When is the ball actually holed?

[rogolf]

4 hours ago, antip said:

I believe the ball is not holed because it doesn't meet the requirements of 13.2c : "If a player's ball COMES TO REST AGAINST the flagstick left in the hole...". Marking, lifting and replacing is not, IMO, an acceptable substitute that qualifies as a ball coming to rest against the flagstick.

I would suggest that a test of reasonableness would say the ball is holed, just as if it would be if a couple grains of sand were between the ball and the flagstick.

[Newby]

I have asked the R&A.

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, antip said:

I believe the ball is not holed because it doesn't meet the requirements of 13.2c : "If a player's ball COMES TO REST AGAINST the flagstick left in the hole...". Marking, lifting and replacing is not, IMO, an acceptable substitute that qualifies as a ball coming to rest against the flagstick.

 

 

So what you are essentially saying is that a ball is not leaning against a flagstick if there is something between the ball and the flagstick. That is fundamentally very wrong and totally incorrect. BUT there may be other reasons for Grant Muir to rule differently.

 

Let us see if Newby gets an answer from R&A.

[jlbos83]

This has actually become more interesting than I would have expected!  If the ball is at rest against a leaf, which is against the flagstick, can one still move the flagstick, allowing the ball to complete it's journey below ground?  It strikes me that coming to the conclusion that a leaf between the ball and the flagstick, with the ball partly below the surface, means that the ball would not be holed can't possibly be considered "equitable", which I would think might be important in reaching the decision.

 

[antip]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So what you are essentially saying is that a ball is not leaning against a flagstick if there is something between the ball and the flagstick. That is fundamentally very wrong and totally incorrect. BUT there may be other reasons for Grant Muir to rule differently.

 

Let us see if Newby gets an answer from R&A.

Perhaps my brain is deluding me, but I thought a photo that did the rounds last year or so had a stick across the hole with the flagstick in and a ball was over the hole and partly below the surface of the green against the stick, being prevented from falling in the hole by the stick. Ruling was not holed because not in contact with the flagstick (per 13.2c). So it would be very interesting if a leaf replaces the stick and the answer changes!

 

I fully understand the observations here - "that seems inequitable" - but that is the current dilemma that arises in a number of places under the 2019 Rules. We have some RB answers that have stated explicitly that RBs (in certain cases) now are applying the wording of the rule rather than creating more exceptions for extremely complicated and highly unlikely scenarios. This is an ongoing challenge with the Rules of Golf.

[nsxguy]

Wasn't there something in the pre-2019 Rules that directed issues not covered by the Rules to be decided "in equity" (or similar verbiage), e.g. fairly ?

 

This particular instance seems to cry out for such a procedure.

[sui generis]

14 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Wasn't there something in the pre-2019 Rules that directed issues not covered by the Rules to be decided "in equity" (or similar verbiage), e.g. fairly ?

 

This particular instance seems to cry out for such a procedure.

 

20.3 Situations Not Covered by the Rules

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=3

 

However, it's not used for situations for which we simply don't like the outcome when the Rule is applied. 😉

[nsxguy]

42 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

20.3 Situations Not Covered by the Rules

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=3

 

However, it's not used for situations for which we simply don't like the outcome when the Rule is applied. 😉

 

Thank you kind sir. 👍

 

But isn't that the point here ?

 

It's not that we don't like the outcome.

 

We have experienced officials on BOTH sides of the issue and can't decide what the outcome should be.

 

We could play 2 balls and ask afterwards but we'd likely still have the same problem - the committee wouldn't know how to rule.

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by nsxguy

[sui generis]

17 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

We could play 2 balls and ask afterwards but we'd likely still have the same problem - the committee wouldn't know how to rule.

 

The Committee will pick up the phone and call the USGA Rules hotline: 908-326-1850. They have staff members whose job is to answer questions. 

 

ps That phone number is public knowledge and they will try to help anyone who calls. I mean "anyone" in the USA or Mexico. They need not be a referee or expert. Anyone means anyone . . . they won't laugh. They've heard it all. 🙂

[antip]

18 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Thank you kind sir. 👍

 

But isn't that the point here ?

 

It's not that we don't like the outcome.

 

We have experienced officials on BOTH sides of the issue and can't decide what the outcome should be.

 

We could play 2 balls and ask afterwards but we'd likely still have the same problem - the committee wouldn't know how to rule.

)

 

 

So there are times when it goes to the big umpire in the sky (far hills/st andrews).

The old "equity" principle is gone, Sui pointed to the evolved successor. Almost all the old equity decisions have been absorbed within the rules by improvements that lead to answers without relying on a subjective call. For me, this was one of the significant unheralded achievements of the re-write that produced the 2019 Rules.

But this sort of task never goes away, the questions that stress the rules just get trickier over time.

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, antip said:

Perhaps my brain is deluding me, but I thought a photo that did the rounds last year or so had a stick across the hole with the flagstick in and a ball was over the hole and partly below the surface of the green against the stick, being prevented from falling in the hole by the stick. Ruling was not holed because not in contact with the flagstick (per 13.2c). So it would be very interesting if a leaf replaces the stick and the answer changes!

 

I fully understand the observations here - "that seems inequitable" - but that is the current dilemma that arises in a number of places under the 2019 Rules. We have some RB answers that have stated explicitly that RBs (in certain cases) now are applying the wording of the rule rather than creating more exceptions for extremely complicated and highly unlikely scenarios. This is an ongoing challenge with the Rules of Golf.

 

It would be nice to see the photo.

 

I agree with you that there is a continuous struggle between keeping things black & white (i.e. easily applicable) and treating situations in a fair manner.

 

P.S. If the ruling is based on 'not being in contact with the flagstick' then the Rule 13.2c needs to be rephrased as that is not what that Rule is currently saying. And FWIW, this situation can fairly easily occur in the fall when playing on dewy greens with leaves on or on moist sandy greens (sand grains between the ball and the flagstick).

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Halebopp]

44 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It would be nice to see the photo.

 

I agree with you that there is a continuous struggle between keeping things black & white (i.e. easily applicable) and treating situations in a fair manner.

 

P.S. If the ruling is based on 'not being in contact with the flagstick' then the Rule 13.2c needs to be rephrased as that is not what that Rule is currently saying. And FWIW, this situation can fairly easily occur in the fall when playing on dewy greens with leaves on or on moist sandy greens (sand grains between the ball and the flagstick).

 

 

 

Here you go: 

 

That ball is not holed as it's not leaning against the flagstick, not even indirectly. Prior to 2019 it was holed due to some uncommunicated ruling from the 70s or 80s.

[Pastit]

9 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Thank you kind sir. 👍

 

But isn't that the point here ?

 

It's not that we don't like the outcome.

 

We have experienced officials on BOTH sides of the issue and can't decide what the outcome should be.

 

We could play 2 balls and ask afterwards but we'd likely still have the same problem - the committee wouldn't know how to rule.

 

 

 

Also, unless dispute procedure in matchplay is altered, and in the absence of a referee, disputes had to be resolved prior to teeing off from the next tee. There are some valuable cash prizes in matchplay. EG My partner and I won c £900 in an auction matchplay foursomes. 

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Pastit said:

disputes had to be resolved prior to teeing off from the next tee

 

Prior to 2019, a "claim" had to have been made prior to starting the next hole. 

 

That has not changed. Though no longer called a "claim" it is now a "request for a ruling."

 

See this Interpretation:

 https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=interp&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=1

[davep043]

4 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

Here you go: 

 

That ball is not holed as it's not leaning against the flagstick, not even indirectly. Prior to 2019 it was holed due to some uncommunicated ruling from the 70s or 80s.

I see a difference between this (commonly circulated) photo, and the discussion of a ball leaning against the flagstick, with a leaf between the flagstick and the ball.  In the photo, the flagstick has no influence on the ball.  In the discussion, without the flagstick in place, both ball and leaf would end up in the bottom of the hole.  My interpretation, if I were forced to give one, is that the presence of a "membrane" like a leaf or a piece of paper between the flagstick and ball doesn't mean that the ball isn't "at rest against the flagstick."  I'll wait to hear back from @Newby, this wouldn't be the first time that my judgement would be incorrect.

[sui generis]

31 minutes ago, davep043 said:

My interpretation, if I were forced to give one, is that the presence of a "membrane" like a leaf or a piece of paper between the flagstick and ball doesn't mean that the ball isn't "at rest against the flagstick."

 

As would mine. 🙂

[Colin L]

I'm just noting, in passing, that a ball  inside the edges of a bunker sitting on a leaf that is touching the sand would be in the bunker.  In effect, it's as if the leaf didn't exist.

[Socrates]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and have seen a few unforeseen twists and turns. 

 

This is a more likely scenario in this part of the world...  What would be the outcome if the flag stick had a thin layer of ice on it from a freezing rain?  Is the ball at rest against the flag stick? 

 

What about a flag stick that has been repaired with tape to prevent shards of fibreglass injuring players?  I would consider the tape part of the flag stick but under the strict interpretations I've seen here, the ball is not contacting the stick, so it would not be considered holed since the ball is not actually touching the stick.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

I see a difference between this (commonly circulated) photo, and the discussion of a ball leaning against the flagstick, with a leaf between the flagstick and the ball.  In the photo, the flagstick has no influence on the ball.  In the discussion, without the flagstick in place, both ball and leaf would end up in the bottom of the hole.  My interpretation, if I were forced to give one, is that the presence of a "membrane" like a leaf or a piece of paper between the flagstick and ball doesn't mean that the ball isn't "at rest against the flagstick."  I'll wait to hear back from @Newby, this wouldn't be the first time that my judgement would be incorrect.

 

Indeed, and that stick case (photo) has absolutely nothing to do with a ball leaning against the flagstick.

[antip]

8 hours ago, davep043 said:

I see a difference between this (commonly circulated) photo, and the discussion of a ball leaning against the flagstick, with a leaf between the flagstick and the ball.  In the photo, the flagstick has no influence on the ball.  In the discussion, without the flagstick in place, both ball and leaf would end up in the bottom of the hole.  My interpretation, if I were forced to give one, is that the presence of a "membrane" like a leaf or a piece of paper between the flagstick and ball doesn't mean that the ball isn't "at rest against the flagstick."  I'll wait to hear back from @Newby, this wouldn't be the first time that my judgement would be incorrect.

Dave

It's not about judgement being correct or incorrect, it's just whichever way RBs jump when the call is in this sort of a 'transition zone'. I have answers to other questions that have come out on surprising sides. In fact, one of the most senior RB figures has said to me he sometimes simply can't predict which way the final Committee outcome will go (one of the great joys of Committees) on a hairy issue.

 

Coming back to the leaf against flagstick and ball against leaf - I can actually picture cases where you could justify opposite answers. If it is a small, skinny leaf producing nothing more than a 'technical' separation of ball and flagstick - I would not be surprised to see a decision that over-rides rule 13.2c. But if it is a significant leaf, big enough to prevent a ball falling in regardless of whether there is a flagstick in the hole (and we have seen photos like that) then it seems very unlikely there would be any 13.2c over-ride in such a specific case.

 

When diverse folk get together in places like this and discuss an issue, it is highly unlikely we are all picturing exactly the same thing, which can dispose us to different answers.

 

But I suggest there is no way sand, dirt, ice etc has any relevance to the application of the rule as some have touched on above.

[ChrissyM]

On 12/23/2021 at 5:34 AM, Newby said:

I have asked the R&A.

Just wondering if you had a reply from the R&A??

[Newby]

9 hours ago, ChrissyM said:

Just wondering if you had a reply from the R&A??

Not as yet. An acknowledgement only. In fact I had forgotten about it so have just prompted them.