Interpretation of Rule 3-3 and Decision 3-3/7.5

[RRiegler]

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 the situation but I hadnt played tournaments for awhile and he seemed confident when he did play his original ball so I just forgot about it.

 

At the end of the round we don't mention it, sign our cards and leave.

 

I continued to think about it and looked up rule 3-3 and decision 3-3/7.5

 

The decision in 3-3/7.5 is almost the exact scenario we had, except the player in question DID successfully explain which ball he wanted to count.

 

But from 3-3 b) ii., it seems rule 3-3 is in effect even if you don't elaborate on how you want the balls to count.

 

So if nothing else it seems the fact that rule 3-3 was in effect and he did not bring the situation to the attention of the committee alone might have been grounds for disqualification unfortunately.

 

What do you guys think?

[Sawgrass]

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 the situation but I hadnt played tournaments for awhile and he seemed confident when he did play his original ball so I just forgot about it.

 

At the end of the round we don't mention it, sign our cards and leave.

 

I continued to think about it and looked up rule 3-3 and decision 3-3/7.5

 

The decision in 3-3/7.5 is almost the exact scenario we had, except the player in question DID successfully explain which ball he wanted to count.

 

But from 3-3 b) ii., it seems rule 3-3 is in effect even if you don't elaborate on how you want the balls to count.

 

So if nothing else it seems the fact that rule 3-3 was in effect and he did not bring the situation to the attention of the committee alone might have been grounds for disqualification unfortunately.

 

What do you guys think?

the end of the Decision you quoted says the player is bound by the procedures in 3-3. IMO that includes DQ for failing to report.

 

It's unfortunate that your disquiet didn't encourage you to bring it to the Committee's attention, you could have saved him from making the DQ violation.

 

I think the DQ penalty simply for failing to report is too harsh. It's my understanding that it's written that way to make sure people don't mistakenly get away with something given that they're inherently in a complicated situation, but still . . .

[rogolf]

The requirement to report the playing of implementing Rule 3-3 before returning the card is just that - a "must" under the Rules, and the consequence of failing to do so is disqualification, as Sawgrass has correctly stated. The reason for this requirement is so that the Committee has the opportunity to make the correct ruling on the doubtful situation and decide whether the player has proceeded correctly for either of the balls and thus protecting the field from a player's error.

[sui generis]

As my learned friends have said, disqualification would be the appropriate action by the Committee.

 

From the player's perspective to properly excercise his rights under R3-3 there are four "musts." They are,:

1) Before taking further action, must declare his intention to play two balls, and

2) Before taking further action, must declare which of the two balls he wishes to score with, and

3) He must hole out with both balls, and

4) He must report the facts to the Committee.

 

I will observe that some times the scoring operation will just take the cards and wave the players goodbye. The best, however, require the players to sit down and as a part of the procedure ask, "Any Rules problems you wish to discuss and did anyone play a second ball under 3-3?" (As have others, I'm sure, I've seen things get a little hot in scoring when the correct steps have not been taken by the player and the outcome isn't to his liking.)

[Newby]

As my learned friends have said, disqualification would be the appropriate action by the Committee.

 

From the player's perspective to properly excercise his rights under R3-3 there are four "musts." They are,:

1) Before taking further action, must declare his intention to play two balls, and

2) Before taking further action, must declare which of the two balls he wishes to score with, and

3) He must hole out with both balls, and

4) He must report the facts to the Committee.

 

There are 'get outs' for two of them

 

2)

3-3b (ii) If, before taking action, the competitor has failed to announce which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball.

3)

3-3/8 There is no penalty for picking up a ball played under Rule 3-3 if that ball cannot count.

[sui generis]

As my learned friends have said, disqualification would be the appropriate action by the Committee.

 

From the player's perspective to properly excercise his rights under R3-3 there are four "musts." They are,:

1) Before taking further action, must declare his intention to play two balls, and

2) Before taking further action, must declare which of the two balls he wishes to score with, and

3) He must hole out with both balls, and

4) He must report the facts to the Committee.

 

There are 'get outs' for two of them

 

2)

3-3b (ii) If, before taking action, the competitor has failed to announce which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball.

3)

3-3/8 There is no penalty for picking up a ball played under Rule 3-3 if that ball cannot count.

 

Of course, however if the player wishes to achieve his desired outcome, he's advised to perform the four "musts." If he omits a "must," the outcome is less certain . . . he's relying on luck. :)

[dormie1360]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

[Sawgrass]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

[dormie1360]

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

Correct. I read it as he wanted relief , however after reading the OP again, that may have been unclear or not specified.

[rogolf]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

It's not clear in the original post if the first ball was played from the "hard dirt path" or after he had taken relief from that path. I don't think there's enough information to reach a conclusion.

[Stuart_G]

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

Correct. I read it as he wanted relief , however after reading the OP again, that may have been unclear or not specified.

 

It's a pretty good assumption since, in this case, there is no apparent concern for any breach of the rules for playing the original ball (relief is optional even if it is allowed) and so the only reason to proceed under 3-3 is if the player wanted relief but was not sure if it was allowed.

[rogolf]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

I'm not sure that a dq is precluded. Let's look at the possibilities:

1. he took relief under 24-2 and completed play of the hole with that ball, but did not play a ball from where his original lay on the path and the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, what is the outcome?

2. he played his original ball as it lay on the path and completed play of the hole with that ball, but, because of the good result of the shot from the path, he did not play a second ball under 24-2. If the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, the score with the original ball would count. If they ruled that the path was an obstruction and the player's actions/behavior indicated that he would have wanted to score with the ball with relief, what is the outcome?

[RRiegler]

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 add that although he had not verbalized explicitly which ball he would want to count, it was extremely obvious he wanted relief if he was entitled to it from his exact word choice to his body language.

 

Is that enough to make it so that the ruling in decision 3-3/7.5 would stand, in that if the relief would have been granted he would be DQed for failure to hole out.

 

I guess it depends on whether his first or second ball is deemed to have been his choice in this ambiguous situation.

[AndyC]

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 add that although he had not verbalized explicitly which ball he would want to count, it was extremely obvious he wanted relief if he was entitled to it from his exact word choice to his body language.

 

Is that enough to make it so that the ruling in decision 3-3/7.5 would stand, in that if the relief would have been granted he would be DQed for failure to hole out.

 

I guess it depends on whether his first or second ball is deemed to have been his choice in this ambiguous situation.

 

I think it is pretty clear which ball the player would want to count, otherwise there would not have been a problem in the first place. If a player wants relief but is unsure whether or not he can take surely indicates intentions as to which ball is preferred.

[Sawgrass]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

I'm not sure that a dq is precluded. Let's look at the possibilities:

1. he took relief under 24-2 and completed play of the hole with that ball, but did not play a ball from where his original lay on the path and the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, what is the outcome?

2. he played his original ball as it lay on the path and completed play of the hole with that ball, but, because of the good result of the shot from the path, he did not play a second ball under 24-2. If the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, the score with the original ball would count. If they ruled that the path was an obstruction and the player's actions/behavior indicated that he would have wanted to score with the ball with relief, what is the outcome?

 

I trust we are all talking only about the OP case, at least I am. So point # 1 is out. Regarding point #2, given that no preference for which ball was to count was announced, the original ball would have to count as indicated below, so he's still free from DQ (unless I'm missing something in the decision tree!)

 

3-3 b (II) says:

 

If, before taking action, the competitor has failed to announce which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball.

 

 

[sui generis]

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 add that although he had not verbalized explicitly which ball he would want to count, it was extremely obvious he wanted relief if he was entitled to it from his exact word choice to his body language.

 

Is that enough to make it so that the ruling in decision 3-3/7.5 would stand, in that if the relief would have been granted he would be DQed for failure to hole out.

 

I guess it depends on whether his first or second ball is deemed to have been his choice in this ambiguous situation.

 

I think it is pretty clear which ball the player would want to count, otherwise there would not have been a problem in the first place. If a player wants relief but is unsure whether or not he can take surely indicates intentions as to which ball is preferred.

 

Perhaps the requirement to select the ball ahead of time is to preclude the player from ex post facto choosing the ball with the lower score attached. :)

[rogolf]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

I'm not sure that a dq is precluded. Let's look at the possibilities:

1. he took relief under 24-2 and completed play of the hole with that ball, but did not play a ball from where his original lay on the path and the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, what is the outcome?

2. he played his original ball as it lay on the path and completed play of the hole with that ball, but, because of the good result of the shot from the path, he did not play a second ball under 24-2. If the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, the score with the original ball would count. If they ruled that the path was an obstruction and the player's actions/behavior indicated that he would have wanted to score with the ball with relief, what is the outcome?

 

I trust we are all talking only about the OP case, at least I am. So point # 1 is out. Regarding point #2, given that no preference for which ball was to count was announced, the original ball would have to count as indicated below, so he's still free from DQ (unless I'm missing something in the decision tree!)

 

3-3 b (II) says:

 

If, before taking action, the competitor has failed to announce which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball.

 

Yes, I'm still talking about the original situation but adding that the player did notify the the Committee before returning his card. I'm not sure why you've suggested that point 1 is out? Let's start with concluding on that before going to point 2.

[Sawgrass]

I would add, even if he had explained what he had done at the end of the round, he may still be DQ'd, Once a player states his intentions to proceed under R3-3, he may change his mind up to making another stroke with his original ball or putting a second ball into play. (dropping), however once he announces R3-3 and takes further action he is bound by the rule.

 

So if the player in the OP holed out with the ball played from the path, and relief was available, his second ball would have counted under R3-3. As he did not hole out with that ball, he is DQ'd for not holing out with the ball that would have counted.

 

See D3-3/7.5

 

Given the fact that the player did not stipulate which of the originally intended two balls he wished would count, his first (and it turns out "only") ball would have counted, precluding the DQ as long as he reported to the Committee, right?

 

I'm not sure that a dq is precluded. Let's look at the possibilities:

1. he took relief under 24-2 and completed play of the hole with that ball, but did not play a ball from where his original lay on the path and the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, what is the outcome?

2. he played his original ball as it lay on the path and completed play of the hole with that ball, but, because of the good result of the shot from the path, he did not play a second ball under 24-2. If the Committee rules that the path is not an obstruction, the score with the original ball would count. If they ruled that the path was an obstruction and the player's actions/behavior indicated that he would have wanted to score with the ball with relief, what is the outcome?

 

I trust we are all talking only about the OP case, at least I am. So point # 1 is out. Regarding point #2, given that no preference for which ball was to count was announced, the original ball would have to count as indicated below, so he's still free from DQ (unless I'm missing something in the decision tree!)

 

3-3 b (II) says:

 

If, before taking action, the competitor has failed to announce which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts provided the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball.

 

Yes, I'm still talking about the original situation but adding that the player did notify the the Committee before returning his card. I'm not sure why you've suggested that point 1 is out? Let's start with concluding on that before going to point 2.

 

Sure. In the OP it said, "He proceeded to hit his first ball to a couple feet and said "I'll just take that to not take up time."

 

I interpret that sentence as meaning that he never actually took relief under 24-2, he just hit his original ball from the problematic situation, so point #1 above cannot be applied in the OP situation.

[Sun Devil]

I'm not a rules guy .... but I do not see a penalty here. Assuming his 1st and only shot was the original shot.

 

Had he proceeded to seek relief from the cart path and then still choose the 1st shot ...... that's a problem.

[AndyC]

I'm not a rules guy .... but I do not see a penalty here. Assuming his 1st and only shot was the original shot.

 

Had he proceeded to seek relief from the cart path and then still choose the 1st shot ...... that's a problem.

 

In your scenario the player would essentially be playing best-ball. It should have been as though the first ball was a provisional in the event relief was not allowed.

[Sawgrass]

One thing's for sure, if the DQ was extended to not finishing with both balls, and to not announcing which ball was hoped to count, 3-3 would be a hell of a lot easier to adjudicate.

[ZBigStick]

You gotta love golf. A guy isn't sure if he can get relief, he plays it as it lies and now he can get DQ'd.

 

If a game doesn't follow common sense, it will die. We need more people to play and enjoy our game, by the rules, but in an appropriate amount of time and with reason.

 

It's no wonder Pros call for an official over every shot.

[sui generis]

You gotta love golf. A guy isn't sure if he can get relief, he plays it as it lies and now he can get DQ'd.

 

If a game doesn't follow common sense, it will die. We need more people to play and enjoy our game, by the rules, but in an appropriate amount of time and with reason.

 

It's no wonder Pros call for an official over every shot.

 

As we know, common sense has it's uses. However, those uses are limited to situations in which a random outcome is acceptable.

 

Having said that, please have at it . . . play golf with any (or no) Rules which float your boat. :)

[Mr. Bean]

For me it is unclear from the OP what does 'first ball' mean.

 

Is that the ball he had been playing on the hole? Or a ball he dropped (somewhere)?

 

This IMO has a huge impact on the story.

[RRiegler]

For me it is unclear from the OP what does 'first ball' mean.

 

Is that the ball he had been playing on the hole? Or a ball he dropped (somewhere)?

 

This IMO has a huge impact on the story.

 

Just wanted to clarify, by first ball I meant original ball, the one which came to rest in the path.

[Cancun]

For me, the crux of the matter is that he invoked Rule 3-3 and then fails to inform the Committee after finishing the round.

 

The player has a doubt about his situation. He invokes a Rule that binds him to a procedure. Then, he fails to follow the procedure described in the Rule he decided to invoke. If we look at Rule 3-3 there is no room for guessing: part of that procedure is, before returning his scorecard, report the facts of the situation to the Committee. If he fails to do so, he’s disqualified. The fact that, after having made an exceptional stroke, he changed his mind, doesn’t give him the authorization to change the prescribed procedure.

 

Had he informed the Committee how everything happened, they could have made a decision. A player is DQ’d for not informing about this even if he scores the same with both balls, so I don’t see how he could get away from that one

 

Decision 3-3/7.5 has been quoted. In Decision 3-3/7.5 the Committee is informed, so they can decide. This is a very different situation and the player is DQ’d for not informing about the facts, regardless of the fact that he only played one ball (meaning only that he failed to follow the procedure in more than one way).

[Augster]

I'm with Cancun. What he scored with either ball, after not reporting the fact he was playing two balls and didn't choose which to score with, did not matter a bit, he's DQ.

 

The ROG doesn't use the word MUST lightly.

[Stuart_G]

You gotta love golf. A guy isn't sure if he can get relief, he plays it as it lies and now he can get DQ'd.

 

If a game doesn't follow common sense, it will die. We need more people to play and enjoy our game, by the rules, but in an appropriate amount of time and with reason.

 

It actually is common sense when you understand the rule. The rules allow you to play two balls when you are uncertain about a rule and how to proceed in some cases. It very specifically doesn't allow you to choose which of those two balls is the one you want to count after you know the outcome of either of those shots. You must choose before. The DQ is because the individual choose (changed his mind about playing a second ball) after seeing the outcome of the first ball. If he simply had changed his mind before making the shot, there would be no problem.

[pingfool]

OP needs to clarify...

 

guy walks up to ball on hard path - not sure if he entitled to relief - so he announces going to play 2 balls into the hole

 

plays original ball - as it lies - happy with shot - and announces that one will count - without taking relief and playing 2nd ball

 

says nothing to committee

[Stuart_G]

I believe he did clarify and that is what happened.