Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Thanks for the replies guys. What about simply taking a step near the ball behind it to look straight down the line. I know the rule is about intent to test conditions, but at some point you are taking steps near the ball without much reason other than to test it. So if I do feel I benefit (however little) from standing right behind the ball to look down the line , but I KNOW I benefit from feeling the sand during the step, can I take the step there?
  2. I had an interesting experience the other day that prompted me to ask about the legality of employing this intentionally. I was in a deep bunker where my ball had hit the lip and rolled back down, so my ball was basically right at the steep upslope I couldn't see very well while taking my stance so I got somewhat close to my ball from behind and jumped up to survey the shot I had. When I landed I noticed the sand was particularly thin and played a different shot because of it. My question is about rule 13-4 and if this would constitute testing the condition of the bunker if: A) I did
  3. Thanks guys, awesome. I knew it must be this way for approaches I guess but on the chip it was just a little dissonant as I had never been that close to a fallen flag and had it help that much. Will remember this for tournaments!
  4. I had an interesting situation arise when playing a few practice holes where I had a chip shot by a green that had a flag blown down by the wind. It was oriented such that it was obviously helpful to me so I just chipped into it and the ball stopped close and I made the putt. Rule 17 and specifically decision 17 3/3 seem to indicate no penalty for an approach that hits the flag on the ground, but I found it kinda hard to believe this is really truly permitted that close to the hole and knowingly leaving the flag out. Thoughts?
  5. Depends on the level of the tournament. Rule 3-3 is extremely poorly known among golf players. Most people know the possibility of playing a second ball but extremely few know how they must proceed in order to do it right. The higher the level the better they are aware of it because stakes are higher and the occurrence of invoking R3-3 are much more common than on e.g. club level. OP here, that pretty exactly describes my knowledge of the rule, I knew you could do it but did not know the full explicit procedure. For context on me if anyone wondered, my playing experience is lots of junior
  6. Just wanted to clarify, by first ball I meant original ball, the one which came to rest in the path.
  7. Awesome to see so many quick replies! So it seems pretty clear that it's a dq offense given we didn't say anything after. But the conversation about what would happen if we had brought it to the committee is interesting. There is that part of the rule itself stating that if you don't declare which ball you want to count in which circumstances, that your original ball counts as long as the rules permit the procedure you used to hole it. This would seem to imply no DQ. Even if relief would have been granted. Now on the other hand, and I don't know if it's relevant, but I thought I would
  8. Hi Guys, Been a longtime reader of the rules forum but finally had one I just had to ask. I was playing in a tournament and a fellow competitor landed on a hard dirt path near the 9th green. He wasn't sure if he got relief so he said, as literally as I can remember, "I'm not sure if I get relief, so I'm going to play two balls". To be clear he definitely did not elaborate about how he wanted the balls to be counted as he is supposed to when invoking rule 3-3. He proceeded to hit his first ball to a couple feet and said "I'll just take that to not take up time". So I felt kinda off about
  • Create New...