2019 And The Pin Is In

[Sawgrass]

Yes, it's "far removed from the expected norm in golf." But so is the concept of "outcome based" penalties that the RBs have developed, endorsed and are teaching.

Outcome based penalties have not completed a takeover yet, eg 11.3 and 11.3/1.

Is it significant that the ball is already in motion?

Yes. And it's also significant if you do something illegal to the surface of the ground, as you're not allowed to restore that. (And probably can't do it right, anyway.)

Returning to this issue after an overnight reflect. I now agree fully with your earlier post that your bag placed behind the flagstick before a stroke is not a breach of any rules unless the contact is made. That is, 11.2 is only outcome based, while 11.3 is only intent based; so RBs have drawn a strong line between those two situations.

 

So to paint the picture clearly. Bag placed before the stroke, ball misses bag, no penalty. Bag placed by caddie during the stroke, penalty regardless of outcome.

 

But I want to return to the "serious misconduct" issue. You suggested it would be "creative" to link it to your bag behind the hole case. IMO, you absolutely could be in that world in certain circumstances but I agree you would need good reason. The key words from 1.2a/1 are "Deliberately not playing in accordance with the Rules and potentially gaining a significant advantage by doing so, despite incurring [note failure to use the 'getting' language] a penalty for a breach of the relevant Rule." I read these words as the ammunition the R&A would use to say clearly to Phil Mickelson, come on son, we dare you to do it again at the British Open when we are in control of the decision making. So if we have scary conditions behind the hole and player callously positions the bag directly to stop the ball, and it does so, potentially preventing the ball from running away into all manner of horrible outcomes but at the cost only of 2SP plus a gimme putt, then I think we are in the R1.2a world.

You point out that 1.2a/1 talks about gaining “a potentially significant advantage.” No such advantage exists for putting into your bag. It’s a stupid thing to do. As was Phil’s striking his moving ball.

[antip]

You point out that 1.2a/1 talks about gaining “a potentially significant advantage.” No such advantage exists for putting into your bag. It’s a stupid thing to do. As was Phil’s striking his moving ball.

The Phil example was a significant advantage, that ball was headed 40-50 metres away below the bunker with the nightmare green still to be negotiated. Putting into your bag, likewise, potentially offers the same significant advantage. But my observation is limited to cases like this, not the non-significant ho-hum version.

[rogolf]

You point out that 1.2a/1 talks about gaining “a potentially significant advantage.” No such advantage exists for putting into your bag. It’s a stupid thing to do. As was Phil’s striking his moving ball.

The Phil example was a significant advantage, that ball was headed 40-50 metres away below the bunker with the nightmare green still to be negotiated. Putting into your bag, likewise, potentially offers the same significant advantage. But my observation is limited to cases like this, not the non-significant ho-hum version.

I'm not supporting Phil's actions, but he could have also let everything occur naturally and then decide to proceed under stroke and distance, with the knowledge of how hard not to hit the ball. I think it was a bad decision for many reasons.

[Sawgrass]

You point out that 1.2a/1 talks about gaining “a potentially significant advantage.” No such advantage exists for putting into your bag. It’s a stupid thing to do. As was Phil’s striking his moving ball.

The Phil example was a significant advantage, that ball was headed 40-50 metres away below the bunker with the nightmare green still to be negotiated. Putting into your bag, likewise, potentially offers the same significant advantage. But my observation is limited to cases like this, not the non-significant ho-hum version.

Phil could have taken a one stroke S&D and replaced his ball on the green, instead he got two strokes. No significant advantage. The guy hitting his bag with a putt gets two strokes and has to replay the shot. No significant advantage. In fact, a sure significant disadvantage.

[rogolf]

You point out that 1.2a/1 talks about gaining “a potentially significant advantage.” No such advantage exists for putting into your bag. It’s a stupid thing to do. As was Phil’s striking his moving ball.

The Phil example was a significant advantage, that ball was headed 40-50 metres away below the bunker with the nightmare green still to be negotiated. Putting into your bag, likewise, potentially offers the same significant advantage. But my observation is limited to cases like this, not the non-significant ho-hum version.

Phil could have taken a one stroke S&D and replaced his ball on the green, instead he got two strokes. No significant advantage. The guy hitting his bag with a putt gets two strokes and has to replay the shot. No significant advantage. In fact, a sure significant disadvantage.

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

[nsxguy]

Chambers Bay in a US Open setting comes to mind. All the pros out there were guessing what was going to happen.

 

Putting for a birdie 3 on a slick downhiller that will roll off the green, lay the bag behind the hole. Putt 3, hit bag 2SP (4/5) and tap in 6. Or no bag, putt 3, rolls off green, unplayable 1SP, face same putt hitting 5 which is likely to roll all the way off. Or putt 3 off the green, chip up 4, 2-putt 6.

 

I think laying a bag behind the hole on a really fast green is going to end up being good strategy. Maybe not on the PGA where they are the best putters in the world, but at my club events where guys routinely 3, 4, and 5-putt. If a guy is getting 2 shots and is putting for a birdie 3, why not lay the bag down? If he makes it he gets a 3 for a 1. If it hits the bag he has a tap in 6 for a par 4. Especially if the guy could 3,4,5 or 6-putt. At least you’d lock in a net par for the team. At worst.

 

Doesn’t seem like golf to me. Seems quite hokey. Windmills and clowns-mouths.

 

Perhaps the ruling bodies will revisit this silliness. They changed something that didn’t need changing I feel.

A poor putter is 20 feet away. He foolishly lays his bag down behind the hole as a creepy strategy. He putts, if it goes in without hitting the bag, he one-putts, no harm, he deserves it. If he hits the bag, 11.2c (2) says the stroke is cancelled (other than the 2SP for hitting the bag) and must be replayed.

 

Why ? :blink:

[antip]

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

Agreed. If golf administrators condone 'professional fouls' like the examples we have been discussing with a view such actions are not an issue because the 2SP delivers 'justice', then the game has died.

[Augster]

Chambers Bay in a US Open setting comes to mind. All the pros out there were guessing what was going to happen.

 

Putting for a birdie 3 on a slick downhiller that will roll off the green, lay the bag behind the hole. Putt 3, hit bag 2SP (4/5) and tap in 6. Or no bag, putt 3, rolls off green, unplayable 1SP, face same putt hitting 5 which is likely to roll all the way off. Or putt 3 off the green, chip up 4, 2-putt 6.

 

I think laying a bag behind the hole on a really fast green is going to end up being good strategy. Maybe not on the PGA where they are the best putters in the world, but at my club events where guys routinely 3, 4, and 5-putt. If a guy is getting 2 shots and is putting for a birdie 3, why not lay the bag down? If he makes it he gets a 3 for a 1. If it hits the bag he has a tap in 6 for a par 4. Especially if the guy could 3,4,5 or 6-putt. At least you’d lock in a net par for the team. At worst.

 

Doesn’t seem like golf to me. Seems quite hokey. Windmills and clowns-mouths.

 

Perhaps the ruling bodies will revisit this silliness. They changed something that didn’t need changing I feel.

A poor putter is 20 feet away. He foolishly lays his bag down behind the hole as a creepy strategy. He putts, if it goes in without hitting the bag, he one-putts, no harm, he deserves it. If he hits the bag, 11.2c (2) says the stroke is cancelled (other than the 2SP for hitting the bag) and must be replayed. What does he do next? Leave the bag there again?

 

I want to play against this guy!

 

This app is confusing.

 

11.2 says “Ball in motion deflected or stopped by person”. And that’s it. So that shouldn’t be relevant to this discussion.

 

But then I read the little itty bitty red type that says “Ball in motion accidentally hits person, animal, or object; deliberate actions to affect ball in motion”. What?

 

So it’s a 2 stroke penalty and the ball must be replayed from the original spot. Why is this a discussion then? A player would just rack up 2-stroke penalties and have to replay each time he missed. Unless the ball never hits the bag/stick/funnel.

 

So.......much ado about nothing then.

[antip]

A poor putter is 20 feet away. He foolishly lays his bag down behind the hole as a creepy strategy. He putts, if it goes in without hitting the bag, he one-putts, no harm, he deserves it. If he hits the bag, 11.2c (2) says the stroke is cancelled (other than the 2SP for hitting the bag) and must be replayed.

 

Why ? :blink:

You don't get to benefit from an illegitimate interference with your ball on the putting green.

[Sawgrass]

Chambers Bay in a US Open setting comes to mind. All the pros out there were guessing what was going to happen.

 

Putting for a birdie 3 on a slick downhiller that will roll off the green, lay the bag behind the hole. Putt 3, hit bag 2SP (4/5) and tap in 6. Or no bag, putt 3, rolls off green, unplayable 1SP, face same putt hitting 5 which is likely to roll all the way off. Or putt 3 off the green, chip up 4, 2-putt 6.

 

I think laying a bag behind the hole on a really fast green is going to end up being good strategy. Maybe not on the PGA where they are the best putters in the world, but at my club events where guys routinely 3, 4, and 5-putt. If a guy is getting 2 shots and is putting for a birdie 3, why not lay the bag down? If he makes it he gets a 3 for a 1. If it hits the bag he has a tap in 6 for a par 4. Especially if the guy could 3,4,5 or 6-putt. At least you’d lock in a net par for the team. At worst.

 

Doesn’t seem like golf to me. Seems quite hokey. Windmills and clowns-mouths.

 

Perhaps the ruling bodies will revisit this silliness. They changed something that didn’t need changing I feel.

A poor putter is 20 feet away. He foolishly lays his bag down behind the hole as a creepy strategy. He putts, if it goes in without hitting the bag, he one-putts, no harm, he deserves it. If he hits the bag, 11.2c (2) says the stroke is cancelled (other than the 2SP for hitting the bag) and must be replayed.

 

Why ? :blink:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by, "Why?" Because the rules say so! Up until recently we've been discussing the penalty for intentionally stopping/deflecting your ball. The following determination is where you must then next play from. 11.2c answers that. It's broken into two pieces, when the ball had been played from anywhere other than the putting green, and when the ball had been played from the putting green. Neither is favorable to the player, though they are decidedly different. There are changes there compared to 2018, but IMO the punishment fits the crime.

 

Which is why I think we should gracefully accept this whole scenario.

[Sawgrass]

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

Agreed. If golf administrators condone 'professional fouls' like the examples we have been discussing with a view such actions are not an issue because the 2SP delivers 'justice', then the game has died.

"Died?" Really? You seem to be devoted to enforcing your personal views of how the rules should work instead of what the rules say. To me, that kind of anarchy is much more likely to lead to the death of the game. (Though neither path will get us to that extreme point.)

 

I'm really surprised that someone with as firm a grasp of the rules as you apparently have is headed in this direction. I suspect lively debates in the future! :drinks:

[HitEmTrue]

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

Agreed. If golf administrators condone 'professional fouls' like the examples we have been discussing with a view such actions are not an issue because the 2SP delivers 'justice', then the game has died.

 

I'm not following you. Who is condoning these actions? And how does the 2SP penalty not deliver justice? The player in the examples in this thread gained absolutely nothing.

[nsxguy]

Chambers Bay in a US Open setting comes to mind. All the pros out there were guessing what was going to happen.

 

Putting for a birdie 3 on a slick downhiller that will roll off the green, lay the bag behind the hole. Putt 3, hit bag 2SP (4/5) and tap in 6. Or no bag, putt 3, rolls off green, unplayable 1SP, face same putt hitting 5 which is likely to roll all the way off. Or putt 3 off the green, chip up 4, 2-putt 6.

 

I think laying a bag behind the hole on a really fast green is going to end up being good strategy. Maybe not on the PGA where they are the best putters in the world, but at my club events where guys routinely 3, 4, and 5-putt. If a guy is getting 2 shots and is putting for a birdie 3, why not lay the bag down? If he makes it he gets a 3 for a 1. If it hits the bag he has a tap in 6 for a par 4. Especially if the guy could 3,4,5 or 6-putt. At least you’d lock in a net par for the team. At worst.

 

Doesn’t seem like golf to me. Seems quite hokey. Windmills and clowns-mouths.

 

Perhaps the ruling bodies will revisit this silliness. They changed something that didn’t need changing I feel.

A poor putter is 20 feet away. He foolishly lays his bag down behind the hole as a creepy strategy. He putts, if it goes in without hitting the bag, he one-putts, no harm, he deserves it. If he hits the bag, 11.2c (2) says the stroke is cancelled (other than the 2SP for hitting the bag) and must be replayed.

 

Why ? :blink:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by, "Why?" Because the rules say so! Up until recently we've been discussing the penalty for intentionally stopping/deflecting your ball. The following determination is where you must then next play from. 11.2c answers that. It's broken into two pieces, when the ball had been played from anywhere other than the putting green, and when the ball had been played from the putting green. Neither is favorable to the player, though they are decidedly different. There are changes there compared to 2018, but IMO the punishment fits the crime.

 

Which is why I think we should gracefully accept this whole scenario.

 

My apologies. I misread a portion of the Rule.

[sui generis]

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

Agreed. If golf administrators condone 'professional fouls' like the examples we have been discussing with a view such actions are not an issue because the 2SP delivers 'justice', then the game has died.

 

The opportunities for "professional fouls" are rare. Tufts hated the notion, too.

 

One possibility is use of an unauthorized "stroke" such as a push, scrape or scoop. It's a little hard to imagine, but a savvy player might find himself in such a predicament that the general penalty would be cheaper or less risky than an unplayable or simple stroke-and-distance. (Now, don't expect me to dream up the appropriate narrative.)

[deadsolid...shank]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

[HitEmTrue]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

[deadsolid...shank]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

[HitEmTrue]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

 

Well, it could be simpler.

 

For example, 2 stroke penalty for each infraction would be simpler. 6 penalty strokes, plus the penalty stroke for relief from the ball in the penalty area.

 

But I don't imagine that many folks would find that to be fair.

[Sawgrass]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

Right now, the rules say that if a player purposefully deflects his own ball, he gets a 2SP and if he had initially struck his ball from the putting green, he cancels the stroke and replays it, and if he had initially struck his ball from anywhere else, he estimates the spot it would have come to rest upon and drops in a relief area there (or places on the green if that's the estimated location).

 

I can accept that this is "complicated." But in my heart of hearts I can't imagine anything more reasonable than this. I understand people have an impulse to criticize the rules, but in all fairness, don't you think this is well thought out? If not, what would you prefer?

[Augster]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

Right now, the rules say that if a player purposefully deflects his own ball, he gets a 2SP and if he had initially struck his ball from the putting green, he cancels the stroke and replays it, and if he had initially struck his ball from anywhere else, he estimates the spot it would have come to rest upon and drops in a relief area there (or places on the green if that's the estimated location).

 

I can accept that this is "complicated." But in my heart of hearts I can't imagine anything more reasonable than this. I understand people have an impulse to criticize the rules, but in all fairness, don't you think this is well thought out? If not, what would you prefer?

 

In this situation? The most fair thing would be to let the player play his original ball in once it’s found inside 3 minutes, regardless what else happened.

 

This is the tour experience. On the PGA, on TV, there would never be a question where his ball was. Whether it carried the hazard or not. There would be spectators or volunteers by the green to point out where his ball ended up.

 

Playing golf without cameras, volunteers, forecaddies etc. which is 99.99999% of golf played, the common man runs into the problem as discussed ONLY because nobody knew that his ball was lying fine over the hazard.

 

So, IMO, the simplest, most fair, thing to do would be to let him continue with his original ball. It’s not really his fault nobody was watching from the green to tell him his ball made it over. And it’s a complete time waste to walk all the way around the PA, look for the ball for 3 minutes, then walk all the way back and take relief if he didn’t find it.

 

Let him hit a ball, then go look. Then if the original is found, play in from there.

 

The Ruling Bodies just can’t allow this for some reason even though it’s the easiest and most fair solution.

[Sawgrass]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

Right now, the rules say that if a player purposefully deflects his own ball, he gets a 2SP and if he had initially struck his ball from the putting green, he cancels the stroke and replays it, and if he had initially struck his ball from anywhere else, he estimates the spot it would have come to rest upon and drops in a relief area there (or places on the green if that's the estimated location).

 

I can accept that this is "complicated." But in my heart of hearts I can't imagine anything more reasonable than this. I understand people have an impulse to criticize the rules, but in all fairness, don't you think this is well thought out? If not, what would you prefer?

 

In this situation? The most fair thing would be to let the player play his original ball in once it's found inside 3 minutes, regardless what else happened.

 

This is the tour experience. On the PGA, on TV, there would never be a question where his ball was. Whether it carried the hazard or not. There would be spectators or volunteers by the green to point out where his ball ended up.

 

Playing golf without cameras, volunteers, forecaddies etc. which is 99.99999% of golf played, the common man runs into the problem as discussed ONLY because nobody knew that his ball was lying fine over the hazard.

 

So, IMO, the simplest, most fair, thing to do would be to let him continue with his original ball. It's not really his fault nobody was watching from the green to tell him his ball made it over. And it's a complete time waste to walk all the way around the PA, look for the ball for 3 minutes, then walk all the way back and take relief if he didn't find it.

 

Let him hit a ball, then go look. Then if the original is found, play in from there.

 

The Ruling Bodies just can't allow this for some reason even though it's the easiest and most fair solution.

Are you in the right thread? Aren't we talking about deliberately defecting your own ball with your golf bag? Or is it I who am confused?

[deadsolid...shank]

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

Right now, the rules say that if a player purposefully deflects his own ball, he gets a 2SP and if he had initially struck his ball from the putting green, he cancels the stroke and replays it, and if he had initially struck his ball from anywhere else, he estimates the spot it would have come to rest upon and drops in a relief area there (or places on the green if that's the estimated location).

 

I can accept that this is "complicated." But in my heart of hearts I can't imagine anything more reasonable than this. I understand people have an impulse to criticize the rules, but in all fairness, don't you think this is well thought out? If not, what would you prefer?

 

In this situation? The most fair thing would be to let the player play his original ball in once it’s found inside 3 minutes, regardless what else happened.

 

This is the tour experience. On the PGA, on TV, there would never be a question where his ball was. Whether it carried the hazard or not. There would be spectators or volunteers by the green to point out where his ball ended up.

 

Playing golf without cameras, volunteers, forecaddies etc. which is 99.99999% of golf played, the common man runs into the problem as discussed ONLY because nobody knew that his ball was lying fine over the hazard.

 

So, IMO, the simplest, most fair, thing to do would be to let him continue with his original ball. It’s not really his fault nobody was watching from the green to tell him his ball made it over. And it’s a complete time waste to walk all the way around the PA, look for the ball for 3 minutes, then walk all the way back and take relief if he didn’t find it.

 

Let him hit a ball, then go look. Then if the original is found, play in from there.

 

The Ruling Bodies just can’t allow this for some reason even though it’s the easiest and most fair solution.

 

I actually don’t remeber the exact scenario in the OP (if they were sure the ball was in the water or not), but if they weren’t a provisional for this would help. Someone else mentioned it earlier. We have a similar hole that I brought up quite some time back about this situation.

 

Sawgrass, I’m not proposing anything different, I’m simply saying I do believe the rules are complicated. This thread illustrates it perfectly. OP proposes a scenario and how many different answers came up? From a lot of people who know the rules well. How well do you think average Joe golfer is going to deal with this?

[deadsolid...shank]

 

My goodness, did someone up above disagree when someone else said the rules are confusing?

 

You don't agree that, when the player complicates matters, that the solution/ruling may be complicated?

 

 

I believe it becomes more complicated.

Right now, the rules say that if a player purposefully deflects his own ball, he gets a 2SP and if he had initially struck his ball from the putting green, he cancels the stroke and replays it, and if he had initially struck his ball from anywhere else, he estimates the spot it would have come to rest upon and drops in a relief area there (or places on the green if that's the estimated location).

 

I can accept that this is "complicated." But in my heart of hearts I can't imagine anything more reasonable than this. I understand people have an impulse to criticize the rules, but in all fairness, don't you think this is well thought out? If not, what would you prefer?

 

In this situation? The most fair thing would be to let the player play his original ball in once it's found inside 3 minutes, regardless what else happened.

 

This is the tour experience. On the PGA, on TV, there would never be a question where his ball was. Whether it carried the hazard or not. There would be spectators or volunteers by the green to point out where his ball ended up.

 

Playing golf without cameras, volunteers, forecaddies etc. which is 99.99999% of golf played, the common man runs into the problem as discussed ONLY because nobody knew that his ball was lying fine over the hazard.

 

So, IMO, the simplest, most fair, thing to do would be to let him continue with his original ball. It's not really his fault nobody was watching from the green to tell him his ball made it over. And it's a complete time waste to walk all the way around the PA, look for the ball for 3 minutes, then walk all the way back and take relief if he didn't find it.

 

Let him hit a ball, then go look. Then if the original is found, play in from there.

 

The Ruling Bodies just can't allow this for some reason even though it's the easiest and most fair solution.

Are you in the right thread? Aren't we talking about deliberately defecting your own ball with your golf bag? Or is it I who am confused?

 

Oh that’s too funny. The thread did start with a ball hit over water didn’t it?

 

EDIT: I think Augster and I both are thinking of a different thread.

[Sawgrass]

 

Sawgrass, I’m not proposing anything different, I’m simply saying I do believe the rules are complicated. This thread illustrates it perfectly. OP proposes a scenario and how many different answers came up? From a lot of people who know the rules well. How well do you think average Joe golfer is going to deal with this?

 

I completely agree that the rules are complicated. And that the trouble we all get ourselves in while playing is complicated as well.

 

I don't know how Joe Golfer is going to deal with this. But then, I didn't know how Joe Golfer 2018 dealt with these questions either -- no lack of confusion last year either! All I can tell you for sure is that when I was a Joe Golfer, I became obsessed with figuring out how to deal with these myriad challenging circumstances. And one day, my obsession led me here to the Rules Forum, where I suspect I will be stuck forever. (Where I kind of hope I'll be stuck forever, because it's fascinating.)

[nsxguy]

Right now, the rules say that if a player purposefully deflects his own ball, he gets a 2SP and if he had initially struck his ball from the putting green, he cancels the stroke and replays it, and if he had initially struck his ball from anywhere else, he estimates the spot it would have come to rest upon and drops in a relief area there (or places on the green if that's the estimated location).

 

I can accept that this is "complicated." But in my heart of hearts I can't imagine anything more reasonable than this. I understand people have an impulse to criticize the rules, but in all fairness, don't you think this is well thought out? If not, what would you prefer?

 

In this situation? The most fair thing would be to let the player play his original ball in once it's found inside 3 minutes, regardless what else happened.

 

This is the tour experience. On the PGA, on TV, there would never be a question where his ball was. Whether it carried the hazard or not. There would be spectators or volunteers by the green to point out where his ball ended up.

 

Playing golf without cameras, volunteers, forecaddies etc. which is 99.99999% of golf played, the common man runs into the problem as discussed ONLY because nobody knew that his ball was lying fine over the hazard.

 

So, IMO, the simplest, most fair, thing to do would be to let him continue with his original ball. It's not really his fault nobody was watching from the green to tell him his ball made it over. And it's a complete time waste to walk all the way around the PA, look for the ball for 3 minutes, then walk all the way back and take relief if he didn't find it.

 

Let him hit a ball, then go look. Then if the original is found, play in from there.

 

The Ruling Bodies just can't allow this for some reason even though it's the easiest and most fair solution.

Are you in the right thread? Aren't we talking about deliberately defecting your own ball with your golf bag? Or is it I who am confused?

 

Oh that's too funny. The thread did start with a ball hit over water didn't it?

 

EDIT: I think Augster and I both are thinking of a different thread.

 

I think both of you are as well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but for different reasons.

 

Augster sounds like he's talking about a lost ball.

 

You sound like you're referring to ball hitting on green side of yellow penalty area.

 

This thread is about putting with the flagstick in (not ball lost/ob) ;)

[HitEmTrue]

Are you in the right thread? Aren't we talking about deliberately defecting your own ball with your golf bag? Or is it I who am confused?

 

Oops, that was my fault! I mentioned 6 penalty strokes because I thought this was the other thread.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1735824-whats-the-ruling/

[Newby]

Rules - confused

Situations - confused

Threads - confused

Contributors - confused

Me - I'm having a stiff V&T

[Augster]

Are you in the right thread? Aren't we talking about deliberately defecting your own ball with your golf bag? Or is it I who am confused?

 

Oops, that was my fault! I mentioned 6 penalty strokes because I thought this was the other thread.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1735824-whats-the-ruling/

 

I know I’m in the wrong thread. :)

 

I’m out of this one. No advantage gained as a replay is required. No DQ. It’s not in the spirit of the game, or whatever, but the 2SP and replay from the same spot is enough of a penalty, and deterrent, to this behavior.

 

Moving along......

[HitEmTrue]

Are you in the right thread? Aren't we talking about deliberately defecting your own ball with your golf bag? Or is it I who am confused?

 

Oops, that was my fault! I mentioned 6 penalty strokes because I thought this was the other thread.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...ats-the-ruling/

 

I know I'm in the wrong thread. :)

 

I'm out of this one. No advantage gained as a replay is required. No DQ. It's not in the spirit of the game, or whatever, but the 2SP and replay from the same spot is enough of a penalty, and deterrent, to this behavior.

 

Moving along......

 

I like this change. There is absolutely no incentive (for the lack of a better word...there was no incentive a year ago) for someone to do what Phil did. Let the ball roll down the hill, and then decide whether to take stroke and distance or not.

[CheckJV]

I was hoping to play golf tomorrow and have some more pin in our out stories but it’s supposed to be 25 degrees in the morning. Too cold for me. Are any of you guys getting to play some golf?