expected to second guess the Committee. There's no downside.  

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Think what you like, but as a player, I wouldn't hesitate to consider the proper application of R3-3 to an unmarked but unusual situation on the golf course. The player's not expected to second guess the Committee. There's no downside.  

Not in terms of the rules, but there's a downside: liberal application of 3-3 annoys your fellow competitors, slows play, etc.

[Asheville]

Reductio arguments are not interesting. 

[Rulesman]

8 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I was playing in a tournament yesterday.  One of the players in our group had actually been the person who went around and marked the hazards, GUR, etc...

I think I should have suggested the player play 2 balls and/or notify the "committee" of the condition so perhaps it could be marked for everyone else.  Any other suggestions for next time?

1) Was this person an authorised member of the Committee?

2) You should have suggested the player play 2 balls and notify the "committee" of the condition

 

[bkuehn1952]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

1) Was this person an authorised member of the Committee?

2) You should have suggested the player play 2 balls and notify the "committee" of the condition

 

1.  Not sure.  He is a regular player at the particular course and has set-up other tournaments, etc...  I suspect he had no official standing as a member of the "committee."

2. Okay - AND!

Thanks.

[Papa Steve 55]

This is why I always carry a can of paint in my bag......

 

[Asheville]

Good evening, bkuehn. I'm certain that you posted wanting to know the answer(s). Two were provided 1) it is in order for the Committee to designate GUR after the start of a competition and 2) what should a player do if he's uncertain of the status of an unmarked but unusual area on the golf course.

Rule 3-3, Doubt as to Procedure, is a wonderful accomodation for the player who's not certain of what to do. Having said that, the player must proceed correctly. My advice is to dog ear page 50 in the 2016 Rule book and highlight the "musts."

The "musts" are: player, before making a further stroke must declare his intention to play two ball, and must state which ball he wishes to score with (unstated fourth must in the Rule is that he must hole out with both balls) and then must report the facts to the Committee.

Please don't rely on your memory for the four "musts." 

[Rulesman]

6 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

1.  Not sure.  He is a regular player at the particular course and has set-up other tournaments, etc...  I suspect he had no official standing as a member of the "committee."

 

In which case 3-3 or play it as it lies are the options.

[Martyn W]

10 hours ago, Asheville said:

The "musts" are: player, before making a further stroke must declare his intention to play two ball, and must state which ball he wishes to score with

stating which ball he wants to count is a 'should', not a 'must'. 

As you know, @Ashville, in the RoG 'should' is a recommendation; 'must' means there is a penalty attached. 

[Asheville]

21 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

stating which ball he wants to count is a 'should', not a 'must'. 

As you know, @Ashville, in the RoG 'should' is a recommendation; 'must' means there is a penalty attached. 

The player must select a ball if he wants the Rule to operate to the fullest extent. "Should" often won't get it done.

You, of course, know which ball the Committee is obliged to count should the player fail to select. It may not be the one he wanted. (Ask the kid at my last AJGA event who didn't select! It cost him a stroke plus the embarrassment of watching his father make a public spectacle of himself.)

There are four "musts" for the player if he's to achieve the optimum result.

[Martyn W]

54 minutes ago, Asheville said:

The player must select a ball if he wants the Rule to operate to the fullest extent. "Should" often won't get it done.

You, of course, know which ball the Committee is obliged to count should the player fail to select. It may not be the one he wanted. (Ask the kid at my last AJGA event who didn't select! It cost him a stroke plus the embarrassment of watching his father make a public spectacle of himself.)

There are four "musts" for the player if he's to achieve the optimum result.

I have seen it go the other way too. If a player fails to announce, the original counts (assuming it was played in accordance with the Rules) It is not that unusual that the score with the original is better than the score with the second ball.

Say a player is seeking relief from a potential AGC. he makes 4 with the original and 7 with the second ball, having failed to announce that he wishes the second (dropped) ball to count. The committee determines that he was entitled to relief - he gets the 4, despite his obvious intent to get the relief.