3 Putt Again

Thanks again. I think that does it.

Thank you Rulesman. This addresses the point of my question. Certainly, the ball on the teeing ground can be announced as a provisional ball any time prior to making a stroke. I lean toward your interpretation on the dropped ball. The other side of the discussion focuses on the wording in the second paragraph of 27-2: " If he fails to do so and plays another ball, that ball is not a provisional ball and becomes the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1 ); the original ball is lost ." Is "plays another ball" the same thing as "putting another ball into play"?

I assume you are referring to me. You had posted a reply to me that decision 27-2a clarified when a player had to announce that a ball was provisional, before or after dropping the ball. My reply to you was that I did not see the language in 27-2a that addressed this question. Below is copied the first question from my original posting and I still have not seen a clear answer to that with reference to the applicable rules or decisions. Rule 27-2 requires that I must inform my opponent or marker that I am playing a provisional ball but my question is when must I make this announcement? When the original shot has been played from the teeing area, it seems pretty clear that I can place the ball on a tee before I announce it to be provisional because the ball is not in play until I make my stroke. If I have hit a second shot toward OB or where it might be lost, must I announce my intent to play a provisional ball before I drop or may I drop first and then announce that it is provisional?

This decision says you have to be specific in terms of the language used to inform that the ball is provisional but I am not seeing where it clearly addresses when that language must be used. If it is intended to clarify that it must be prior to dropping the ball, the words "and plays it" should have been left out of the second sentence. Q. A player hits his ball into an area where it may be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds. The player then drops another ball and plays it. The player intends the dropped ball to be a provisional ball, but he does not inform his opponent, marker or fellow-competitor that he is "playing a provisional ball." In such a situation, can a player's actions constitute announcement that he is playing a provisional ball? A. No. Rule 27-2a specifically provides that the player must inform his opponent, marker or a fellow-competitor that he intends to play a provisional ball. The player's statement must specifically mention the words "provisional ball" or must make it clear that he is proceeding under Rule 27-2a . Therefore, a player who says nothing has put another ball into play. The following are examples of statements that do not satisfy the requirement of announcing a provisional ball: (a) "That might be lost. I am going to re-load." (b) "That might be out of here." (c) "I'd better hit another one." (d) "I will never find that one. I'll play another."

OK, everyone is in agreement that if you announce and drop a provisional ball, you better not pick it up until you are absolutely certain your original ball has been found in bounds. Relative to the first question, I think the only comment on it was by Four Putt who said you must announce before proceeding which I understand to mean before dropping the ball. That makes sense to me but I what are the specific words in the rule or the decision that supports this? The rules says he must inform that he "intends to play a provisional ball". As someone mentioned, the ball is in play when it is dropped but you have not played the ball until you make a stroke at it, correct?

Rule 27-2 requires that I must inform my opponent or marker that I am playing a provisional ball but my question is when must I make this announcement? When the original shot has been played from the teeing area, it seems pretty clear that I can place the ball on a tee before I announce it to be provisional because the ball is not in play until I make my stroke. If I have hit a second shot toward OB or where it might be lost, must I announce my intent to play a provisional ball before I drop or may I drop first and then announce that it is provisional? A second related question, a player drops a ball declaring it provisional at the proper time based upon the above answer. Before he plays a stroke, he receives information that his original ball has been found in bounds. Based upon this information, he picks up the ball he has dropped then discovers that the found ball was not his (or was OB ). Does the player incur a penalty for lifting the provisional ball?

Tiger did not say he "thought" he dropped too far apart. He said that he dropped two yards away and reaffirmed this when questioned by the committee. If a player says he did not take a proper drops, there is no need for other evidence.

Rulesman, it is easy to lose the thread when there so many postings. You I are in complete agreement. To understand what I was saying in #45 the postings that you need to look at are 1, 2, 4, & 5. In #2 someone suggested that a committee could decided not to enforce a rule. In #4, I said that was incorrect. In #5, I was asked what specifically was incorrect and I responded in #45 that it was incorrect that a committee could choose not to enforce a rule. I was not suggesting that this committee had not enforced a rule.

Since my question dealt with Tiger and the applicable rules/decisions, it is reasonable to assume that an explanation of a decision implies that it is relevant. Even if the only purpose was to explain the decision without suggesting it is relevant to this situation, the explanation is incorrect when it states "they might decide not to enforce that rule." The committee is not allowed to decide which rules of golf they will enforce.

Decision 33-7/4.5 was introduced in 2011 to cover situations like the example you cite but I think you are making the same mistake many in the media are making. This decision does not apply to Tiger's situation and was not the basis for the committee's decision to waive the DQ. 33-7 has been around much longer and allows a committee to waive DQ penalty in exceptional circumstances. You are incorrect in saying that the committee might decide not to enforce a rule. A committee is never allowed to decide which rules it will enforce nor to modify or waive the penalty for an infraction except the waiver of DQ penalty per 33-7.

The media keeps referring to 33-7 as being a "new rule". I have rules books going back to 2008-09 and it is the same as now word for word. I assume they are referring to decision 33-7/4.5. If I understand the committee ruling, 33-7/4.5 was not a consideration. What saved Tiger from DQ is that the committee reviewed the situation prior to him signing his scorecard and concluded the drop was within the rules and then changed that decision after he signed the scorecard. Is that correct or am I confused?

Until about 30 years ago, in American Football, the place kickers all approached the ball straight along the line they intended to kick and basically kicked the ball with their toes. Then some kickers started approaching the ball from the side and kicking the ball with the side of their foot. They called it soccer style kicking. Nearly everyone thought it looked weird and some people wanted it banned because, even though it violated no rule, the rules intended that the ball be kicked using the toe not the side of the foot. There was even discussion of how to word the rules to effectively ban this style of kicking. Eventually, it was decided that if someone had come up with a better way to accomplish the goal of kicking the ball long and accurate, why should it be banned just because it was a better practice. Today, every place kicker uses the soccer style and the game is no worse off because of it.

OK, if there is not a problem with A having more than 14 clubs unless he uses one of B's clubs, lets go back to the original question. Is there anything that would prevent A from helping B by carrying his clubs? If so, is he considered to be B's caddie? As you earlier indicated, there are a bunch of issues if he is a caddie. The Rule 8 issues can be consciously avoided but issues that could come up under rules 18 & 19 are more troubling. For example, I foresee A, with both bags on his shoulders, accidentally kicking B's ball that is lying in the rough.

So you are viewing that A violated 4-4 by adding clubs selected for play by any other person playing on the course? 4-4a/5, 4-4a/5.5, and 4-4a/8 seem to say that you can carry another person's clubs even in your own bag so long as you do not use those clubs. I am probably missing something that makes them irrelevant to this situation but what is that?

I assume when you say "any one of them" you mean any of B's clubs.

Is there anything in the rules that specifically prohibits a competitor from also being a caddie? Situation 1: Competitor A plays in the morning and caddies for competitor B in the afternoon. Situation 2: Competitors A & B are in the same group. B becomes fatigued and A carries his bag for several holes (does this even fit the definition of a caddie).

My apologies. I think I have this figured out now.

Interesting discussion. Someone needs to tell me how you put the quotes in the box to make it clear what you are commenting on. I would agree that if the stones are considered part of the cart path then it would all be immovable. But I think that would have to be stated in the local rules. 24-2b/16 is relevant only if you have already concluded that the stones are immovable obstructions. It prevents a player from moving a ball that would be unplayable because of reasons other than the obstructions. It does not help us to decide whether the stones in question are moveable or immovable. Rulesman, the 24/7 decision does make me a little less confident of my position. In this case there is an object that is clearly an immovable obstruction (the drain) and a movable part of that same obstruction. So it would be apply to the cart path and placed stones if they are considered to parts of the same obstruction. That said my confidence is waning but I keep going back to the definition of moveable obstruction and it tells me the stones are moveable The example that someone cited about a flower bed surrounded by a single layer of rocks (not interlocking manufactured landscaping stones) would be the best test of this question. You would have to assume no local rule applying to the flower bed and its stone border. This gets rid of all of the other complications of the Badland's situation such as whether the stones are part of the cart path. Thanks for letting me participate in a thought provoking discussion.

There are a number of interesting aspects of this situation and since there is a video, we all get to see the same thing. Even if we award the placed stones the status of immovable obstruction, has anyone looked carefully at whether they would interfere with his stance or swing? The places where you can get some perspective for where his ball lies relative to the placed stones is in the first 30 seconds of the video. At one point he says "I am standing on them. That's a free drop right there?" but at that point he is not even close to the stance he would use when he addresses the ball. It looks doubtful to me that the placed stones interfere with stance or swing but he would need him to take his stance to determine that which he never does.

A wall? They are individual stones laid side by side. There is not a single stone stacked on top of the base stones to form a second layer. If two or three or twenty small rocks are laid side by side it does not make a wall. "An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without delaying play, and without causing damage." What about these stones does not fit that definition? It would be necessary to move only a couple of them, they are small enough that they could be lifted with one hand, and they easily be replaced. So it would not be unreasonable effort, it would not delay play and it would not cause damage. I am familiar with stacked stone walls that are several feet and multiple layers of stone high and if you were talking a wall of several layers of stone, or at least two, I would agree that moving them would cause damage but this is a single layer of stone. As you note, individual stones are not obstructions which is why I would consider them to be loose impediments.

There is no NPR because the rocks are obviously moveable. If you consider them to be obstructions, they are moveable obstructions. The way you take relief from moveable obstructions is to move the obstructions no by moving the ball.

He may be 2 under at the beginning of this hole but not when he is done with it. He makes a bunch of mistakes but arrogantly acts like he knows what he is talking about. IMO it is really questionable whether the rocks that have been stood up are obstructions. Certainly they have been placed there but that alone doesn't make them obstructions. He claims them to be an obstruction and says he is standing on them but he not even close to addressing his ball when he is standing on them. It is hard to tell but appears that when he properly addresses the ball, the rocks will not interfere with stance nor swing. The rocks are clearly movable so they are either movable obstructions or loose impediments. He is not in a hazard and so he may move those rocks whichever status they have. He does not get to move his ball. The only reason to concern yourself with whether they are movable obstructions or loose impediments would be if his ball moves when he moves the rocks but that appears to be very unlikely. Once he incorrectly decides he is entitled to relief from rocks as if they were immovable obstructions, he violates one of the most basic rules of taking relief whether under penalty or free relief. He drops the ball nearer the hole! ( Is he that ignorant of the rules or is trying to cheat?). It looks to me to be really questionable whether his drop/place procedure is correct but that as well as his double strike of the ball are not relevant because he has committed a serious breach of rule 20. He has to correct that or be DQ'd (assuming stroke play).