Player hits ball from teeing area in anger during match play

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Thanks for all the great discussion and guidance to my question. Looks like no penalty based on the latest discussion.

 

While he definitely intended to hit the ball he didn't intend to put it into play. It seems the only other option is 1.2a  but honestly not likely.  This is an informal after work league and the committee is effectively the group of guys. 

 

Thanks again to all. 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, jimbo123 said:

What's still unclear to me though is how you get to the result of 18-2/23 using just the words of 9.4b.   I can't see anything in 9.4b which states anything like a "stroke without intent" doesn't count as a stroke, instead it just counts as moving the ball.  It seems like you still need something like the 18-2/23 Decision to get that conclusion.

 

R9.4b ONLY deals with moving the player's ball in play so there is no need to blend the definition of a stroke into the equation. Just as I tried to reason in one of my earlier posts.

[jimbo123]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

R9.4b ONLY deals with moving the player's ball in play so there is no need to blend the definition of a stroke into the equation. Just as I tried to reason in one of my earlier posts.

The ball was in play in the 18-2/23 scenario.  Not sure what you're saying, sorry.

 

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

The ball was in play in the 18-2/23 scenario.  Not sure what you're saying, sorry.

 

 

Well, the only difference is that there is no penalty if the ball is NOT in play.

 

As I wrote earlier, in the Mapping Summary Chart there is NO reference to the Definition of a Stroke for the old Dec 18-2/23 while there IS for the previous one 18-2/22. So one may conclude that in the current application of D18-2/23 the Definition is not a determining factor.

[jimbo123]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well, the only difference is that there is no penalty if the ball is NOT in play.

 

As I wrote earlier, in the Mapping Summary Chart there is NO reference to the Definition of a Stroke for the old Dec 18-2/23 while there IS for the previous one 18-2/22. So one may conclude that in the current application of D18-2/23 the Definition is not a determining factor.

I think I follow and agree.  So what is the determining factor in deciding whether you've moved the ball or made a stroke?  

 

My understanding following antip's comments is roughly, that intent is the determining factor, and that this was true due to D18-2/23 previously, and is now sort of, implied somewhere (maybe implied by the fact that the D18-2/23 outcome is unchanged).  

[Mr. Bean]

17 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

I think I follow and agree.  So what is the determining factor in deciding whether you've moved the ball or made a stroke?  

 

As antip and rogolf (?) suggested, if you are not trying to proceed with your game, that is, trying to finish the hole (with the least number of strokes), you most probably have not made a stroke (ref. D18-2/23). I vote for that approach as it feels to me closest to the spirit of this game.

[Fairway14]

22 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

 

So what's the ruling? Did the ball struck in anger count as 1? Should there have been any penalty strokes assessed?  Or was the player right when he teed another ball and said this is 1?

 

Thanks!

Re-tee laying 2, hitting 3rd shot.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

As antip and rogolf (?) suggested, if you are not trying to proceed with your game, that is, trying to finish the hole (with the least number of strokes), you most probably have not made a stroke (ref. D18-2/23). I vote for that approach as it feels to me closest to the spirit of this game.

I definitely understand this view.  However, to me, a swing with the intention to hit the ball is either a stroke, or a practice stroke.  In your view, its a non-event, and in the view of the Decision you've referred to.  I defer to your greater knowledge and experience.

[Mr. Bean]

4 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I definitely understand this view.  However, to me, a swing with the intention to hit the ball is either a stroke, or a practice stroke. 

 

In the Decision they used expression 'knocked in disgust'. That kind of act is hardly practicing and in broader view, apparently in a view of the Ruling Bodies, it is not an act taken in order to get the ball closer to hole or to a better place to make the next stroke.

 

I am comfortable with that view.

 

P.S. How would you rule if a person when about to start a hole drops a ball onto the teeing area  and with a few knocks with a club moves the ball to a spot he wants to tee off from? Would you consider that player having started the hole with his first knock and count that as a stroke as well as the subsequent knocks before he actually made his 'proper' tee shot?

[Sawgrass]

15 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I definitely understand this view.  However, to me, a swing with the intention to hit the ball is either a stroke, or a practice stroke.  In your view, its a non-event, and in the view of the Decision you've referred to.  I defer to your greater knowledge and experience.

5.5a provides other examples of a player intending to strike a ball, but it not being a stroke or a practice stroke.  For instance, hitting a stray range ball back to the range for the purpose of cleaning up the course. 

[davep043]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

P.S. How would you rule if a person when about to start a hole drops a ball onto the teeing area  and with a few knocks with a club moves the ball to a spot he wants to tee off from? Would you consider that player having started the hole with his first knock and count that as a stroke as well as the subsequent knocks before he actually made his 'proper' tee shot?

That type of action is closer to the allowed types of practice than to a full swing, I'd say no problem at all

2 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

5.5a provides other examples of a player intending to strike a ball, but it not being a stroke or a practice stroke.  For instance, hitting a stray range ball back to the range for the purpose of cleaning up the course. 

I looked at that, and a full swing made in anger seems unlikely to have been done as a courtesy.

Gentlemen, I'm not arguing my side of this any more, this is how I've learned a lot of what I know now, by positing my opinion, and learning from those who tell me why I was wrong.

[wobgon]

Nothing to do with the ruling but i would be interested to know what the minor issue on the previous hole was.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Sawgrass said:

5.5a provides other examples of a player intending to strike a ball, but it not being a stroke or a practice stroke.  For instance, hitting a stray range ball back to the range for the purpose of cleaning up the course. 

 

To be extremely pedantic, that is a stroke by definition but it is not counted as one in the score of the player or considered as a practice stroke🤓

[jimbo123]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

In the Decision they used expression 'knocked in disgust'. That kind of act is hardly practicing and in broader view, apparently in a view of the Ruling Bodies, it is not an act taken in order to get the ball closer to hole or to a better place to make the next stroke.

 

I am comfortable with that view.

 

P.S. How would you rule if a person when about to start a hole drops a ball onto the teeing area  and with a few knocks with a club moves the ball to a spot he wants to tee off from? Would you consider that player having started the hole with his first knock and count that as a stroke as well as the subsequent knocks before he actually made his 'proper' tee shot?

 I would think the “few knocks on the tee” do not count to the score because they were not done “to begin the hole” as per 6.1a.   To me 6.1a answers the OPs question and anything else done before the first intentional tee shot. 
 

I find it odd that there is no similar wording in the rules addressing the issue of intent explicitly for actions taken during a hole, and instead we need to refer back to an eliminated rule.   I fully accept the correctness of it, it’s just odd, given it seems fundamental.  (I sort of think we’ve been going round in circles since antip’s explanation that the guidance has gone from stated to “unstated”). 
 

[Mr. Bean]

9 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

 I would think the “few knocks on the tee” do not count to the score because they were not done “to begin the hole” as per 6.1a.   To me 6.1a answers the OPs question and anything else done before the first intentional tee shot. 
 

I find it odd that there is no similar wording in the rules addressing the issue of intent explicitly for actions taken during a hole, and instead we need to refer back to an eliminated rule.   I fully accept the correctness of it, it’s just odd, given it seems fundamental.  (I sort of think we’ve been going round in circles since antip’s explanation that the guidance has gone from stated to “unstated”). 
 

 

In the 2019 Rules hundreds of Decisions were eliminated and today one needs to find the answers from the Rules, Interpretations and Clarifications. Combining 6.1a and 9.4b we can easily conclude the outcome whether the ball is in play or not and there is no need for an Interpretation. The problem in this thread has been that the situation has been dealt with way too much complexity but it has been a good thread and a very educational one, IMO.

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[jimbo123]

20 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

In the 2019 Rules hundreds of Decisions were eliminated and today one needs to find the answers from the Rules, Interpretations and Clarifications. Combining 6.1a and 9.4b we can easily conclude the outcome whether the ball is in play or not and there is no need for an Interpretation. The problem in this thread has been that the situation has been dealt with way too much complexity but it has been a good thread and a very educational one, IMO.

 

I would genuinely like to know how you easily conclude the outcome for a ball in play using 9.4b.   I don’t see anything in the words of 9.4b that helps at all. 

[Mr. Bean]

33 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

I would genuinely like to know how you easily conclude the outcome for a ball in play using 9.4b.   I don’t see anything in the words of 9.4b that helps at all. 

 

Penalty for Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move

If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke.

[Mr. Bean]

Of course the entire Rule 9.4 needs to be used but 9.4b tells us that is a penalty and therefore not a stroke.

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[jimbo123]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Penalty for Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move

If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke.

I have no idea how that resolves the question of whether someone took a stroke or moved their ball in a situation like the 18-2/23 case.  Thankyou for answering though. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by jimbo123

[jimbo123]

Sorry for making you sad.  Let me phrase it this way.  Say the 18-2/23 situation comes up in a match you a refereeing.  Player claims their opponent made a stroke according to the definition of the stroke.   You say, no, they moved the ball.  
 

How do you justify this ruling?  To be clear, I’m fine with “it’s murky but the USGA still says so” (basically antip’s answer).    I’m not fine with “it’s easily concluded from rule 9”. 

[596]

Here we're go again.  A 2 page thread with all kinds of decisions on the rules of golf from someone who hit the ball OB from a teeing area out of anger.  20 guys can't decide what it means.

 

He teed the ball, he hit the ball OB. Stroke and distance. Period.  But we all have to argue about his intent.  He should admit he intended to hit the ball into the range and be an adult and take responsibility.  But we all know that golf is a gentleman's sport and is a reflection of ones life, and all golfers are honest, blah, blah, blah.  

 

Rant over!! 😄

Edited July 10, 2021 by 596

[jimbo123]

9 minutes ago, 596 said:

Here we're go again.  A 2 page thread with all kinds of decisions on the rules of golf from someone who hit the ball OB from a teeing area out of anger.  20 guys can't decide what it means.

 

He teed the ball, he hit the ball OB. Stroke and distance. Period.  But we all have to argue about his intent.  He should admit he intended to hit the ball into the range and be an adult and take responsibility.  But we all know that golf is a gentleman's sport and is a reflection of ones life, and all golfers are honest, blah, blah, blah.  

 

Rant over!! 😄

I don’t think a single person has questioned this guy’s intent. 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, jimbo123 said:

Sorry for making you sad.  Let me phrase it this way.  Say the 18-2/23 situation comes up in a match you a refereeing.  Player claims their opponent made a stroke according to the definition of the stroke.   You say, no, they moved the ball.  
 

How do you justify this ruling?  To be clear, I’m fine with “it’s murky but the USGA still says so” (basically antip’s answer).    I’m not fine with “it’s easily concluded from rule 9”. 

 

I am afraid I cannot help you any better if you cannot find the answer from Rule 9.4.

 

Afa justifying the ruling I would point out Rule 9.4 and explain that a swing with a club under the circumstances is made in the purpose of moving the ball instead of making a stroke to count. And as I am the referee my decision will be final 😉

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, 596 said:

Here we're go again.  A 2 page thread with all kinds of decisions on the rules of golf from someone who hit the ball OB from a teeing area out of anger.  20 guys can't decide what it means.

 

He teed the ball, he hit the ball OB. Stroke and distance. Period. 

 

So you are convinced that Rule 6.1a has been fulfilled:

 

'A player has started a hole when he or she makes a stroke to begin the hole.'

?

 

That the player actually wanted to start the hole?

[jimbo123]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

explain that a swing with a club under the circumstances is made in the purpose of moving the ball instead of making a stroke to count. And as I am the referee my decision will be final 😉

 

As far as I can tell, this distinction regarding “purpose” is not stated in rule 9 nor anywhere else.  Not sure why you won’t either acknowledge that, or point to where it is stated; instead you point to unrelated rules and say it is “easy” to get this conclusion. 

I feel it worth pointing (again) out that I agree with the ruling, just can’t see how you are sourcing it from rule 9. 
 

But, it appears the authority has spoken so I’ll ask no more. 

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, jimbo123 said:

 

As far as I can tell, this distinction regarding “purpose” is not stated in rule 9 nor anywhere else.  Not sure why you won’t either acknowledge that, or point to where it is stated; instead you point to unrelated rules and say it is “easy” to get this conclusion. 

I feel it worth pointing (again) out that I agree with the ruling, just can’t see how you are sourcing it from rule 9. 
 

But, it appears the authority has spoken so I’ll ask no more. 

 

Sometimes one just has to understand what the Rules try to say instead of trying to find individual words.

[jimbo123]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Sometimes one just has to understand what the Rules try to say instead of trying to find individual words.

This is a patronising thing to say to someone who has made a great effort to understand this ruling, and already accepted that the answer is probably an implicit one. 
 

You are the person who said it was easy from the actual words of the rule , and I wanted to understand why you thought that.  What a mistake that was. 

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

This is a patronising thing to say to someone who has made a great effort to understand this ruling, and already accepted that the answer is probably an implicit one. 
 

You are the person who said it was easy from the actual words of the rule , and I wanted to understand why you thought that.  What a mistake that was. 

 

I tried my best to explain it to you but failed. Maybe someone else can make you understand. Let me just say to you that I have studied Rules of Golf for 15 years and sometimes it has taken lots of effort to understand the concept. It is not easy, let me assure you.

[jimbo123]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I tried my best to explain it to you but failed. Maybe someone else can make you understand. Let me just say to you that I have studied Rules of Golf for 15 years and sometimes it has taken lots of effort to understand the concept. It is not easy, let me assure you.

I think I do understand what matters for this ruling, thanks to other comments that addressed my questions rather than constantly deflecting with vague statements intended to hint at your superior golfing wisdom without actually providing insight. 

[antip]

11 hours ago, davep043 said:

I definitely understand this view.  However, to me, a swing with the intention to hit the ball is either a stroke, or a practice stroke.  In your view, its a non-event, and in the view of the Decision you've referred to.  I defer to your greater knowledge and experience.

Dave

We are best-guessing on less than perfect information. I read the more logical explanation as the guy is swatting the ball away in frustration, which takes you to no penalty because the ball is not in play and it doesn't matter if he uses club or foot. But if the guy explains his action as relieving my frustration by practising my one arm driver stroke as a diversion from the idiocy going on around me then I'm calling general penalty for breach of 5.5.

Our friend @596 just doesn't get it, it is these grey, uncertain areas of rules application that gets the rules nerd engaged. And discussions like this, and the questions that get sent in as a result, absolutely inform the improvement of the next version of the rules.