More Rules intrigue

[DaveLeeNC]

Here is an interesting twist. You hit your drive on a par 5  into the rough and then play a wrong ball (ball B) on your second shot (which also ends in the rough). You then play another wrong ball onto the green. 

 

On the green you realize that you have a wrong ball. So you go back to where you played your previous (3rd) shot and find the other ball (you are KVC that this is the ball that you played on your second shot). And at that point you realize that you also played a wrong ball on your second shot. So back you go to where you played your second shot.

 

Is it possible to play a wrong ball when 'the right ball' is also a wrong ball? That is what you did on your third shot. 

 

dave

[rogolf]

To be clear, the only "right ball" in your case is the ball you played from the teeing area.

[Colin L]

Check the Definition of Wrong Ball, Dave, which tells us that a wrong ball is any other ball than your ball in play. Playing a wrong ball or multiple wrong balls does not put your original ball out of play.  That's what underpins what rogolf has said.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

4 hours ago, Colin L said:

Check the Definition of Wrong Ball, Dave, which tells us that a wrong ball is any other ball than your ball in play. Playing a wrong ball or multiple wrong balls does not put your original ball out of play.  That's what underpins what rogolf has said.

 

 

 

With maybe 70- million golfers on the planet and each golfer owning a dozen or so golf balls, I suppose that there is around a billion different wrong balls once you have a ball in play. 

 

These two scenarios are both 

 

1) Tee Shot

2) Wrong ball #1 

3) Wrong ball #2 

 

IMHO what differentiates the two is awareness (referencing your post 

in this thread. 

 

dave 

[Colin L]

There may be millions of wrong balls on the go at any one time, but fortunately only a tiny few in the little spot of the planet an individual player is occupying.  🙂 

 

Yes, it's a matter of awareness.  The original question rogolf posed was about penalties and the concept of an "intervening event".   In his illustration, the player was aware of having played a wrong ball before he played the second wrong ball.  In yours, the player only becomes aware of having played a second wrong ball after the event and in my understanding cops only a single 2 stroke penalty.

 

In any instance of playing a wrong ball or successive wrong balls,  the ball the player started the hole with (or a correctly substituted ball) is the ball in play.  That's the one he has  to find and play when he realises  that he has played a  wrong ball or balls..  The player has to go back to where he played the first wrong balland find his original ball.  If he doesn't find it in time, he has to go back to where he played it from (the tee in your illustration) and play another ball under stroke and distance.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Colin L

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, Colin L said:

In yours, the player only becomes aware of having played a second wrong ball after the event and in my understanding cops only a single 2 stroke penalty.

Clarification  6.3c(1)/1 says that a Wrong Ball penalty is not disregarded.  To me, this overrides the more general guidance from 1.3c(4), I believe that two separate Wrong Ball penalties should be applied.  The Player still needs to go find the Original Ball, or play again from the tee under STroke and Distance.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

Clarification  6.3c(1)/1 says that a Wrong Ball penalty is not disregarded.  To me, this overrides the more general guidance from 1.3c(4), I believe that two separate Wrong Ball penalties should be applied.  The Player still needs to go find the Original Ball, or play again from the tee under STroke and Distance.

 

 

Thanks, @davep043. That is very interesting. As I read both rule and clarification 6.3c(1)/1, playing a 'wrong ball' (in this context-for an additional penalty) means not playing the wrong ball that you previously played. And if you do play a different wrong ball than your initial wrong ball, then you incur an additional penalty (vs continuing play with the original wrong ball which incurs no additional penalty). 

 

So I don't see any other interpretation other than it is possible to play a second wrong ball off first wrong ball (without the 'awareness' referenced in the rules). It is like there is a 'wrong ball in play' as well as your 'actual ball in play' - the one that you hit off the tee. I find that (somewhat) surprising. 

 

Are there other interpretations among us? 

 

dave 

[davep043]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

So I don't see any other interpretation other than it is possible to play a second wrong ball off first wrong ball (without the 'awareness' referenced in the rules). It is like there is a 'wrong ball in play' as well as your 'actual ball in play' - the one that you hit off the tee. I find that (somewhat) surprising.

I do have a question, after thinking about it for a bit.  The player didn't realize he had played the first Wrong Ball, what he thought was his second shot, so apparently he hasn't looked at it closely enough to know its not his original ball.  He hits what he thinks is his third shot, without looking at the ball very closely either.   He realizes once he gets to the green that he's played a Wrong Ball somewhere along the way.  He goes back to the area of his (thought to be) third shot, and finds a ball.  If he never looked at his (supposed) second shot, how can he be sure that the ball he finds was indeed the initial Wrong Ball?  I know you say he has KVC that this was his "first" Wrong Ball, but how can he be that sure, if he never looked closely at it?  I know sometimes we look for potential loopholes in the rules by using (sometimes) unlikely scenarios, but this one seems a bit outlandish to me.

[Newby]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:21 AM, rogolf said:

The correct answer is four penalty strokes for playing two wrong balls with an intervening event between the playing of each wrong ball.  There was some discussion that inferred there was no penalty for playing the second wrong ball because it was a continuation of correcting the playing of the first wrong ball, but that changed in 2023 with the "intervening event" in 1.3c(4).

Just for extra clarification. What was the 'intervening event' in the OP?

[DaveLeeNC]

54 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I do have a question, after thinking about it for a bit.  The player didn't realize he had played the first Wrong Ball, what he thought was his second shot, so apparently he hasn't looked at it closely enough to know its not his original ball.  He hits what he thinks is his third shot, without looking at the ball very closely either.   He realizes once he gets to the green that he's played a Wrong Ball somewhere along the way.  He goes back to the area of his (thought to be) third shot, and finds a ball.  If he never looked at his (supposed) second shot, how can he be sure that the ball he finds was indeed the initial Wrong Ball?  I know you say he has KVC that this was his "first" Wrong Ball, but how can he be that sure, if he never looked closely at it?  I know sometimes we look for potential loopholes in the rules by using (sometimes) unlikely scenarios, but this one seems a bit outlandish to me.

 

I guess the whole idea of consecutive shots played as wrong balls is extreme. KVC is a pretty low standard, IMHO (5% error rate). I can envision a scenario where the guy/gal goes back to where the second shot was played and tries to find the right ball. A homeowner nearby (doing yard work) says "somebody in your group hit a ball over here, it hit a rock or something, and it is that ball right over there (in a place you were not looking)." And it is a ball of the same brand and similar markings (but not the same) as the ball that you normally play. 

 

I would call that a KVC level of certainty that it is your second shot. And it adds another level of improbability.  . 

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

30 minutes ago, Newby said:

Just for extra clarification. What was the 'intervening event' in the OP?

 

This: " On the green, they discover that they have played a wrong ball "

[pingfool]

On 2/6/2023 at 10:55 PM, Colin L said:

It seems a straightforward application of 1.3c(4) - the player breaches a rule by playing a wrong ball, is aware that that they have done so and breaches the same rule again, the awareness being the intervening event.  So straightforward that I am deeply suspicious that as rogolf presents it as a "rules intrigue", I am missing something that makes it less than straightforward.  Perhaps, though,  its a bluff designed to make us think there is something more to it when there isn't.      

bluff post is right

 

one Deane Beman codger posts hypothetical testing his codger buddies while simultaneously baiting unsuspecting wrxer to comment - providing fresh meat for the rule buzzards. 

[Colin L]

6 hours ago, pingfool said:

bluff post is right

 

one Deane Beman codger posts hypothetical testing his codger buddies while simultaneously baiting unsuspecting wrxer to comment - providing fresh meat for the rule buzzards. 

 

🙄. Good grief.

 

 

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

🙄. Good grief.

 

 

Colin, no real intrigue was intended. 

[Colin L]

No real intrigue was suspected.  My comment was an attempt (obviously unsuccessful as far as pingfool was concerned)  at humour. 

[Newby]

12 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

This: " On the green, they discover that they have played a wrong ball "

Would not the completion of the first stroke at the second wrong ball be the intervening event?

[Colin L]

The stroke at the second wrong ball is the second rule infringement.  it can't also be the intervening event, can it?

[antip]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

The stroke at the second wrong ball is the second rule infringement.  it can't also be the intervening event, can it?

No, but it is an intervening event for any subsequent breaches.

[Colin L]

5 minutes ago, antip said:

No, but it is an intervening event for any subsequent breaches.

 

Such as a third wrong ball, but that would exceed even Lady Bracknell's concept of carelessness.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

The stroke at the second wrong ball is the second rule infringement.  it can't also be the intervening event, can it?

For the purpose of applying this Rule, there are two intervening events:

• The completion of a stroke, and 

• Being aware or becoming aware of a breach of a Rule (this includes when a player knows they breached a Rule, when the player is told of a breach, or when the player is uncertain whether or not they have breached a Rule.)

 

Edit: Just reread the OP and realised the first wrong ball was spotted and therefore clause 2 above applies. 

But I'm puzzled about the use of and  between the clauses.

Does it mean:

There are simply two conditions (A & B) and either has to apply

or

That both A and B have to apply?

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Newby

[Colin L]

52 minutes ago, Newby said:

For the purpose of applying this Rule, there are two intervening events:

• The completion of a stroke, and 

• Being aware or becoming aware of a breach of a Rule (this includes when a player knows they breached a Rule, when the player is told of a breach, or when the player is uncertain whether or not they have breached a Rule.)

 

Edit: Just reread the OP and realised the first wrong ball was spotted and therefore clause 2 above applies. 

But I'm puzzled about the use of and  between the clauses.

Does it mean:

There are simply two conditions (A & B) and either has to apply

or

That both A and B have to apply?

 

 

Earlier it has been said that whether you get multiple penalties "depends on whether there has been an intervening event."  That seems to me to indicate that it's either A or B.  

[KevCarter]

16 hours ago, pingfool said:

bluff post is right

 

one Deane Beman codger posts hypothetical testing his codger buddies while simultaneously baiting unsuspecting wrxer to comment - providing fresh meat for the rule buzzards. 

 

I thought it to be a very interesting thread. I'm out of practice with the rules, and learned from this thread. One big concept was INTERVENING EVENT, which I hadn't yet looked at, and now I know I need to figure it out. It all depends on how you approach this forum. Nobody trying to embarrass other's knowledge of the rules, but rather attempting to help improve the rules skills of anyone interested... JMO

[davep043]

5 hours ago, Colin L said:

The stroke at the second wrong ball is the second rule infringement.  it can't also be the intervening event, can it?

There has been some discussion as to whether a cancelled stroke (say a ball played from the putting green that hits an animal)  is an Intervening Event, with no definitive conclusion that I remember..  As has been said, becoming aware that a Wrong Ball was played certainly does qualify as an Intervening event.  Even if the player wasn't aware of an infraction, the Clarification we've discussed makes it clear that a second Wrong Ball penalty applies, without considering whether there was an Intervening Event or not.

Edited February 10, 2023 by davep043

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, Newby said:

For the purpose of applying this Rule, there are two intervening events:

• The completion of a stroke, and 

• Being aware or becoming aware of a breach of a Rule (this includes when a player knows they breached a Rule, when the player is told of a breach, or when the player is uncertain whether or not they have breached a Rule.)

 

Edit: Just reread the OP and realised the first wrong ball was spotted and therefore clause 2 above applies. 

But I'm puzzled about the use of and  between the clauses.

Does it mean:

There are simply two conditions (A & B) and either has to apply

or

That both A and B have to apply?

 

 

It is either A or B.  Consider this,

"Scotland has two major cities:

- Edinburgh, and

- Glasgow."

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Interestingly, another "new" wrong ball situation occurred in my round of golf today. As background I was playing with my normal group and am aware of the one golfer within that group that normally uses red markings as I do (as well as playing a ProV1 as I do). He was not playing with me today. 

 

On the third hole I hit a pitch shot close to the pin as did another guy in our group. I went in to mark my ball and his just because I was already close by. I marked my ball and when I marked his ball, it was marked EXACTLY like I mark my balls. There was no doubt this was another of my balls (I normally have either one or two balls in my pocket plus my ball in play). My ball in play was also "my ball". 

 

So I checked my pocket and one of the balls in my pocket was a ProV1 marked with a red J that is very similar to the red marking that I use (the Greek letter eta with a bar through it). Now what???

 

Well, Carl (who is usually a Chromesoft guy) found a ProV1 a few days ago (with a red J) and he decided to try it out today just because he was running out of balls and had not played the ProV1 in a couple years. Further on the previous hole I had made a long putt and Carl (putting on about the same line) stepped into his putt before I got mine out of the hole. His putt was inches short and he tapped in and handed me his ball in error. We are KVC that this is what happened. 

 

It had not occurred to me before that maybe I need to carefully check my ball when I tee it up. The markings were quite similar when viewed at a glance. And this did happen today. 

 

dave

Edited February 10, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[Colin L]

I'm not entirely  sure this is what you are saying happened, but if you started the hole with the ball Carl had been playing at the previous hole and played out the hole with it, you haven't played a wrong ball. 

[DaveLeeNC]

12 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I'm not entirely  sure this is what you are saying happened, but if you started the hole with the ball Carl had been playing at the previous hole and played out the hole with it, you haven't played a wrong ball. 

 

This was not a wrong ball (as defined by the RoG). Balls were swapped (unknowingly) between holes (no one ball rule in place, BTW).  I have never encountered that before. It could have been interesting had we not played the next hole from opposite sides of the fairway (both of us playing 'identical' balls). 

 

dave

[antip]

17 hours ago, davep043 said:

There has been some discussion as to whether a cancelled stroke (say a ball played from the putting green that hits an animal)  is an Intervening Event, with no definitive conclusion that I remember..  As has been said, becoming aware that a Wrong Ball was played certainly does qualify as an Intervening event.  Even if the player wasn't aware of an infraction, the Clarification we've discussed makes it clear that a second Wrong Ball penalty applies, without considering whether there was an Intervening Event or not.

I was able to ask this in a Workshop, answered clearly that it is an intervening event (IE) - for the purposes of 1.3c(4) a stroke that does not count is still an IE.

[antip]

18 hours ago, KevCarter said:

 

I thought it to be a very interesting thread. I'm out of practice with the rules, and learned from this thread. One big concept was INTERVENING EVENT, which I hadn't yet looked at, and now I know I need to figure it out. It all depends on how you approach this forum. Nobody trying to embarrass other's knowledge of the rules, but rather attempting to help improve the rules skills of anyone interested... JMO

Spot on Kev. It is a different mind set and can change answers in both directions compared with the previous related/unrelated approach so in the early days it feels uncomfortable. It's still a work in progress for me.

[limegreengent]

4 hours ago, antip said:

I was able to ask this in a Workshop, answered clearly that it is an intervening event (IE) - for the purposes of 1.3c(4) a stroke that does not count is still an IE.

Antip

 I would be grateful if you can elucidate a little further.

 

I can see that when a player  ‘INITIALLY ‘    makes a stroke that will count in his score (eg  11.1b(2)  /  Or hitting power lines) )  but is required to replay - this is a ball that is initially in play from a valid stroke and hence fits the bill as an intervening event - whether or not it is correctly replayed or not.

 

Playing a wrong ball is never a stroke that will count in your score but just a breach of the rules ( akin to a practice stroke ) and does not seem to fit the bill.

 

Furthermore if the first stroke at a wrong ball was classified as an intervening event , then would not further strokes at the same wrong ball also be breaches under 1.3 c(4). ** even if the player is still unaware.( and this is not the ruling is it ) 

The  impression that your statement suggests is further penalties **

 

or is the playing of the wrong ball an exception to 1.3c(4)

 

or is the fifth dot point in rule 6.3c providing the removal of further penalties.?

 

Just how much clarity came from the person conducting the workshop.

 

Further comments from you would be appreciated.

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by limegreengent