Balls in a Position to Assist on the Putting Green

[rehmwa]

"Balls in a Position to Assist on the Putting Green"
 

It's important to be comfortable when golfing, so keeping you balls in a comfy position assists your swing on the putting green or on any other area of the course for that matter.

 

(too soon?  it seems like the thread has run its course)

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

"Balls in a Position to Assist on the Putting Green"
 

It's important to be comfortable when golfing, so keeping you balls in a comfy position helps your swing on the putting green or on any other area of the course for that matter.

 

(too soon?  it seems like the thread has run its course)

That puts a new twist to "Marking your balls", "Lift and clean. . .", etc.

[Fourputt]

On 1/21/2017 at 11:09 AM, SCDuffer said:

Scouring the rules and finally gave up, but this rules interpretation was shared with me this week during a 32 man net2 balls tournament.

With 4 guys playing, often times someone chipping up to the green will want balls on the surface (especially close to the hole), so they have the advantage of stopping the ball nearer to the hole.  Forget about the purpose, but this was the situation that led to the following comments.

 

I asked the chipper, "do you want us to leave the balls on the surface or mark them?"

We finished out the hole when he let me know that if the chipper indicates "leave your balls there" or if any partner with a ball on the surface asks if they want it marked, then by rule - all balls on the surface MUST be marked.

 

First time I have EVER heard this, not sure where do locate that rule/interpretation or decision.  Thoughts?

I'm going back to the OP's question.  My first point is that I feel that this yet another case of improperly using the term "partner".  He gives no indication that this is actually a match play situation.

His companion contended that if one ball is requested to be marked, then all must be.  That is an unqualified no.  Only the ball so requested is required to be lifted.  All players may lift their balls if they wish, but they don't have to do so.  

The only time I'll even ask is if I'm not close to my ball and I see that it might interfere - then I'll ask if wants me to wait or take the time to walk over and mark (normally I will always lift my ball without asking if it's near another player's line and I can do so without delay).  If I think it will assist him, then I will tell him to wait until I lift mine, and he is required to wait until I do.  

[Lihu]

On 1/21/2017 at 10:09 AM, SCDuffer said:

I asked the chipper, "do you want us to leave the balls on the surface or mark them?"

 

26 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I'm going back to the OP's question.  My first point is that I feel that this yet another case of improperly using the term "partner".  He gives no indication that this is actually a match play situation.

His companion contended that if one ball is requested to be marked, then all must be.  That is an unqualified no.  Only the ball so requested is required to be lifted.  All players may lift their balls if they wish, but they don't have to do so.  

The only time I'll even ask is if I'm not close to my ball and I see that it might interfere - then I'll ask if wants me to wait or take the time to walk over and mark (normally I will always lift my ball without asking if it's near another player's line and I can do so without delay).  If I think it will assist him, then I will tell him to wait until I lift mine, and he is required to wait until I do.  

Does it count the same way if one person asks for everyone? I mean, if one person asks on behalf of everyone else as is this case, then must all the others mark as well?

 

 

Actually, I can see this potentially being a case of that "annoying partner that makes everyone do things they ordinarily don't".

Please don't take offense to this @SCDuffer. . .just joking. . .

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

 

Does it count the same way if one person asks for everyone? I mean, if one person asks on behalf of everyone else as is this case, then must all the others mark as well?

 

 

Actually, I can see this potentially being a case of that "annoying partner that makes everyone do things they ordinarily don't".

Please don't take offense to this @SCDuffer. . .just joking. . .

If a player asked all of his fellow competitors to mark and lift, then they are required to do so.  One thing about this that tends to irritate me slightly is the guy who refuses to play unless all balls on the green are lifted, even though some or all are not remotely interfering with his shot.  

The rule as written only requires the ball to be lifted if it might interfere with play, and my ball being 20 feet away and 15 feet off his line cannot possibly interfere.  That doesn't mean that I won't lift if asked, but I may give him a dirty look.   

I've even been told (incorrectly) that once I've lifted my ball I can't replace it until it's my turn to play.  Just another case of the sort of misinformation on the rules that gets passed around.

[Rulesman]

8 hours ago, Fourputt said:

If a player asked all of his fellow competitors to mark and lift, then they are required to do so.  One thing about this that tends to irritate me slightly is the guy who refuses to play unless all balls on the green are lifted, even though some or all are not remotely interfering with his shot.  

The rule as written only requires the ball to be lifted if it might interfere with play, and my ball being 20 feet away and 15 feet off his line cannot possibly interfere.  That doesn't mean that I won't lift if asked, but I may give him a dirty look.   .

22/3 Player Requests Another Player to Lift His Ball in Absence of Reasonable Possibility Ball Might Interfere or Assist

Q.A's ball is on the putting green. B's ball is 100 yards from the green. B requests A to lift his ball under Rule 22-2 as it might interfere with his (B's) play. This happens several times during the round. Is such procedure permissible?

A.Rule 22 is intended to cover situations where there is a reasonable possibility that one ball might assist or interfere with another ball. If the Rule is being abused, as in this case, the Committee would be justified in penalizing B for undue delay (Rule 6-7).

Edited January 28, 2017 by Rulesman

[Hardspoon]

http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/03/19/watch-zach-johnsons-banks-bunker-shot-other-golf-ball-hole-birdie

Perfect example. I didn't watch the entire hole, but I feel like that other ball was not marked because it might assist him.