Rules Situation: Ball Rests on Twig Over Hole

[DeadMan]

The R&A seems to disagree with the prevailing thoughts in here:

 

[Rulesman]

My thought was the one that prevailed.

And it was 2009 not 30 years ago. I think a bit of editorial licence

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

My thought was the one that prevailed.

0 for 5 with my USGA people.

[Rulesman]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

0 for 5 with my USGA people.

Had they checked with what head office apparently agreed with the R&A?

It is interesting that they have answered twice before in the same way.

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Rulesman

[Fourputt]

12 hours ago, Rulesman said:

 

Unless the picture shows a ball where the bottom of the ball is touching the ground outside the hole and can therefore be replaced, the 'right' ruling hasn't yet been confirmed by either the USGA or the R&A.

The picture I see in post #1 certainly shows that.  I don't see how any other ruling can apply.

6 hours ago, iacas said:

@Rulesman seems to be operating under the perverse idea that if the center of the bottom of the ball is inside the diameter of the hole, the ball is holed, despite evidence to the contrary in a published Decision where NONE of the ball has to even be touching the green surface and yet still isn't considered holed.

I realize that in not naming our sources this is a bit of he said, she said stuff, but I'm sticking with the three (now four) people I've asked all of whom indicated that it was a relatively easy decision.

It seemed fairly straightforward to me as well.  As long as you know how to find the appropriate rules and follow them in order, the ruling should be obvious.  Rule 23-1 (just ensuring that there wasn't any surprise there - doesn't matter if you mark the ball first or move the loose impediment first - same result) starts it and 20-3d ends it.

[Nutsmacker]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

0 for 5 with my USGA people.

So the USGA has a different interpretation on how this is ruled?  

[Fourputt]

I still can't buy it.  Equity is for situations that the rules don't consider.  This one is easily addressed by the rules.  Therefore 1-4 shouldn't apply.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Fourputt

[Rulesman]

42 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

As long as you know how to find the appropriate rules and follow them in order, the ruling should be obvious.  Rule 23-1 (just ensuring that there wasn't any surprise there - doesn't matter if you mark the ball first or move the loose impediment first - same result) starts it and 20-3d ends it.

20-3a requires the ball to be replaced on a spot. The spot in is in thin air. By definition, it cannot be above or below where it was. So is impossible to replace it. The rule does not contemplate the impossibility so 1-4 is invoked. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Rulesman

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

It is interesting that they have answered twice before in the same way.

It’s not the same way IMO, for two reasons as already stated.

I disagree with what you’ve posted. As do they.

[klineka]

35 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

20-3a requires the ball to be replaced on a spot. The spot in is in thin air. By definition, it cannot be above or below where it was. So is impossible to replace it. The rule does not contemplate the impossibility so 1-4 is invoked. 

Its not in thin air. Half of the ball is still on top of the putting green.

You place the ball on the lip. If it falls in, you do it again. Then if ball falls in again, then you follow rule 20-3d

If a ball when placed fails to come to rest on the spot on which it was placed, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced. If it still fails to come to rest on that spot:

(i) except in a hazard, it must be placed at the nearest spot where it can be placed at rest that is not nearer the hole and not in a hazard;

[Big_in_Belgium]

1 minute ago, klineka said:

Its not in thin air. Half of the ball is still on top of the putting green.

You place the ball on the lip. If it falls in, you do it again. Then if ball falls in again, then you follow rule 20-3d

If a ball when placed fails to come to rest on the spot on which it was placed, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced. If it still fails to come to rest on that spot:

(i) except in a hazard, it must be placed at the nearest spot where it can be placed at rest that is not nearer the hole and not in a hazard;

I'd have a hard time convincing my friends it's not holed but I can't help feel like you're right.

It's still touching the grass, right?

[iacas]

It's in thin air less than the ball embedded in the lip with a part of the ball still above the lip.

16/3 - Ball Embedded in Side of Hole; All of Ball Not Below Lip of Hole

Q.A player's ball embeds in the side of a hole. Part of the ball is above the level of the lip of the hole. What is the ruling?

A.The ball is not holed - see Definition of "Holed." The player may play the ball as it lies or lift the ball under Rule 16-1b, repair the damage under Rule 16-1c and place the ball on the lip of the hole.

I don't see how the R&A is reconciling the published Decision there with assuming that a player is capable of putting the ball back in the same spot without the twig.

The simplest solution is that the ball is not holed. It's not within the circumference of the hole under any definition, and it is definitely, clearly not below the level of the hole.

It's also not touching the flagstick.

[rehmwa]

9 minutes ago, Big_in_Belgium said:

I'd have a hard time convincing my friends it's not holed but I can't help feel like you're right.

I'm sure they'll complain that they are being "penalized for hitting a great shot"......

Yeah......what a terrible penalty for a great shot......a tap-in birdie

[Big_in_Belgium]

4 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'm sure they'll complain that they are being "penalized for hitting a great shot"......

Yeah......what a terrible penalty for a great shot......a tap-in birdie

Just sent the pic to my friends I'm taking a golf trip with to Spain in May.
The first response: "If this happens to me, I'm taking the first plane home."

[iacas]

Well, the USGA has now reversed what they said to align with the R&A.

Two of my USGA contacts called me back. One said plainly that because the R&A is eight hours ahead, they rushed out their opinion ahead of the USGA's, and that forced the USGA's hand. The USGA thought they were going to discuss it more today, but the R&A issued their ruling before they had a big chance to discuss it.

I asked how they can reconcile that with 16/3 and they both said a close variation of "I don't know, man. I wish I could tell you."

There are, of course, NO Decisions on the books despite what @Rulesman said about a ruling ostensibly made in 2009 (or 30 years ago, or whatever) re: a leaf or something suspending a ball completely over the hole after it was leaning against the flagstick.

[colin007]

I told y'all it was a two!! That's the SJW in me, if it feels right and moral, it IS right and moral!! 

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, colin007 said:

I told y'all it was a two!! That's the SJW in me, if it feels right and moral, it IS right and moral!! 

Wrong! It’s a 1. That was my tee shot!

[Rulesman]

20 hours ago, iacas said:

 

There are, of course, NO Decisions on the books despite what @Rulesman said about a ruling ostensibly made in 2009 (or 30 years ago, or whatever) re: a leaf or something suspending a ball completely over the hole after it was leaning against the flagstick.

Of course, not all the rulings made by the RBs ever appear in the books. If they did, the book(s) would be twice as thick. 

But it would be nice if they could find a way to produce a quarterly (say) note listing rulings they have made that have general application.