Jump to content

Player hits ball from teeing area in anger during match play


Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Cleveland TL310 10.5* driver

Cleveland HB Launcher 15* 3-wood

Srixon H65  19* 3 hybrid and 22* 4 hybrid

Mizuno MP63 5 thru 9-iron

Cleveland RTX 48-52-56-64 wedges

Scotty Cameron Classic III putter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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🤓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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”). 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mr. Bean
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jimbo123
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by 596
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks

    • 2021 RSM Classic - Discussion and Links
      2021 RSM Classic - Monday
      2021 RSM Classic - Tuesday #1
      2021 RSM Classic - Tuesday #2
       
       
      Trey Mullinax - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Brett Drewitt - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Matt Wallace - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Josh Creel - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Ben Crane - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Justin Lower - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Adam Svensson - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Webb Simpson - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Kiradech Aphibarnrat - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Bill Haas - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Max Homa - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
      Nick Watney - WITB - 2021 RSM Classic
       
       
      New Odyssey Tri Hot putters - 2021 RSM Classic
       
       
       
       
      • 1 reply
    • 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Discussion & Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
      Pat Perez - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Tony Finau - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Kramer Hickok - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Paul Barjon - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Nate Lashley - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Seamus Powers - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Dylan Frittelli - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      C.T. Pan - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Chase Koepka - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Branden Grace - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Marc Leishman - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Martin Laird - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Shane Lowery - WITB - @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
       
      Cameron CT T-11 putter - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      New Graphite Design shafts - WITB @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Cameron cover from 2021 ZOZO Championship - @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Bettinardi covers - @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
      Cameron CT putters - @ 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open
       
       
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Tuesday #3
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Tuesday #4
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Wednesday #1
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Wednesday #2
      2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Houston Open - Wednesday #3
       
       
       
       
      • 1 reply
    • APPLY NOW: L.A.B. Golf MEZZ.1 Putter (Early Access) Member Testing! 10 Testers Needed!
      L.A.B. Golf is choosing ten GolfWRX members to receive their MEZZ.1 putter early and put their brand new product to the test before reporting back to the community about what they see. The selected testers will be one of the first to experience the MEZZ.1 from L.A.B. GOLF, their newest Lie Angle Balanced design, ahead of it's January 2022 launch!
       
      About The L.A.B. Golf Mezz.1 Putter
      MEZZ.1 is our new mid-mallet putter that’s fully CNC machined from a billet of 6061 aircraft aluminum (body) and 303 stainless steel (midsection) to create our best-feeling — and we think best looking — putter to date. It includes 10 weights (eight on the bottom, two on the sides) that allow us to individually build each putter to a golfer’s exact specifications.
       
      How To Apply
      In a post below, answer the following questions.
       
      1. City, State?
      2. Handicap?
      3. What is your current putter?
      4. Have you ever used a L.A.B. Golf putter?
      5. Why do you want to review the MEAZZ.1 putter?
      6. Do you agree to participate in an ongoing testing thread, posting reviews and photos?
       
      That's it! @labgolf and GolfWRX will choose the testers in about 2 weeks! This testing event is for good-standing members in the USA only!
       
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 435 replies
    • 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club - Discussion and Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
      2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club - Tuesday #1
      2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club - Tuesday #2
       
       
      Adam Scott - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Justin Rose - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Collin Morikawa - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Jason Day - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Justin Thomas - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Erik Van Rooyen - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Matt Jones - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Cam Smith - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Byeong Hun An - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Min Kyu - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
      Joohyung Kim - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Jordan Spieth - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Lucas Glover - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Keegan Bradley - WITB - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
       
       
       
      Gary Woodland's new Cameron putter - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Kevin Na's new Odyssey/Toulon putter - 2021 CJ Cup @ The Summit Club
      Jucie wedges & Proto irons - 2021 CJ Cup at The Summit Club
       
       
       
       
      • 6 replies
    • 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open WITB Photos- Discussion & Links
      Please put any questions or comments here...
       
      Links:
       
      Harry Higgs - WITB - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      Ian Poulter - WITB - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      Harry Higgs - WITB - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      Matt NeSmith - WITB - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      Doug Ghim - WITB - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      New Cameron Las Vegas covers - 2021 Shriners Hospitals for Children Open
      New Project X HZRDUS Smoke RDX shafts - 2021 Shriners Hospitals doe Children Open
       
       

       
        • Like
      • 15 replies

×
×
  • Create New...