Rules Q .. unmarked GUR

[cardoustie]

So, in an event, GUR is rampant coursewide, massive dead patches

 

none of it is marked

 

relief allowed on rules sheet for closely mown areas only, player is unaware and thinks it is thru the green

 

player marks ball, gets a rules official for relief, first official says np penalty, replace ball where marked

three holes later head official tells player, add 1 stroke 

 

does 16.4 not offer relief …. ?  This was not the rule applied by the first official… as told the following day.  Is there an equity rule or ????

 

a real PITA as GUR should’ve been white marked in the rough 

 

thanks for any insight

[rogolf]

IMO, the final ruling is correct, it is correction of an error by the first official.  The one stroke penalty is through Rule 9.4, ball lifted or moved by player.

The player was responsible for knowing that the Rules sheet said only in closely-mown areas.

BTW, it is rare that I would mark such GUR outside the closely-mown area, and would not mark "dead grass" as GUR.

Edited September 10, 2023 by rogolf

[Colin L]

GUR can be defined in words using some clear feature on the ground - in this case the "dead patches" but I'd share Rogolf's view that it isn't necessary to make patches of dead grass  GUR. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Colin L

[DaveLeeNC]

21 minutes ago, Colin L said:

it isn't necessary to make patches of dead grass  GUR. 

 

Were that the case then, on the 9 hole muni in the 1960's where I learned to play golf (no irrigation on the fairways), they could have simply marked a great big circle around the entire golf course some dry years 😁

 

dave

[nsxguy]

40 minutes ago, rogolf said:

IMO, the final ruling is correct, it is correction of an error by the first official.  The one stroke penalty is through Rule 9.4, ball lifted or moved by player.

The player was responsible for knowing that the Rules sheet said only in closely-mown areas.

BTW, it is a rare that I would mark such GUR outside the closely-mown area, and would not mark "dead grass" as GUR.

 

I thought that if the player got a ruling from an official and followed it, he was good to go.

 

Not so ?

[sui generis]

40 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I thought that if the player got a ruling from an official and followed it, he was good to go.

 

Not so ?

 

See R20.2d

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=2

[cardoustie]

16.4 says if player believes he gets relief from abnormal ground conditions he is ok if marking and then corrects … so a little confused 

 

this wasn’t just dead grass it was dirt / mud essentially 

[cardoustie]

It is amazing to me that a player can’t appeal a ruling to the committee ,,, was not aware of that

[tatertot]

How is it GUR if it is not marked as such? All GUR does not have to be marked?

[sui generis]

8 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

It is amazing to me that a player can’t appeal a ruling to the committee ,,, was not aware of that

 

In my experience, an good referee will not refuse a player's request for a second opinion. 

 

The first referee will usually get on the radio and ask the official in charge to send another referee to the "scene of the crime." The first will not brief the second any more than pointing out the player who needs help. He'll back off and let the process work.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

See R20.2d

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=2

 

Ouch !!!

 

Well, I guess in this case, since the player should've known about the "rules sheet", it IS his fault after all.

 

I mean, if the player had remembered the rule in the first place, a) he wouldn't have asked/marked and b) even if the ref had allowed him the drop, he'd have likely questioned the ref ("Are you sure ? What about the local rule in force today ?") the ref likely would've corrected himself.

[tatertot]

4 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

See R20.2d

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=2

So how does this apply in this scenario does it NOT apply since the player marked before asking for a ref's opinion?

 

If a player takes an action in breach of a Rule based on a reasonable misunderstanding of a referee’s or Committee’s instruction during a round or while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a (such as lifting a ball in play  when not allowed under the Rules), there is no penalty and the instruction is treated like a wrong ruling. 

[sui generis]

3 minutes ago, tatertot said:

So how does this apply in this scenario does it NOT apply since the player marked before asking for a ref's opinion?

 

If a player takes an action in breach of a Rule based on a reasonable misunderstanding of a referee’s or Committee’s instruction during a round or while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a (such as lifting a ball in play  when not allowed under the Rules), there is no penalty and the instruction is treated like a wrong ruling. 

 

It was a R9.4.

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=9&subrulenum=4

 

R14.5 doesn't apply.

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=14&subrulenum=5

 

R20.2d explains the Committee's action.

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=20&subrulenum=2

[cardoustie]

To me it is asinine that you can mark and replace to identify your ball, but if marked in this situation it’s a penalty 

 

no consistency 

[cardoustie]

@sui generis … 16.4 ?

[sui generis]

6 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

@sui generis … 16.4 ?

 

In this case, it's unlikely the player could sucessfully argue that they needed to lift the ball to see if it was in ground under repair. 

 

There are times when the ball needs to be lifted such as to check whether it is embedded or some conditions of temporary water and a few others.

[antip]

The reason for the Committee's call, in case it is not clear, is that they do not consider that Rule 16.4 can apply here. "If a player reasonably believes that their ball lies in a condition....the player may lift the ball..."

 

They have decided that spelling out in a local rule sheet that there are extensive GUR areas on the course but relief is only permitted on the closely mown fairway is very clear guidance - so there are no grounds for reasonably believing it applies off the fairway.

 

 

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, cardoustie said:

@sui generis … 16.4 ?

 

You said it was marked (and presumably lifted). But you didn't say why.

 

16.4 allows lifting and/or free relief for certain conditions, one of which is to see if he's in GUR but you don't mention any reason the player said he wanted to lift it. Nor do you mention whether he explained to the ref why he lifted the ball.

 

Did he think it might be embedded ? That would've been OK, but again, not mentioned.

 

If at all possible, it's appropriate, when lifting or otherwise following a rule (as opposed to playing it as it lies of course) to tell another player, or a referee, what you intend to do before you do it - just for safety's sake. And a discussion/difference of opinion might help the situation as well.

 

Since the area wasn't marked as GUR AND the rule applying to UNmarked GUR only applied in the fairway, the player was not entitled to lift (for GUR).

 

So he lifted a ball in play. 1 stroke. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

[bcjim]

Once, years ago, I was right of the fairway and just right of the cart path but just in an area of normal rough or whatever. Nowhere near any OB or penalty area.  But, there was some kind of agronomy experiment or procedure in progress.  An grid of 4x6" (roughly) sections of turf and ground had been removed. It was a large grid, 8x8 at least. Each removed area was about the size of a standard brick.  My ball rolled in to one of these "holes" and was unplayable.  It was a very long par 4 and an area where you'd want to miss if you were not making the green in 2.

 

My competitors looked at it and all said "take a free drop" and that was the end of it.   It wasn't marked but seemed clearly "abnormal" but did not fit the definitions. I was a tournament novice at that point so I just went along with their judgement.

[antip]

10 minutes ago, bcjim said:

Once, years ago, I was right of the fairway and just right of the cart path but just in an area of normal rough or whatever. Nowhere near any OB or penalty area.  But, there was some kind of agronomy experiment or procedure in progress.  An grid of 4x6" (roughly) sections of turf and ground had been removed. It was a large grid, 8x8 at least. Each removed area was about the size of a standard brick.  My ball rolled in to one of these "holes" and was unplayable.  It was a very long par 4 and an area where you'd want to miss if you were not making the green in 2.

 

My competitors looked at it and all said "take a free drop" and that was the end of it.   It wasn't marked but seemed clearly "abnormal" but did not fit the definitions. I was a tournament novice at that point so I just went along with their judgement.

That sounds like a good case for "hole made by the maintenance staff ... in maintaining the course" (ie meets the GUR definition) and merits clarifying. It was probably reasonable to consider GUR but not definitive - player could proceed with two balls, take a picture and take it to the Committee.

[cardoustie]

3 hours ago, antip said:

The reason for the Committee's call, in case it is not clear, is that they do not consider that Rule 16.4 can apply here. "If a player reasonably believes that their ball lies in a condition....the player may lift the ball..."

 

They have decided that spelling out in a local rule sheet that there are extensive GUR areas on the course but relief is only permitted on the closely mown fairway is very clear guidance - so there are no grounds for reasonably believing it applies off the fairway.

 

 

I would say the player believed he could argue abnormal ground conditions and not GUR 

 

it was a weird scenario as 99/100 in your group nobody reasonable  is asking you to play off that area

 

there’s too many gray areas in the rules and often your fate depends on the official 

[nsxguy]

13 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

I would say the player believed he could argue abnormal ground conditions and not GUR 

 

it was a weird scenario as 99/100 in your group nobody reasonable  is asking you to play off that area

 

there’s too many gray areas in the rules and often your fate depends on the official 

 

Seems to me "Abnormal Course Conditions" appears to be a "title" if you will, not a condition itself.

 

So GUR, embedded ball, obstructions, dangerous animals, etc. are definitions of the group of ACCs, not a condition itself.

[sui generis]

20 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

I would say the player believed he could argue abnormal ground conditions and not GUR 

 

Which of these in the Definition would he be arguing for?

 

Abnormal Course Condition

Any of these four defined conditions:

 

Animal Hole,

Ground Under Repair,

Immovable Obstruction, or

Temporary Water.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=1

[sui generis]

27 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

there’s too many gray areas in the rules and often your fate depends on the official 

 

You're grasping at straws. 😉 Referees do not operate in a vacuum.

[davep043]

11 hours ago, cardoustie said:

there’s too many gray areas in the rules and often your fate depends on the official 

This doesn't seem like a gray area at all.  The Player didn't pay enough attention to the Rules Sheet, lifted a ball for which no relief was available (made clear under that Rules Sheet), the Referee appropriately denied relief, and the Committee made sure the appropriate penalty was applied.  All of the potential "get out of jail free" possibilities are negated because he didn't read the Rules Sheet.

[sui generis]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

This doesn't seem like a gray area at all.  The Player didn't pay enough attention to the Rules Sheet, lifted a ball for which no relief was available (made clear under that Rules Sheet), the Referee appropriately denied relief, and the Committee made sure the appropriate penalty was applied.  All of the potential "get out of jail free" possibilities are negated because he didn't read the Rules Sheet.

 

Some time ago rogolf made us laugh when he referred to the local rules sheet (now officially the Terms of the Competition) as the DNR, meaning Did Not Read. 😉

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

This doesn't seem like a gray area at all.  The Player didn't pay enough attention to the Rules Sheet, lifted a ball for which no relief was available (made clear under that Rules Sheet), the Referee appropriately denied relief, and the Committee made sure the appropriate penalty was applied.  All of the potential "get out of jail free" possibilities are negated because he didn't read the Rules Sheet.

 

Assume that a golf course is hosting a formal competition and it has a 'temporary looking' building that is treated as an integral part of the course. This would not be obvious to someone not familar with the course. In the DNR (thank you, @rogolf ) it is noted as an integral part of the course and no relief. 

 

A golfer hits into this area (he did not read the DNR) and asks an official for line of sight relief and it is granted (the RO also did not read the DNR 😁). After the card is signed and submitted, the Committee becomes aware of this. So the following happens, I guess. 

 

1) The golfer gets a 2 stroke penalty (playing from a wrong place)

 

2) He gets a 'pass' for not correcting the error (where he probably took relief not available if there is no TIO). 

 

3) The fact that had he known that no relief was available, he probably would have just played it as it lies, but that ship has sailed. 

 

Is that correct? 

 

dave

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Assume that a golf course is hosting a formal competition and it has a 'temporary looking' building that is treated as an integral part of the course. This would not be obvious to someone not familar with the course. In the DNR (thank you, @rogolf ) it is noted as an integral part of the course and no relief. 

 

A golfer hits into this area (he did not read the DNR) and asks an official for line of sight relief and it is granted (the RO also did not read the DNR 😁). After the card is signed and submitted, the Committee becomes aware of this. So the following happens, I guess. 

 

1) The golfer gets a 2 stroke penalty (playing from a wrong place)

 

2) He gets a 'pass' for not correcting the error (where he probably took relief not available if there is no TIO). 

 

3) The fact that had he known that no relief was available, he probably would have just played it as it lies, but that ship has sailed. 

 

Is that correct? 

 

dave

As I read this, the Player didn't lift his ball until after consulting with the Referee.  In this case, because he acted in accordance with the Referee's (incorrect) instructions, and it is too late to correct the mistake (he can't go back and play from the correct spot), the "incorrect" Ruling stands, per 20.2d.  That incorrect ruling allowed free relief, so there is no Penalty applied.

Edited September 11, 2023 by davep043

[cardoustie]

Players don’t read rules sheets … given fact

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

As I read this, the Player didn't lift his ball until after consulting with the Referee.  In this case, because he acted in accordance with the Referee's (incorrect) instructions, and it is too late to correct the mistake (he can't go back and play from the correct spot), the "incorrect" Ruling stands, per 20.2d.  That incorrect ruling allowed free relief, so there is no Penalty applied.

 

Thanks - that sounds right and is similar to that 'ruling' that Tiger got at the Master's a few years back after taking an unplayable lie after a bad break bounce off the pin into a pond. 

 

I was just trying to (incorrectly) generalize your statement of "All of the potential "get out of jail free" possibilities are negated because he didn't read the Rules Sheet."

 

dave