Ignorant

I wonder why you did that as I was only referring to the situation at hand..? What about D20-1/0.7: 20-1/0.7 Lifting Ball to Determine Application of Rule Q. May a player lift his ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief under a Rule (e.g. to determine whether his ball is in a hole made by a burrowing animal or is embedded)? A. In equity (Rule 1-4), if a player has reason to believe he is entitled to relief from a condition, the player may lift his ball, without penalty, provided he announces his intention in advance to his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play, marks the position of the ball before lifting it, does not clean the ball and gives his opponent or fellowcompetitor an opportunity to observe the lifting. (continues) So you are saying that if there is CW under the ball touching it there is no relief as the water is not visible before lifting the ball? How does that fit to the Definition of CW: Casual Water “Casual water” is any temporary accumulation of water on the course that is not in a water hazard and is visible before or after the player takes his stance. Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either casual water or loose impediments, at the option of the player. Manufactured ice is an obstruction. Dew and frost are not casual water. A ball is in casual water when it lies in or any part of it touches the casual water . Also note the words in the Dec 25/3 you referred to ' the pitch-mark in which the ball came to rest was filled with water. ' It does not say if the ball was lifted or not to see that the pitch-mark was filled with water.

That is why I said we would have to see the situation in order to be certain. Also bear in mind that mud is not CW but a ball plugs deep in mud quite easily. Same thing with soft sand (eg. in wastelands).

Maybe you are right. But then again... if you consider the basic principle of getting a free relief from CW it is because of the water. Should you drive your ball into the ground you are in trouble. Is getting a free relief because of some water under the ball in line with that principle?

Wouldn't it be the same if your ball is lost in a puddle of CW, or found there between two rocks and impossible to make a stroke at? Isn't that what the Exception is all about? You tell me. Besides, the original question was about hitting one's ball into the ground and only after that to examine whether there is CW under the ball. IMO quite different situation than what you presented.

The only Rule the player might invoke for a free relief is 25-1b(i) (casual water). Exception to that Rule says: Exception: A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition makes the stroke clearly impracticable... So, if that ball is so deep in the ground that it is impracticable to make a stroke at it there is no free relief under 25-1b(i).

If that ball was clearly unplayable it might be questionable to grant relief. But we would have to see the situation in order to be certain.

Now you got the picture. And in the worst case, he might think he will be disqualified and picks up his ball. The bottom line here is that once there is incorrect or contraddictory information distributed to the players more or less anything can happen. If and when the players in your competitions are as ignorant of the Rules as I have been told here they couldn't possible find anything from the Rule Book let alone be bold enough to say that their Hard Card or whichever CoC/LR they have been distributed is incorrect.

Rogolf, that is why I wrote 'so to say' as I was being brief. We teach all referees that we are on the course to help the players, not to punish them. Besides the Committee really enforces certain Rules such as 6-2, 6-3, 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8, just to name some. AFA educating the player is concerned one can twist the issue (and other posters' words) as one wants. I have said that it is not the Committee's task to educate the players, and by that I mean and have meant by writing regular Rules on Hard Cards or any other paper distributed to players prior to a competition. It is an entire different matter when a player asks the referee for a ruling or what are his options in a certain situation. It is truly sad if the situation in USA is what you and fourputt have described and I can only sympathize you for that. In my country virtually every golfer belongs to a club and a substantial portion of that lot has at least once attended a short rules seminar organized by their club, quite many do that regularly (in fact, practically everybody has got a brief introduction to the Rules when starting to play golf, that is a standard here). Maybe that is why I have so hard time to envisage a situation where someone actually would think it is allowed to replace one's ball in play whenever one pleases. Just wouldn't happen here.

So it does not matter what is written in the Hard Card? Is that what you learned during your 22 years of this and that? Wow.... And who's 'we'? I thought you were only speaking for yourself. Besides my post was not for you, who already twice said you are done.

Try reading the entire Rule 15-1: A player must hole out with the ball played from the teeing ground, unless the ball is lost or out of bounds or the player substitutes another ball, whether or not substitution is permitted (see Rule 15-2). If a player plays a wrong ball, see Rule 15-3.

As you seem to be twisting things deliberately I cannot find motivation to set you straight. I believe luu5's post described the core of the issue.

Here we have a difference of opinion. IMO the task of a Committee is to organize the event, set the frames to it and enforce the Rules (so to say) during the event. Educating competitors in Rules is not Committee's task, not more than teaching them how to swing a club. It is the clubs' responsibility to educate their own members and that is a big challenge as well. I do that in my club, one bite at a time. Well, one lesson at a time.

So if you know you are not wrong things are as you say they are? I cannot imagine how you can ever be wrong if you always know when you are wrong. Fourputt, I don't care how many years you have been doing whatever and where, that does not make your opininion more right. It is the substance that counts, not the years behind words. Obviously we have a different set of rules to go by in tournaments but that's ok. I am sure the winner is found in both cases, but that was not the issue, was it? In my country any breach against HC is penalized. It is strange it is different in yours. For an experienced and senior guy you seem to have a bit of a temper. Don't let that blur your judgement.

This is an issue we have discussed a lot amongst my colleagues and other people being involved with organizing competitions. On the Tours there is the Hard Card containing specific Local Rules valid in the entire country and other Comditions of Competitions, such as use of DMD's, no putting on PG's between holes, etc. These are valid for every single competition on those Tours and this HC is distributed to the players in the beginning of the season and they are supposed to have studied it. If they don't that is their problem. Then come the Local Rules of individual competition courses which may change from day to day. In my experience less than 5% of the competitiors read these LR's and one of the reasons is that in many cases there is just too much text so they do not bother not to mention that in some competitions these are given to the players by the starter and players do not even have time to read them. Taking this into concideration those LR's should contain only things that are not said elsewhere, i.e. special conditions/Rules that only apply on that particular course. I can understand the urge to print regularly breached Rules in the LR's or CoC's but as I already pointed out that only increases the amount of text to be read AND digested resulting in competitors not reading even those that are truly necessary for the competition at hand. Furthermore, if a regular Rule is added amongst the Local Rules people soon will begin to think that Rule is a Local Rule and once it is missing from the LR's of another course they are mislead. One valid example is R24-2 regarding roads and paths. It is way too common for the players to ask for a ruling if they are allowed to take a free drop from a constructed road in a competition where there is no mentioning of the issue in the LR's. So much for the education... P.S. A friend of mine organized a small friendly competition some years ago. As the last item of the Local Rules he had written that regardless of the number of strokes taken during the play of the last hole the player is entitled to mark birdie as their score for the round. One single person in the entire competition had a birdie on that hole...

Fourputt, Hard Card is a part of the CoC and/or LR's. If a player acts against HC he will be penalized. Why else HC would exist? For amusement? AFA 15-1 is concerned, why not write the Rule as it is instead of a modification? I cannot see any benefit to anyone there, quite on the contrary. The text in HC gives (at least to me) an impression that you are in breach of that particular part of CoC if you substitute your ball in play when not permitted. What possible reason can there be for the authors of that HC not to write the Rule 15-1 as it is??

This is from the Rules: 15-1. General A player must hole out with the ball played from the teeing ground, unless the ball is lost or out of bounds or the player substitutes another ball, whether or not substitution is permitted (see Rule 15-2). And this is from the Hard Card: Golf Ball/Rule 15-1: A player must hole out with the ball played from the teeing ground, unless the ball is lost or out of bounds, or if the player substitutes another ball if permitted under rule 15-2 . I'd say there is a discrepancy, a distinct one. Again, what if a player substituted his ball when not permitted, what will the penalty for breach of HC be, Fourputt? After all, HC forbids the player to substitute his ball if not permitted.

Sorry, I meant Fourputt, not rogolf. For some reason I could not edit my post.

Rogolf, it is up to the player to know the Rules and it is up to the Committee to inform the players of any deviations of the Rules. It is NOT the Committee's responsibility to educate players on the Rules. What I have heard and read most of your leisure time golfers think they can drop a ball close to the point where their ball went OB with one penalty stroke. Maybe that should be mentioned in all CoC's as well. It is very well known that players attending a competition do not bother to read the CoC nor the LR. I cannot see how lengthening the already too long papers would encourage players to read them, as they are not reading them now. I'm afraid your view does not get any support from me or my colleagues but certainly you are entitled to your own opinion. P.S. What about the breach of the clause of R15-1 in the HC referred in my earlier post? What would be the penalty for substituting a ball when not allowed? Do not forget there just might be a player knowing the Rules and wondering what should he do facing such a discrepancy between Rules and the HC...

So what if a player substitutes his ball when not permitted? Will that be a breach of CoC? What will be the penalty? I very much dislike any unnecessary text in LR's, HC's and CoC's. There are Rules and then there are additional limitations, it is not sensible to repeat Rules in those documents just because someone might not know some Rule. Even more I dislike if a Rule is quoted and quoted wrong. How's that for educating players...?

Why do they have this in their HC: Golf Ball/Rule 15-1: A player must hole out with the ball played from the teeing ground, unless the ball is lost or out of bounds, or if the player substitutes another ball if permitted under rule 15-2. Are they deliberately modifying Rule 15-1 or is this just an error? And if it is an error why did they see it necessary to repeat just this particular Rule?

We have that only on the highest national level tour.

You being based in UK, how did you get in contact with USGA?

Ok, thanks.

Are those the things sometimes called 'french drains' ? At least very much sounds like them. Certainly obstructions and not water hazards.

Exactly this. So the answer to the original question is no, you may not touch the green to indicate the line FOR putting even if that point you touch is not on or near your line OF putt. EDIT: It seems rogolf beat me by more than 2 hours ;-)