Embedded ball, interference & CATS...confirm my actions

[TerpFangolfer]

Really value the knowledge here - situation came up today in stroke play comp.

Just want to confirm that I was correct (I'm 99% sure...just that nagging doubt because my FCs were not happy)

 

Scenario - fairway approach shots. I hit first, another FC hit after me (I think that is important, right?)...we get up to the green, my ball is fully embedded in the fringe, and the FC was ~4' away and I'm on his direct line. He's got his putter. I knew he was going to ask me to mark...and he says "then you can fix the pitch mark".

 

I said "uh, I can definitely mark it, but don't think I can fix it" - another FC comes over, and says "you can definitely fix that". I point out the example, and say "what if my ball had popped out of my pitch mark, do you think he can fix it?" He said yes, and I said ONLY if he had hit first and then the pitch mark had been created. That was news to them - but I knew that was correct.

 

So then I offered up for him to play 2 balls...play 1 with the mark there, then fix it. But I was worried - if fixing then affected my CATS, but I did vaguely remember (and just confirmed) the MGA Q4 from this years' quiz. And the answer was that you can fix the pitch mark in the GA - I know I had originally answered that you couldn't because what if after I dropped that was on my Line.

 

So, now I just thought - what if I took my EB relief, and dropped away so I am now out of his line and in that process I fixed my pitch mark...basically affecting his CATS. He would be supposed to stop me, correct? Or I could be subject to penalty for changing is CATS.

 

Just wanted to confirm - or I am missing anything??

thanks

 

[antip]

4 hours ago, TerpFangolfer said:

Really value the knowledge here - situation came up today in stroke play comp.

Just want to confirm that I was correct (I'm 99% sure...just that nagging doubt because my FCs were not happy)

 

Scenario - fairway approach shots. I hit first, another FC hit after me (I think that is important, right?)...we get up to the green, my ball is fully embedded in the fringe, and the FC was ~4' away and I'm on his direct line. He's got his putter. I knew he was going to ask me to mark...and he says "then you can fix the pitch mark".

 

I said "uh, I can definitely mark it, but don't think I can fix it" - another FC comes over, and says "you can definitely fix that". I point out the example, and say "what if my ball had popped out of my pitch mark, do you think he can fix it?" He said yes, and I said ONLY if he had hit first and then the pitch mark had been created. That was news to them - but I knew that was correct.

 

So then I offered up for him to play 2 balls...play 1 with the mark there, then fix it. But I was worried - if fixing then affected my CATS, but I did vaguely remember (and just confirmed) the MGA Q4 from this years' quiz. And the answer was that you can fix the pitch mark in the GA - I know I had originally answered that you couldn't because what if after I dropped that was on my Line.

 

So, now I just thought - what if I took my EB relief, and dropped away so I am now out of his line and in that process I fixed my pitch mark...basically affecting his CATS. He would be supposed to stop me, correct? Or I could be subject to penalty for changing is CATS.

 

Just wanted to confirm - or I am missing anything??

thanks

 

This is a particularly challenging and complex part of the rules, raising issues that touch on rule 8.1 but also particularly rules 8.2 and 8.3. The answer about whether any penalty would result from you fixing the embedded mark before you or the FC play depends on when and why you repair. The key issue is providing your intent is to care for the course when you repair, no penalties apply. There is nothing in the rules that can force you to make that repair, and the FC cannot make the repair themself (would breach 8.1), but providing you are 'caring for the course' there would be no 8.3 breach from you making that repair before the FC plays. 

There is an excellent reference for working through these complexities, it the Short Course on the Rules, Round 1, offered on the USGA site. See the quiz and the published "Thoughts on the Round", question 16 (among others) overlaps with the issues you raise.

 

Edit: in addition, I've recalled this additional material below from the USGA F/B Rules page on some related themes so have added it to this post:

Zbigniew Gorecki 13 January 2021

In stroke play, Player A takes the lateral relief from the red penalty area. There is a huge divot hole in the relief area. Before Player A drops the ball Player C replaces the divot and Player C says that he is not intend to improve the relief area for Player A but he just does not like a mess on the course. On the other side of the fairway Player’s B ball lies in the bunker. There are deep footprints around his ball and also on his line of play. Player C rakes all footprints just to care for the course, he is not intent to improve Players’ B CATS, he simply does not like a mess.

Does Player C get a penalty under Rule 8.3b (1st bullet) which prohibits the player to improve the CATS of another player?

USGA 10 February 2021

If player C has not taken the described actions to deliberately alter the conditions affecting the stroke of Player A or B, Rule 8.3 does not apply and therefore Player C does not get any penalty. That said, you may wish to keep in mind that Players A and C may get a penalty under Rule 1.3c(1), depending upon the circumstances.

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by antip
Additional related material added

[TerpFangolfer]

Thanks antip...So it does only matter my intent?

 

So for example, if I had walked up, seen the situation and before he even asked me to mark and lift my ball for interference - I had just announced "I am going to take EB relief"...and proceeded, dropped (way out of his line since I could go 1 cl) and fixed the mark, then he plays...and all is rosy.

 

Did it make a difference once he directly said to me "I need you to mark your ball and fix your pitch mark because its right in my line to putt this"? It seems to me at that point, I can no longer fix the pitch mark simply to "care for the course"?

 

Or how about this - I think you do some refereeing? Or maybe other referees here can chime in - if you were called to that scene and player B said "I want Player A to mark and lift his ball and fix his pitch mark because its right in my line" - then what is your ruling? It would seem to me that once he states he needs the pitch mark fixed because of his CATS - then "care for the course" goes out the window??

 

Yeah, it is going down quite a rabbit hole...to make it worse this was on 15, and the guy ended up losing by a stroke (not to me). When I started the discussion of what was allowed his comment was "oh ok, don't worry I have the talent to chip it over your mark" - but of course he came up 5' short and missed the putt. I putted mine up from my spot to 1' and made par.  Oh and we were "cart partners" also...he also doubled 18 and I heard him talking to his other buddies and he seemed to only talk about what he did on 18 (bladed his 2nd second into a hazard). But who knows after i was gone if he didn't say "listen to what this Word not allowedhole said the rule was on 15"...haha

I definitely felt bad...

[antip]

42 minutes ago, TerpFangolfer said:

 

I doubt there is a referee on the planet that has faced this scenario. Here is my reaction to your key angles:

Could you just have stepped up, marked your ball and moved it for interference, repaired the mark etc, even before he asked? No, you have no permission under the rules to move your ball for interference unless asked and doing so without a request gets you one stroke penalty under 15.3b unless your intent to lift is to take relief from the embedded ball. And if the repair was a deliberate intent to fix the line of play of the FC, then you are in an 8.3 world, which means you get the general penalty unless the Exception to 8.3 applies - that the repair's purpose includes caring for the course.

If I'm the referee asked the question you posed as B's question, I would simply answer factually, that there is nothing in the rules that provides any entitlement for you to require that of player A.

Putting the referee angle aside, if you were to have received a request to lift and repair and you complied without having any intent to care for the course then the requesting player gets the general penalty under 8.1 and you get the general penalty under 8.3.

As you weren't familiar with these Rule 8 complexities, you actually protected yourself and the other player with your actions on the course.

 

[TerpFangolfer]

thanks!...and yeah when I said to "do it on my own" I definitely meant that I would announce I was taking EB relief - NOT lifting due to interference.

 

Very sticky situation...and the thing is the course was fairly dry. No rain here for 4-5 days...greenskeeper must have flooded that front fringe the night before! I wish now I had taken a photo...

[Sawgrass]

2 hours ago, antip said:

I doubt there is a referee on the planet that has faced this scenario. Here is my reaction to your key angles:

Could you just have stepped up, marked your ball and moved it for interference, repaired the mark etc, even before he asked? No, you have no permission under the rules to move your ball for interference unless asked and doing so without a request gets you one stroke penalty under 15.3b unless your intent to lift is to take relief from the embedded ball. And if the repair was a deliberate intent to fix the line of play of the FC, then you are in an 8.3 world, which means you get the general penalty unless the Exception to 8.3 applies - that the repair's purpose includes caring for the course.

If I'm the referee asked the question you posed as B's question, I would simply answer factually, that there is nothing in the rules that provides any entitlement for you to require that of player A.

Putting the referee angle aside, if you were to have received a request to lift and repair and you complied without having any intent to care for the course then the requesting player gets the general penalty under 8.1 and you get the general penalty under 8.3.

As you weren't familiar with these Rule 8 complexities, you actually protected yourself and the other player with your actions on the course.

 

It’s useful to note that according to the following Interpretation, the mere asking for CAS help can trigger a penalty if the act is completed — irrespective of any parallel intention to care for the course. 
 

8.3 Player’s Deliberate Actions to Alter Physical Conditions to Affect Another Player’s Ball at Rest or Stroke to Be Made

 

8.3/1 – Both Players Are Penalized if Physical Conditions Are Improved with Other Player’s Knowledge

If a player asks, authorizes or allows another player to deliberately alter physical conditions to improve his or her play:

• The player acting on the request will get the general penalty under Rule 8.3, and

• The player who requests, authorizes or allows the improvement will also get the general penalty under either Rule 8.1 (Player’s Actions That Improve Conditions Affecting the Stroke) or 8.2 (Player’s Deliberate Actions to Alter Other Physical Conditions to Affect the Player’s Own Ball at Rest or Stroke to Be Made), whichever applies.

For example, in stroke play, unaware of the Rules, Player A asks Player B to break a branch from a tree that is on Player A’s line of play and Player B complies; both players are penalized. Player A gets two penalty strokes for a breach of Rule 8.1 because Player B broke the branch at the request of Player A. Player B gets two penalty strokes for a breach of Rule 8.3.

 

 

[TerpFangolfer]

Thanks Sawgrass...that's exactly how the scenario was in my mind - he was asking me to improve his line-of-play.

Esp since he had his putter in his hand and stated "I'm going right over your mark". If he had been planning to chip, could be slightly different, but it was still direct on his intended line-of-play

[antip]

9 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

It’s useful to note that according to the following Interpretation, the mere asking for CAS help can trigger a penalty if the act is completed — irrespective of any parallel intention to care for the course. 
 

8.3 Player’s Deliberate Actions to Alter Physical Conditions to Affect Another Player’s Ball at Rest or Stroke to Be Made

 

8.3/1 – Both Players Are Penalized if Physical Conditions Are Improved with Other Player’s Knowledge

If a player asks, authorizes or allows another player to deliberately alter physical conditions to improve his or her play:

• The player acting on the request will get the general penalty under Rule 8.3, and

• The player who requests, authorizes or allows the improvement will also get the general penalty under either Rule 8.1 (Player’s Actions That Improve Conditions Affecting the Stroke) or 8.2 (Player’s Deliberate Actions to Alter Other Physical Conditions to Affect the Player’s Own Ball at Rest or Stroke to Be Made), whichever applies.

For example, in stroke play, unaware of the Rules, Player A asks Player B to break a branch from a tree that is on Player A’s line of play and Player B complies; both players are penalized. Player A gets two penalty strokes for a breach of Rule 8.1 because Player B broke the branch at the request of Player A. Player B gets two penalty strokes for a breach of Rule 8.3.

 

 

This Interpretation is clearly about proscribing collusion but I don't think that penalty must apply irrespective of the circumstances. I suspect there is a good question there to test. That is, I don't believe that a player ignorant of the rules asking for that overrides the rights of another player to care for the course given the significant elevation of 'caring for the course' under the 2019 Rules and that unrelated parties may also be negatively affected. An interesting issue.