Opponent's caddy cleans lifted ball

[syenkoc]

Delete

Edited October 11, 2023 by syenkoc

[rogolf]

I think it's your penalty since you authorized the procedure.

BTW, you can also replace your ball - the Rules say that the player or the person who lifted the ball can replace it. (Rule 14.2b)

[Colin L]

See 1.3c(1).  The player is penalised 1 stroke because the caddie breached a rule (15.3b(2) while acting with the authority of the player.  The penalty is 1 stroke 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Colin L

[st1800e]

4 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I think it's your penalty since you authorized the procedure.

He authorized the marking, but it’s not clear he authorized the cleaning or had time to intervene before the caddie cleaned it.  

[davep043]

33 minutes ago, st1800e said:

He authorized the marking, but it’s not clear he authorized the cleaning or had time to intervene before the caddie cleaned it.  

The Rule cited says:

"A penalty also applies when:

Another person takes an action that would breach the Rules if taken by the player or caddie and that person does so at the player’s request or while acting with the player’s authority"

While the Player didn't request the Opponent's caddie to clean the ball, the caddie WAS acting with the Player's authorization.  Therefore, I believe the Penalty is applied to the Player (i.e. the OP)

 

Edit to add, 3.2d(4) and Clarification 3.2d(4)/1 make it clear that the Opponent can choose to ignore this breach, which might be the most appropriate thing to do, since it was his own Caddie that caused the breach.

Edited September 19, 2023 by davep043

[Augster]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

The Rule cited says:

"A penalty also applies when:

Another person takes an action that would breach the Rules if taken by the player or caddie and that person does so at the player’s request or while acting with the player’s authority"

While the Player didn't request the Opponent's caddie to clean the ball, the caddie WAS acting with the Player's authorization.  Therefore, I believe the Penalty is applied to the Player (i.e. the OP)

 

Edit to add, 3.2d(4) and Clarification 3.2d(4)/1 make it clear that the Opponent can choose to ignore this breach, which might be the most appropriate thing to do, since it was his own Caddie that caused the breach.

But they can only ignore the breach if they BOTH don’t know it’s a penalty. 
 

If they both knew the OP was to take a 1SP, they couldn’t ignore it. The way it was played though, it seems neither party KNEW who was supposed to take the penalty, so, I think, they can choose to ignore the penalty. 
 

Match play is the one place in golf where ignorance of the Rules sometimes protects you from the Rules. 
 

[tatertot]

35 minutes ago, Augster said:

But they can only ignore the breach if they BOTH don’t know it’s a penalty. 
 

If they both knew the OP was to take a 1SP, they couldn’t ignore it. The way it was played though, it seems neither party KNEW who was supposed to take the penalty, so, I think, they can choose to ignore the penalty. 
 

Match play is the one place in golf where ignorance of the Rules sometimes protects you from the Rules. 
 

This is not true ... They can both KNOW it's a penalty, they can't come to an agreement not to penalize. Is this instance, player A could say "I choose not to call a breach." The rules has a clarification of 3.2d(4) below. In neither case is the players knowledge of the rule stated.

 

• During play of a hole, the player sees their opponent lift their ball for identification without first marking its spot. The player tells the opponent that failure to mark is a breach of the Rules but advises the opponent that they (the player) are not going to act on the breach. It was the player’s sole decision not to act on the breach and, consequently, there has not been an agreement.

• During play of a hole, the opponent advises the player that they (the opponent) touched sand on their backswing in a bunker. The player confirms that this is a loss of hole penalty, but advises the opponent that they (the player) are not going to act on the breach. It was the player’s sole decision not to act on the breach and, consequently, there has not been an agreement.

 

Below is an example the clarifications give of agreeing ... In our example, it would be like the OP saying to player A "can't we just ignore the breach and move on?"

 

During play of a hole, the opponent advises the player that they (the opponent) touched sand on their backswing in a bunker. The player confirms that this is a loss of hole penalty, but the opponent suggests to the player that they overlook the breach as no real advantage was gained. The player decides not to apply the penalty. As the player was influenced by the opponent in their decision not to act on the breach there has been an agreement, and both players are disqualified under Rule 1.3b. (New)

Edited September 19, 2023 by tatertot

[jacob7071]

So the ruling is the OP gets the penalty and not Player A?  OP only authorized marking, not cleaning.  What if we change the story slightly... 

 

Player A:  I'm going to hit to keep it moving, and your ball is interfering with my swing. Is it cool if I mark it?

OP:  Go ahead.  

Player A:  By the way, after you told me I could mark it, I also cleaned it, so you get a 1 stroke penalty.

 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Augster said:

But they can only ignore the breach if they BOTH don’t know it’s a penalty. 
 

If they both knew the OP was to take a 1SP, they couldn’t ignore it. The way it was played though, it seems neither party KNEW who was supposed to take the penalty, so, I think, they can choose to ignore the penalty. 
 

Match play is the one place in golf where ignorance of the Rules sometimes protects you from the Rules. 
 

This changed a bit in the 2023 Rules.  The critical part is that the Opponent unilaterally decides not to enforce the penalty, as outlined in the Clarification posted by @tatertot.  Even if they are both aware of the breach before beginning the next hole, if the Opponent decides to ignore the penalty without input from the Player, its OK.  I don't really like the new wording, as elsewhere the Rules tell us that the Player is required to add any penalties he's aware of, it seems contradictory to me, but this was confirmed at a USGA Workshop I attended.

23 minutes ago, jacob7071 said:

So the ruling is the OP gets the penalty and not Player A?  OP only authorized marking, not cleaning.  What if we change the story slightly... 

 

Player A:  I'm going to hit to keep it moving, and your ball is interfering with my swing. Is it cool if I mark it?

OP:  Go ahead.  

Player A:  By the way, after you told me I could mark it, I also cleaned it, so you get a 1 stroke penalty.

 

If I'm the OP in that scenario, I'm going to appeal to the Committee, Player A could (and should) be DQ for failing to act with integrity, per 1.2a.

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, jacob7071 said:

So the ruling is the OP gets the penalty and not Player A?  OP only authorized marking, not cleaning.......

 

That's not how it works.  The OP authorised his opponent's caddie to lift his ball under Rule 15.3b(2) as it was interfering with play.  The caddie got part of the procedure for doing so wrong by cleaning the ball.    He has breached the Rule while acting with the player's authority and so the player gets a one stroke penalty under Rule 1.3c(1).

 

That's all been explained and referenced above.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Colin L

[Colin L]

As far as ignoring the breach is concerned, that could of course be done by Player A and if he had any sense of good sportsmanship he would do so since it was his caddie who erred.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Colin L

[jacob7071]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

If I'm the OP in that scenario, I'm going to appeal to the Committee, Player A could (and should) be DQ for failing to act with integrity, per 1.2a.

Touche, and I would too.  

 

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

That's not how it works.  The OP authorised his opponent's caddy to lift his ball under Rule 15.3b(2) as it was interfering with play.  The caddy got part of the procedure for doing so wrong by cleaning the ball.    He has breached the Rule while acting with the player's authority and so the player gets a one stroke penalty under Rule 1.3c(1).

 

That's all been explained and referenced above.

I understood what was explained above, but it just rubs me the wrong way that the OP gets the penalty in this case.  If Rule 14.1c lists cases where cleaning a lifted ball is not allowed, then it stands to reason, lifting and cleaning are two different things.  If OP gives authorization to do one thing, I would argue he shouldn't be penalized if Player A (or Player A's caddie) does something else. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by jacob7071

[antip]

Caddies unaware of when they cannot clean the ball are a ticking bomb. 

If this was stroke play, there would be no saving the guy that authorized the lift.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by antip
Add SP reference

[SNIPERBBB]

Moral of the story:don't let other people touch your ball.

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 hours ago, davep043 said:

The Rule cited says:

"A penalty also applies when:

Another person takes an action that would breach the Rules if taken by the player or caddie and that person does so at the player’s request or while acting with the player’s authority"

While the Player didn't request the Opponent's caddie to clean the ball, the caddie WAS acting with the Player's authorization.  Therefore, I believe the Penalty is applied to the Player (i.e. the OP)

 

Edit to add, 3.2d(4) and Clarification 3.2d(4)/1 make it clear that the Opponent can choose to ignore this breach, which might be the most appropriate thing to do, since it was his own Caddie that caused the breach.

 

39 minutes ago, jacob7071 said:

I understood what was explained above, but it just rubs me the wrong way that the OP gets the penalty in this case.  If Rule 14.1c lists cases where cleaning a lifted ball is not allowed, then it stands to reason, lifting and cleaning are two different things.  If OP gives authorization to do one thing, I would argue he shouldn't be penalized if Player A (or Player A's caddie) does something else. 

 

Yeah, I'm a little confused here too. 

 

Let's assume the infamous Tiger boulder incident. And let's add one wrinkle--Tiger's ball is in a bunker not just a desert waste area, so you can't test the sand.

 

Tiger asks for help from fans to remove the loose impediment. They are acting under the authority of Tiger, and do what is asked. 

 

While this is happening, one of the fan's young kids who also came through the ropes with the fans kicks the bunker sand a few times in Tiger's view, arguably "testing the sand". 

 

Is Tiger liable for that breach when someone "authorized" by Tiger to assist with removal of a loose impediment takes a completely different action that wasn't expressly authorized? 

 

It seems in this case OP authorized the marking and lifting of a ball. The cleaning of a ball is a different act that is subject to different rules. Punishing OP for a breach that he didn't authorize seems like it isn't what the rule is attempting to state there. Seems that you would only punish the OP if the caddie asked "hey you want me to clean this?" and he said yes, giving authorization to a different act. 

 

[tatertot]

3 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

Yeah, I'm a little confused here too. 

 

Let's assume the infamous Tiger boulder incident. And let's add one wrinkle--Tiger's ball is in a bunker not just a desert waste area, so you can't test the sand.

 

Tiger asks for help from fans to remove the loose impediment. They are acting under the authority of Tiger, and do what is asked. 

 

While this is happening, one of the fan's young kids who also came through the ropes with the fans kicks the bunker sand a few times in Tiger's view, arguably "testing the sand". 

 

Is Tiger liable for that breach when someone "authorized" by Tiger to assist with removal of a loose impediment takes a completely different action that wasn't expressly authorized? 

 

It seems in this case OP authorized the marking and lifting of a ball. The cleaning of a ball is a different act that is subject to different rules. Punishing OP for a breach that he didn't authorize seems like it isn't what the rule is attempting to state there. Seems that you would only punish the OP if the caddie asked "hey you want me to clean this?" and he said yes, giving authorization to a different act. 

 

Hence the danger of asking a bunch of gallery members for "help." Not really within the spirit of the rules.

[sui generis]

7 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Hence the danger of asking a bunch of gallery members for "help." Not really within the spirit of the rules.

 

Don't make things up. Rule 1.2 tells us that "All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules . . . ."

 

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

[betarhoalphadelta]

I think the idea of that rule Dave quoted is this:

 

if Tiger hadn't had a ruling from an official, and had determined by himself that the boulder was a loose impediment, and was wrong, he's still penalized even though neither he nor his caddy moved it. Because in that case "another person" takes the action that is disallowed by the rules with his authorization. 

 

But I don't see how he is liable for unrelated acts that another person takes beyond the granted authorization. 

 

[tatertot]

20 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Don't make things up. Rule 1.2 tells us that "All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules . . . ."

 

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

What exactly did I make up? If you ask random people who don't know the rules for help, and they break the rules, you are responsible for their mistakes. "The spirit of the game" includes not having gallery members moving PERMANENT pieces of the course.

 

 

 

 

[tatertot]

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I think the idea of that rule Dave quoted is this:

 

if Tiger hadn't had a ruling from an official, and had determined by himself that the boulder was a loose impediment, and was wrong, he's still penalized even though neither he nor his caddy moved it. Because in that case "another person" takes the action that is disallowed by the rules with his authorization. 

 

But I don't see how he is liable for unrelated acts that another person takes beyond the granted authorization. 

 

You are granting that person, or persons, to act as your agent. Anything they do, you are responsible for.

[sui generis]

Just now, tatertot said:

What exactly did I make up? If you ask random people who don't know the rules for help, and they break the rules, you are responsible for their mistakes. "The spirit of the game" includes not having gallery members moving PERMANENT pieces of the course.

 

 

 

 

 

The Tiger haters will never give up on the fact that having help to move a movable obstruction was and still is compliant with the Rules of Golf.

[tatertot]

1 minute ago, sui generis said:

 

The Tiger haters will never give up on the fact that having help to move a movable obstruction was and still is compliant with the Rules of Golf.

I'm not a Tiger hater ... And it's legal ... But not within the spirit ... 

 

We've got a giant, 6-foot tall boulder sitting on the right side of our 18th hole, right off the landing zone of the fairway. It's legal to get a BUNCH of your buddies to move it if you're stuck behind it. But you're going to have a very uncomfortable convo with the course super if you do.

[sui generis]

1 minute ago, tatertot said:

And it's legal ... But not within the spirit .

 

Did you read R1.2a?

[tatertot]

2 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Did you read R1.2a?

Where it talks about "distracting other players" (by having a team of gallery members move a huge boulder and interrupt play) and "not causing unnecessary damage to the course " (by moving something the architect and course super had intentionally placed there)? Yea, I read that section.

[sui generis]

1 minute ago, tatertot said:

Where it talks about "distracting other players" (by having a team of gallery members move a huge boulder and interrupt play) and "not causing unnecessary damage to the course " (by moving something the architect and course super had intentionally placed there)? Yea, I read that section.

 

Seems you read the wrong part. Try the first bullet where it tells us that "players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules."

 

Having help in moving a loose impediment is "following the Rules."

[tatertot]

5 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Seems you read the wrong part. Try the first bullet where it tells us that "players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules."

 

Having help in moving a loose impediment is "following the Rules."

Which goes back to my original post ... Legal (yes) but not within the SPIRIT of the rules. Tiger kept the rules, but did not keep the spirit of the game part. Following the rules was just one example of acting with integrity, not the sole example.

[betarhoalphadelta]

We're not here to litigate Tiger's boulder. I only brought it up as an example of an outside person acting with a player's authorization. 

 

I'm wondering what are the limits of that authorization. @tatertot is saying that as a player, you are liable for anything they do. 

 

What if Player A's caddie surreptitiously slipped an extra club into OP's bag, such that he was now carrying 15 clubs? Would OP be liable for that and all the resulting per-hole penalties if he went 3 holes not recognizing it because he authorized Player A to mark and lift his ball? 

 

[davep043]

54 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I think the idea of that rule Dave quoted is this:

 

if Tiger hadn't had a ruling from an official, and had determined by himself that the boulder was a loose impediment, and was wrong, he's still penalized even though neither he nor his caddy moved it. Because in that case "another person" takes the action that is disallowed by the rules with his authorization. 

 

But I don't see how he is liable for unrelated acts that another person takes beyond the granted authorization. 

 

More pertinent here, Tiger asked the gallery for help in moving the boulder.  If one of them accidentally moves Tiger's ball while moving the rock, Tiger gets the penalty.  He didn't authorize the bystander to move his ball, but the bystander was working under Tiger's authorization.

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

More pertinent here, Tiger asked the gallery for help in moving the boulder.  If one of them accidentally moves Tiger's ball while moving the rock, Tiger gets the penalty.  He didn't authorize the bystander to move his ball, but the bystander was working under Tiger's authorization.

 

That is true. And I looked it up on YouTube and he was telling everyone "watch out for the ball" so they wouldn't touch it. 

 

However, I believe that is based upon the idea that if those people were actually in the process of moving the boulder and inadvertently moved his ball during the boulder move, then he'd be penalized. Which makes sense. 

 

But if someone completely disengaged from moving the boulder, then ran over and actively and deliberately kicked his ball 30 yards away, can we say that's something Tiger authorized?

 

And as usual, I'm not a rules expert. It just confused me as to where the line is drawn, if there is one, between giving "another person" authorization to do one thing and a penalty being assessed for them doing something widely (or narrowly) beyond the scope of said authorization. 

[sui generis]

35 minutes ago, tatertot said:

SPIRIT of the rules

 

Quit making things up! There is a "spirit of the game" and it's referenced in R1.2a.