Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Moving Up the Leaderboard

About fredf

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,088 profile views
  1. A critical fact is needed to make a ruling: whether there was Knowledge or Virtual Certainty (ie 95 per cent certainty), at the time you dropped that second/substituted ball, that the ball not found had come to rest in the penalty area. You cannot "assume" where the ball is. The ruling depends on that fact. A. If KVC does not apply: Player has put a ball in play under an inapplicable rule (having initially played from the tee, dropping in the vicinity of the penalty area is not permitted without KVC the ball is in there). Because the player does not know the location of the original ball
  2. Yes, 2.2 addresses the OP. But 2.2 does not answer Rulesman's question where in the rules does it say "a ball touching the green is on the green". Interestingly, this 'which rule' dimension exemplifies a significant difference between Rules exams prepared on either side of the ditch. In my experience, the USGA does not grill their exam takers on Rule numbers for specific issues. The R&A invariably does and that exercise can become extremely hairy. This is one reason why the USGA exams are fairer, IMO.
  3. My maths was dodgy (geometry not a strength), but that has no influence on the rules observations I was making. But I believe we are agreeing the following: a) IF the player can play a functional stroke with the 4 rescue back into the fairway, and that cart path interferes with that functional stroke, then the player is entitled to relief, but b) IF the player's stroke with the 4 rescue that has heel interference with the cart path is not a reasonable stroke in the circumstances, then the player is not entitled to relief. That is, if the only reasonable stroke to get the ball b
  4. Agree, both of those rules get you to the correct answer to the situation in the OP but they both do not answer Rulesman's question. He asked where is the statement that a ball touching the green is on the green and there is only one rule (13.1a) that makes that statement. Rule 2.2c does not say a ball touching the green is on the green. On the contrary, it provides a formula that explains when a ball touching the green is on the green and when a ball touching the green is NOT on the green.
  5. Fine golfer and perpetual jerk. Aggressive little man with a complex, who has not improved with age.
  6. You are making a lot of assumptions here. OP says the player can play a stroke into the fairway. So the bush is NOT preventing a stroke or making ANY stroke unreasonable so there is no case for claiming Rule 16.1a(3) applies. I also note any time I can chip a 7 iron into the fairway, I can play that same stroke with my 4 hybrid. My point is you cannot deny a player their rights under the rule - IF the player can play a functional stroke with the 4 hybrid back into the fairway, and that cart path interferes with that functional stroke, then the player is entitled to relief. I would not like to
  7. Your question was: " the definition previously said a ball touching the green is on the green. Where has that statement been moved to? I can't find it." The answer is Rule 13.1a.
  8. Bill's advice is correct but the original information is not sufficient for a definitive answer. A referee would need to know what is a reasonable stroke from the position. If a position under a bush permits a low stroke back into the fairway then it may be perfectly reasonable to play that stroke with a lower lofted club like a 4 hybrid. In that case, the player is entitled to cart path relief. But if the player needed to play a more lofted club, say 7 iron or higher, then there would be no relief as there is no interference with the path for the stroke which needs to be played.
  9. Sorry to be splitting hairs. The specific correct reference is 13.1a: "A ball is on the putting green when any part of the ball: touches the putting green.." Rule 2 is picking up broader context, including the general approach on how to treat a ball in more than one area of the course. And as the ball is on the putting green, the player does not have an entitlement to 'embedded' ball relief, but can mark the ball and repair the damage, then must replace the ball in the precise same spot.
  10. On the practice fairway or first tee is fine..... but once the round commences it's a penalty - see the first sentence of Rule 4.3.
  11. A broader benefit from the Rickie Fowler 'don't do it this way' lesson - which proved to be a different kind of 'swimmingly'.
  12. Sadly, the official got it wrong repeatedly from the get go and needed to be pointed in the right direction. Morikawa's handling of the situation was very classy.
  13. Anything you can do I can do better........
  14. Replace "lie" with "CATS" and you are good for the the money. It is not just lie, it is improving line of play (take out lump of sand in front of ball), make a mark to show line of play, build a stance by piling up sand, that sort of thing.
  15. RB's guide you otherwise in 8.1b/2. 8.1b/2 – Player Allowed to Dig in Firmly with Feet More Than Once in Taking Stance Rule 8.1b allows a player to place his or her feet firmly in taking a stance, and this may be done more than once in preparing to make a stroke. For example, a player may enter a bunker without a club, dig in with his or her feet in taking a stance to simulate playing the ball, leave to get a club, and then dig in again with his or her feet and make the stroke.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...