Don't pick up that ball until you know what you’re going to do with it.

[Asheville]

The form of play is individual stroke play.

Responding to a call on the radio, I arrived at the scene of the crime to find a bewildered youth, ball in hand, deep in the woods.

“Tell me about it,” I asked.

“I hit it in here and tried to play out back to the fairway, but the ball hit a tree and rebounded deeper into an even worse spot. My fellow-competitor suggested that I pick it up and come out and play on using my provisional,” says bewildered youth.

It seems about then a coach arrived on scene and initiated an SOS.

I directed him to put the ball back on the spot from which he lifted it and reminded him that as he has found his ball, continuing with the provisional isn’t permitted. 

We now explore the options of R28. Back on the flagline and two-club lengths (even multiple applications of same) looks unlikely. 28a is his best bet. He then drops in the correct  location and, expertly this time, punches out and goes on to complete the hole with six swings of the club plus two penalty strokes. One for 18-2 and one for 28a.

Hours later I’m summoned to scoring where the youth’s coach is arguing against the 18-2 by saying to do the 28a, the player must pick up the ball.

I ask the player what he was intending to do when he picked up the ball. Did he intend to:

a) abandon it and go for the provisional or did he

b) intend to invoke 28.

He selected a).

Scoring records an 8 for that hole. Coach isn’t happy. Youth thanks me for the help.

[saevel25]

As soon as found the ball his provisional was out of play for him.
As soon as he picked up the ball he violated Rule 18-2.
 

I think that was a clear cut case there.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

As soon as found the ball his provisional was out of play for him.
As soon as he picked up the ball he violated Rule 18-2.
 

I think that was a clear cut case there.

Yet if he intended to play on under the Unplayable Lie (28), the sequence of physical actions would have been identical, yet he'd have had no penalty for 18-2.  He'd have found his ball, made the decision to take relief under Rule 28 (I'm not counting this mental activity as an action), and picked up the ball.  Its only because he had no intention of taking the Unplayable Lie that he incurred the penalty for 18-2 in addition to the unplayable lie penalty.

[Fourputt]

I've run into a similar situation, only it was taking relief from a gravel maintenance track.  While relief was allowed as the track was an obstruction, the dropping area was in deep, matted rough.  The player had already picked up the ball when I got there.  After I explained his options, he changed his mind and decided to play it from the track.  I informed him that if he did that, he would incur a one stroke penalty for lifting the ball, and he must replace it, or he could continue with the drop with no penalty and take his chances with the lie.  He chose to drop and did manage to hack it out into shorter rough near the fairway, so strokewise he probably broke even.

[Martyn W]

On 5/1/2018 at 2:52 PM, DaveP043 said:

Yet if he intended to play on under the Unplayable Lie (28), the sequence of physical actions would have been identical, yet he'd have had no penalty for 18-2.  He'd have found his ball, made the decision to take relief under Rule 28 (I'm not counting this mental activity as an action), and picked up the ball.  Its only because he had no intention of taking the Unplayable Lie that he incurred the penalty for 18-2 in addition to the unplayable lie penalty.

@DaveP043I hear you and don't necessarily disagree, but the penalty under 18-2 is for lifting the ball "except as permitted by the Rules". Whether he intended to or not (I see no mention of intent under the Rule) he was permitted to lift the ball under 28 . There is also no requirement to announce intent under this Rule (unlike 3-3, 27-2 and 12-2), as far I can see. Can we find a Decision to satisfy the player that he incurred the additional penalty under 18-2?

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

@DaveP043I hear you and don't necessarily disagree, but the penalty under 18-2 is for lifting the ball "except as permitted by the Rules". Whether he intended to or not (I see no mention of intent under the Rule) he was permitted to lift the ball under 28 . There is also no requirement to announce intent under this Rule (unlike 3-3, 27-2 and 12-2), as far I can see. Can we find a Decision to satisfy the player that he incurred the additional penalty under 18-2?

I think perhaps @Asheville would be the one to ask, he made that ruling initially.

 

On 5/1/2018 at 12:24 PM, Asheville said:

“I hit it in here and tried to play out back to the fairway, but the ball hit a tree and rebounded deeper into an even worse spot. My fellow-competitor suggested that I pick it up and come out and play on using my provisional,” says bewildered youth.

At this point the player had his ball in his hand.  I think this means he had not lifted the ball "as permitted by the Rules", he had lifted it with no intention of proceeding under Rule 28   Because his provisional was no longer in play, I'd say that he was not allowed to lift his ball.  I'd be interested to hear more from the experts too, but on the face of it I agree with @Asheville assessment.  I took a quick look through the decisions and couldn't find anything I thought applies specifically in this case.

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

@DaveP043I hear you and don't necessarily disagree, but the penalty under 18-2 is for lifting the ball "except as permitted by the Rules". Whether he intended to or not (I see no mention of intent under the Rule) he was permitted to lift the ball under 28 . There is also no requirement to announce intent under this Rule (unlike 3-3, 27-2 and 12-2), as far I can see. Can we find a Decision to satisfy the player that he incurred the additional penalty under 18-2?

18-2/12.5 ?

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-12.5

[Martyn W]

4 hours ago, Rulesman said:

18-2/12.5 ?

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-12.5

In the OP's scenario, wouldn't answer #4 apply since the player used option a) under 28? i.e. no penalty under 18-2

[Asheville]

6 hours ago, Martyn W said:

@DaveP043I hear you and don't necessarily disagree, but the penalty under 18-2 is for lifting the ball "except as permitted by the Rules". Whether he intended to or not (I see no mention of intent under the Rule) he was permitted to lift the ball under 28 . There is also no requirement to announce intent under this Rule (unlike 3-3, 27-2 and 12-2), as far I can see. Can we find a Decision to satisfy the player that he incurred the additional penalty under 18-2?

Thanks, Martyn. Your view is appreciated.

I think I'll send this one in to the USGS Rules and see what they say.

[Rulesman]

8 hours ago, Martyn W said:

In the OP's scenario, wouldn't answer #4 apply since the player used option a) under 28? i.e. no penalty under 18-2

IMO yes

[JonMA1]

It doesn't seem as though intent should come into play since an official was summoned and he hadn't yet acted on his intent.

Lifting the ball isn't against the rules (since there is nothing about intent in 18-2) when there is the option permitted by rule 28, correct?

Had he played his provisional, that would have incurred the penalties.

[Buckeyebowman]

And we keep hearing that the rules of golf are NOT confusing, and that there was no need to simplify them!

[Rulesman]

6 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And we keep hearing that the rules of golf are NOT confusing, and that there was no need to simplify them!

From whom? Certainly not the rule makers

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Rulesman said:

From whom? Certainly not the rule makers

Yeah. I've never found them all that confusing.

There are certainly some situations where reasonable people might disagree, but they're not "confused."

[Fourputt]

13 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And we keep hearing that the rules of golf are NOT confusing, and that there was no need to simplify them!

The confusion is not caused by the rules, but by the nearly unlimited possible situations that a player can get into on the golf course.  It would be impossible to detail every possible scenario, so there are going to be times when it takes some analysis to properly apply a rule.  Most of the confusing situations are caused by the player himself not knowing how to follow basic rules for play.  If the player would take the time to learn those rules and procedures that apply directly to play on the course, most of the real problems people see in the rules would go away.

[Asheville]

The USGA has spoken. The player was in breach of R18-2 when they lifted the ball without the intent to proceed under R28.

[Asheville]

24 minutes ago, Asheville said:

The USGA has spoken. The player was in breach of R18-2 when they lifted the ball without the intent to proceed under R28.

There are a couple of Decisions which may be cited to support their position. D18-2/27 which references intent is one.

[Shorty]

20 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And we keep hearing that the rules of golf are NOT confusing, and that there was no need to simplify them!

Why? I really do wonder what is so confusing about these rules. If you pick up your ball you have to know what you're going to do with it. What your options are. This was aKevin Na situation. Getting relief under penalty or wiithout penalty does not guarantee a clear path to the hole or an unobstructed swing. Any player who doesn't know that once you find your ball your provisional is out of play has no business playing in competition. You may as well say that air-swings don't count and find rules confusing because people disagree with you.