ball with compromised cover: OK to play?

[jobin]

Have dumped many balls into the water today, a poor day. All my good balls are gone so i squirrel around in the bottom of my golf bag and find one ball. But this ball has a tear in the cover, and the second layer in visible, a sky-blue color.

I use my pocket knife to cut away the bit of flappy white cover and  now my companion, George, tells me that my ball is 'non-conforming'.

I have no idea if he is correct.

The alternative to not using this ball is to 'borrow' a ball from him, or walk back to the club house; head hanging low. I will do neither of those options so i carry on with the 'damaged' ball and finish the round. Actually, the ball seemed as good as any other ball i've ever  played, so was pleased.  George was not so happy, called me a 'cheat'.

[ArtMBgolf]

If it's damaged during play or found damaged, it should be legal.   
But maybe not if you cut a piece off.   
 
After losing that many balls, you wouldn't be shorting a good score anyway.       

[antip]

Interesting question. The rules give us chapter and verse on clubs when it comes to damage - in particular it remains conforming for the rest of the round regardless of its state - eg you can putt with your putter head only - and repairs are permitted that attempt to restore as near as possible to the original condition providing they use the original parts.

If we apply this same thinking to the ball as well, your actions to repair (cutting off the flappy bit) could be considered to be restoring the ball closer to the original condition (no flappy bits).

4.2a(2) says you cannot deliberately alter the ball but that is about improving performance characteristics, I don't think that applies to a repair as you have described.

So I lean to the view your actions were legal, but it is one for upstairs for a definitive answer. 

[SE Gamer]

I'm surprised the ball felt good. Have worn out a few balls at home (cracked covers, peeling, etc). And they feel significantly different. 

It is a good question though. Since it's legal to repair a damaged club during a round (even if intentionally done). Maybe the same would apply to a ball?

 

On a related note, I'd be seriously reconsidering playing with George. If a fun round, that's an absolutely ridiculous thing for a playing partner to gripe over. If it were for money, I think George has bigger problems in his own game to worry about. Considering his opponent has lost just about every ball in his bag. Yet he still can't presumably seem to close it out without calling BS (and potentially illegitimate) penalties. 

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, SE Gamer said:

On a related note, I'd be seriously reconsidering playing with George. If a fun round, that's an absolutely ridiculous thing for a playing partner to gripe over.

 

I could not read from the original post whether George had any demands over the issue or was he merely stating his view. Thus personally I would not form any opinions about him being fun to play with or not. Maybe he is and maybe he is not but sounds to me that jumping to conclusions over one line of written text on a golf forum may be a bit tight.

[Scooby555]

I'd kick George in his balls for being such a twatwaffle

Edited September 23, 2022 by Scooby555

[Z1ggy16]

George sounds fun.

[Dpavs]

The way I read this is that we are talking about a ball that was not in play for the round but that the OP wanted to put in play because he had no other ball to use.

If that is the case then I do not think that the ball can be put in play, imo. My reasoning is that the ball, being so damaged, is no longer conforming as it no longer conforms to the specifications under which it was determined to be conforming for play.

 

I actually wonder if the same would not be true for any ball removed from play because it was damage, i.e. it cannot later be put back in play. I cannot find anything but my gut would say there is some inequity to allow a ball to be removed and then put back in play for any reason. I also don't know that I necessarily agree (again just a gut feeling because I can't find anything yay or nay) either that the rules that apply to clubs regarding damage sustained during a round can or should be equally applied to the ball.

 

Interesting question though and I really cannot find anything definitive regarding it. I don't know that I necessarily agree either that the rules that apply to clubs regarding damage sustained during a round can or should be equally applied to the ball.

[SE Gamer]

2 hours ago, Dpavs said:

*snip*

 

I also don't know that I necessarily agree (again just a gut feeling because I can't find anything yay or nay) either that the rules that apply to clubs regarding damage sustained during a round can or should be equally applied to the ball.

FWIW, I'm entirely unsure as well about whether rules relating to club damage would be extended to other equipment. Just suggested it, as it's the closest specifics I could find in the rules that could be considered as comparable. 

[Cwing]

Interesting question. In to follow comments.

[Mr. Bean]

On 9/26/2022 at 6:30 PM, Dpavs said:

If that is the case then I do not think that the ball can be put in play, imo. My reasoning is that the ball, being so damaged, is no longer conforming as it no longer conforms to the specifications under which it was determined to be conforming for play.

 

 

The way I see it a ball is conforming even if it has been damaged in the course of play provided it was conforming when first taken into play, analogous to clubs.

[Dpavs]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

The way I see it a ball is conforming even if it has been damaged in the course of play provided it was conforming when first taken into play, analogous to clubs.

 

I might disagree depending on what you mean by the course of play... same round or a different round? To me the concept of "play" as it applies to something that was damaged in the course of play should be limited to a single round. It does make me ponder and I cannot find anything definitive here again of course but I guess I am asking (everyone) ... Do the rules permit the start of a round with a damaged club which is known to be damaged? I suppose balls would\should be treated the same either way.

[kwcsports]

I think once you cut a piece of the cover off, It's non conforming. 

[Mr. Bean]

10 hours ago, kwcsports said:

I think once you cut a piece of the cover off, It's non conforming. 

 

But you think it is conforming if part of the cover has been detached from the core?

[Mr. Bean]

13 hours ago, Dpavs said:

Do the rules permit the start of a round with a damaged club which is known to be damaged? I suppose balls would\should be treated the same either way.

 

That is a fair question and the answer lies in whether the damage has rendered the club (or ball) non-conforming. For a club we have lots of information in the Equipment Rules to look at but for a ball there is virtually none. Thus we have no standard available in the Rules how to determine if a ball is conforming or not after it is damaged. In fact, we may ask the same question when it comes to worn-out balls. To which point may a ball be worn to still be conforming? I have no clue but I am quite certain that no player would get any kind of advantage for using a ball that has inferior properties due to damage on it compared to an undamaged ball. 

[kwcsports]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

But you think it is conforming if part of the cover has been detached from the core?

Yes, I think if I hit the ball and cut the cover, I can continue to use that ball in play. If I alter it in any way, I say I can't. 

[Dpavs]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That is a fair question and the answer lies in whether the damage has rendered the club (or ball) non-conforming. For a club we have lots of information in the Equipment Rules to look at but for a ball there is virtually none. Thus we have no standard available in the Rules how to determine if a ball is conforming or not after it is damaged. In fact, we may ask the same question when it comes to worn-out balls. To which point may a ball be worn to still be conforming? I have no clue but I am quite certain that no player would get any kind of advantage for using a ball that has inferior properties due to damage on it compared to an undamaged ball. 

 

I do agree that there would be no particular advantage to using a damaged club or ball but in OP's case if he could not find or obtain a conforming ball for the round it would have altered the results for him so it definitely could have some impact during a round. You could make a supposition about using a ball that has a piece of cover missing (sort of akin to leaving mud on one side of the ball deliberately) in order to try to influence the flight of the ball... but I think it's somewhat of a stretch.

 

That said, after giving this some thought and looking at the equipment rules holistically here is what I believe we do know:

(per the emboldened parts of the equipment rule excerpts below)

 

1. A player must use conforming equipment including a conforming ball.
2. The conformance of the ball applies to each stroke during any round.
3. A deliberately altered ball must not be played.
4. The ball must not be intentionally modified to have properties different from those of a spherically symmetrical ball.

 

To me #2 suggest that once a ball is non-conforming it must be removed from play as there is no explicit exception regarding damaged balls in the rules.

I think #3 and #4 suggest that you cannot cut away any part of the cover as was suggested and again there is no exception in the rule regarding trying to repair a ball.

 

 

Excerpts from the equipment rules:

 

Rule 4 – The Player’s Equipment
Purpose: Rule 4 covers the equipment that players may use during a round. Based on the principle that golf is a challenging game in which success should depend on the player’s judgment, skills and abilities, the player:

• Must use conforming clubs and balls

 

4.2 Balls
a. Balls Allowed in Play of Round
(1) Conforming Ball Must Be Played. In making each stroke, a player must use a ball that conforms to the requirements in the Equipment Rules.
A player may get a conforming ball to play from anyone else, including another player on the course.
(2) Deliberately Altered Ball Must Not Be Played. A player must not make a stroke at a ball whose performance characteristics have been deliberately altered, such as by scuffing or heating the ball or by applying any substance (other than in cleaning it).

PART 4 – CONFORMANCE OF BALLS
1. General
The ball must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make.

4. Spherical Symmetry
The ball must not be designed, manufactured or intentionally modified to have properties which differ from those of a spherically symmetrical ball.
The intent of this provision is simply to ensure that a ball is manufactured and designed to behave symmetrically.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Dpavs

[Newby]

13 minutes ago, kwcsports said:

 If I alter it in any way, I say I can't. 

4.2a

(2) Deliberately Altered Ball Must Not Be Played.

A player must not make a stroke at a ball whose performance characteristics have been deliberately altered,

Edited September 28, 2022 by Newby

[ShortGolfer]

There were 2019 rule revisions with the intent of making golf more enjoyable and speeding up the pace of play.

No longer would you have to wait for someone trying to helplessly hack the ball out of a bunker when they could just take a 2 stroke penalty and drop the ball out of the back of the bunker.

 

I'd be fine with my partner repairing the ball and continuing the round.  As I see it, the ball has been repaired to make it work like the original.  Not altered to to gain a competitive advantage.

 

I exhibit roses and there as also a revision to reduce the number of DQs.    People want to see roses at rose shows.

Often, the most beautiful displays have flaws if  you look at them too carefully.  l

It has taken me a long time but I now have a better understanding of Trophy Quality entries that may have flaws that the judges will ignore. 

They aren't going to disqualify gorgeous roses on a technicality like one petal that has been chewed on by a bug.

[ND2005]

I played with a friend of a friend once who ran out of balls on about the 12th hole. He asked me to borrow a few. Seeing how many he had already lost, I declined. He had to call the pro shop and they brought him out a fresh dozen. 

 

He also used alignment sticks on the tee box. 

 

He also tried to give me swing advice. 

 

That was three strikes in one round. I won't play with him again. 

[Hateto3Putt]

Holy cow, how many balls did the OP lose?

 

In Italy, George would be referred to as a Chooch.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Dpavs said:

 

I do agree that there would be no particular advantage to using a damaged club or ball but in OP's case if he could not find or obtain a conforming ball for the round it would have altered the results for him so it definitely could have some impact during a round. You could make a supposition about using a ball that has a piece of cover missing (sort of akin to leaving mud on one side of the ball deliberately) in order to try to influence the flight of the ball... but I think it's somewhat of a stretch.

 

That said, after giving this some thought and looking at the equipment rules holistically here is what I believe we do know:

(per the emboldened parts of the equipment rule excerpts below)

 

1. A player must use conforming equipment including a conforming ball.
2. The conformance of the ball applies to each stroke during any round.
3. A deliberately altered ball must not be played.
4. The ball must not be intentionally modified to have properties different from those of a spherically symmetrical ball.

 

To me #2 suggest that once a ball is non-conforming it must be removed from play as there is no explicit exception regarding damaged balls in the rules.

I think #3 and #4 suggest that you cannot cut away any part of the cover as was suggested and again there is no exception in the rule regarding trying to repair a ball.

 

 

Excerpts from the equipment rules:

 

Rule 4 – The Player’s Equipment
Purpose: Rule 4 covers the equipment that players may use during a round. Based on the principle that golf is a challenging game in which success should depend on the player’s judgment, skills and abilities, the player:

• Must use conforming clubs and balls

 

4.2 Balls
a. Balls Allowed in Play of Round
(1) Conforming Ball Must Be Played. In making each stroke, a player must use a ball that conforms to the requirements in the Equipment Rules.
A player may get a conforming ball to play from anyone else, including another player on the course.
(2) Deliberately Altered Ball Must Not Be Played. A player must not make a stroke at a ball whose performance characteristics have been deliberately altered, such as by scuffing or heating the ball or by applying any substance (other than in cleaning it).

PART 4 – CONFORMANCE OF BALLS
1. General
The ball must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make.

4. Spherical Symmetry
The ball must not be designed, manufactured or intentionally modified to have properties which differ from those of a spherically symmetrical ball.
The intent of this provision is simply to ensure that a ball is manufactured and designed to behave symmetrically.

 

I read the Equipment Rules as well before I wrote my latest posts but I am still baffled.

 

If I have a ball with a cut and a small part of the core is detached from the interior one could assume it is now non-conforming. The question is how much the core must be detached or damaged to make the ball non-conforming?

 

Another question is whether cutting off the detached part of the core, the part that may be reason for the ball to be non-conforming, would render the ball conforming. Probably not, but again we are facing the question where to draw the line.

 

In general the Equipment Rules are there to prevent a player to gain an unfair advantage. Determining whether a damage in a club or a ball would actually gain an advantage is very difficult, most likely impossible and I sincerely doubt such damages would give any kind of advantage. Then again, most of the Rules are black&white for simplicity, so any damage rendering the equipment non-conforming must be dealt with the same way.

 

All in all, IMO it is impossible to draw the line when a ball has become non-conforming without testing it against a brand new ball of same brand and model. As a referee I would let the player play with the worn-out ball with part of it missing, just to get the guy to finish his round 🤓

[rogolf]

Further to Mr. Bean's post - it is the responsibility of the Equipment Rules and Rules of golf to define whether an advantage has been gained.  It is not left to an individual referee or Committee.

And, I would also let the player play with the worn-out ball to finish his round.

Everyone has probably seen acronyms like WD (withdrew) and NR (non-return); we use another acronym for such players as above - ROB, which means "ran outa balls".

[Dpavs]

20 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I read the Equipment Rules as well before I wrote my latest posts but I am still baffled.

 

If I have a ball with a cut and a small part of the core is detached from the interior one could assume it is now non-conforming. The question is how much the core must be detached or damaged to make the ball non-conforming?

 

Another question is whether cutting off the detached part of the core, the part that may be reason for the ball to be non-conforming, would render the ball conforming. Probably not, but again we are facing the question where to draw the line.

 

In general the Equipment Rules are there to prevent a player to gain an unfair advantage. Determining whether a damage in a club or a ball would actually gain an advantage is very difficult, most likely impossible and I sincerely doubt such damages would give any kind of advantage. Then again, most of the Rules are black&white for simplicity, so any damage rendering the equipment non-conforming must be dealt with the same way.

 

All in all, IMO it is impossible to draw the line when a ball has become non-conforming without testing it against a brand new ball of same brand and model. As a referee I would let the player play with the worn-out ball with part of it missing, just to get the guy to finish his round 🤓

 

I actually think that once a piece of the cover is missing it is no longer conforming as it is no longer spherically symmetrical. Maybe that is where we differ? (Or maybe not 😄)

 

Call me a stickler (you wouldn't be the first ...lol!) but I would raise the issue and have the committee review whether the player should be DQ'd or not for playing a non-conforming ball during the round.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Dpavs

[Dpavs]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Further to Mr. Bean's post - it is the responsibility of the Equipment Rules and Rules of golf to define whether an advantage has been gained.  It is not left to an individual referee or Committee.

And, I would also let the player play with the worn-out ball to finish his round.

Everyone has probably seen acronyms like WD (withdrew) and NR (non-return); we use another acronym for such players as above - ROB, which means "ran outa balls".

 

It goes beyond advantaging a player though doesn't it? A non-conforming piece of equipment is non-conforming regardless of whether it's use actually advantages a player or not.

[rogolf]

41 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

It goes beyond advantaging a player though doesn't it? A non-conforming piece of equipment is non-conforming regardless of whether it's use actually advantages a player or not.

It's quite easy to forward your question to the USGA for their ruling on the ball described above.  Please report back with it.

[Dpavs]

4 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It's quite easy to forward your question to the USGA for their ruling on the ball described above.  Please report back with it.

 

To be honest I have zero interest in doing so as this has never come up in my experience. Despite this I do find it to be an interesting scenario and subject for discussion.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, Dpavs said:

 

I actually think that once a piece of the cover is missing it is no longer conforming as it is no longer spherically symmetrical.

 

Where does it say that in the Equipment Rules?

As far as I can see a ball is conforming once it is on the list of Conforming Golf Balls and it remains so for ever.

If damaged it never becomes non-conforming because its performance characteristics have not been deliberately altered.

Even if done deliberately, there is nothing that says the ball is non-conforming.

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

Further to Mr. Bean's post - it is the responsibility of the Equipment Rules and Rules of golf to define whether an advantage has been gained.  It is not left to an individual referee or Committee.

 

 

I have a hard time to find anything about advantage gained in most of the Rules so I would disagree with you on this one. Also I disagree that an individual referee or a committee would have such a power.

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, Newby said:

Where does it say that in the Equipment Rules?

As far as I can see a ball is conforming once it is on the list of Conforming Golf Balls and it remains so for ever.

If damaged it never becomes non-conforming because its performance characteristics have not been deliberately altered.

 

 

A club may be non-conforming if its performance characteristics have been altered in the due course of play, so no need to have them altered deliberately. The question is whether this applies to a ball as well.

 

Afa the first part of your post, that is exactly the issue: when, if ever, does a ball become non-conforming?