USGA rules answer

[Sawgrass]

Drop vs. replace after outside agency moves ball?

Several weeks ago a thread ( http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?sh...p;#entry1946214 ) raised a question in my mind about how precisely sure one must be about the spot a ball was on before an outside agency moved it -- in order to be allowed to replace the ball rather than drop it. I wrote to the USGA about my question in this fashion:

Hi USGA rules person,

I have a question regarding rules 18-1 and 20-3 c, replacing your ball after an outside agency moves it.

I am approaching my ball in the fairway, maybe 50 yards from it. Another player, not associated with my round in any way, comes from another hole to search for his ball. He picks up my ball to check it, without asking me, and tosses it back down about a yard from its original position and walks away. I can see that my ball's original position was about a foot or two to the side of a divot hole, but I can't tell exactly where it was within greater than about a two foot span. But I do know that it wasn't in the divot hole.

I understand that 18-1 tells me I can "replace" my ball without penalty. But rule 20-3 says that if it is "impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed" I should (i) drop it (rather than place it). If I do that it has the possibility of stopping in the divot hole. My question is, exactly how precise must I be in identifying the spot where the ball is to be replaced in order to be allowed to place it back rather than drop it?


The USGA official who wrote back told me that, in the case I described, I could only place the ball if I could get the outside agency who moved my ball in the first place to come back and show me the spot it was on prior to his moving it. Otherwise I had to drop it using my best judgement as to where the spot had been (and therefore suffer the possibility that my drop would end up in the divot hole).

So, there it is, just in case anyone else out there wanted to know. One more reason that careless people shouldn't go grabbing up balls without marking their position first if they want to inspect a ball to determine whose ball it is. (As if that's going to happen regularly!)

By the way, I wish the USGA wouldn't prohibit us from posting their exact response, because I would have done so, but the above accurately represents what I was told. Anyone have any idea why they are so fussy about that? Seems to me that the more people who know the USGA's position on issues, the happier they should be.

[KevCarter]

Great job SawGrass, thank you for clearing this up!



Kevin

[dpark]

[quote name='Sawgrass' post='1971493' date='Sep 25 2009, 09:16 AM']By the way, I wish the USGA wouldn't prohibit us from posting their exact response, because I would have done so, but the above accurately represents what I was told. Anyone have any idea why they are so fussy about that? Seems to me that the more people who know the USGA's position on issues, the happier they should be.[/quote]

Just curiously, why do you believe that you cannot post their response? Is it because of the text at the bottom of their response?

[i]The information in this email and any attachments may contain legally privileged, proprietary and confidential information that is intended for the addressee(s) only. [b]If you are not the intended recipient[/b], you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, retention or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. When addressed to our clients or vendors, any information contained in this e-mail or any attachments is subject to the terms and conditions in any governing contract. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the e-mail.[/i]

If you are the intended recipient of the email, there is no prohibition against copying or distribution (e.g. into this forum).

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='dpark' post='1971540' date='Sep 25 2009, 12:47 PM'][quote name='Sawgrass' post='1971493' date='Sep 25 2009, 09:16 AM']By the way, I wish the USGA wouldn't prohibit us from posting their exact response, because I would have done so, but the above accurately represents what I was told. Anyone have any idea why they are so fussy about that? Seems to me that the more people who know the USGA's position on issues, the happier they should be.[/quote]

Just curiously, why do you believe that you cannot post their response? Is it because of the text at the bottom of their response?

[i]The information in this email and any attachments may contain legally privileged, proprietary and confidential information that is intended for the addressee(s) only. [b]If you are not the intended recipient[/b], you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, retention or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. When addressed to our clients or vendors, any information contained in this e-mail or any attachments is subject to the terms and conditions in any governing contract. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the e-mail.[/i]

If you are the intended recipient of the email, there is no prohibition against copying or distribution (e.g. into this forum).
[/quote]

dpark, your above quote of the micetype at the bottom of the USGA's response to me is accurate. But in addition to this statement, which I agree has nothing to do with me in this case, the body of the email answer to me itself explicitly tells me not to post their response on the internet, or even email it to someone. In any case, I appreciate the service they provide us, so I don't wish to thwart them, but I really find their stance counter productive. I'd be less frustrated if I understood why they want to prevent our getting their word out though.

[OpusX20]

Thanks for the follow-up Sawgrss. Always interesting to get it from the "horses mouth". I too am puzzled somewhat by their request not to post the info. It seems like the more info the better. However, good for you for honoring their request not to post it.

[dpark]

[quote name='Sawgrass' post='1971604' date='Sep 25 2009, 10:22 AM']dpark, your above quote of the micetype at the bottom of the USGA's response to me is accurate. But in addition to this statement, which I agree has nothing to do with me in this case, the body of the email answer to me itself explicitly tells me not to post their response on the internet, or even email it to someone. In any case, I appreciate the service they provide us, so I don't wish to thwart them, but I really find their stance counter productive. I'd be less frustrated if I understood why they want to prevent our getting their word out though.[/quote]
That is interesting. I have also emailed the USGA in the past for rulings related questions. I still have the most recent response from Genger A. Fahleson who is the Director, Rules Education for the USGA and there is nothing in his response to me to prohibit me from posting his response elsewhere. That was just 2 months ago. I wonder if this is a recent change... It does seem strange...

[Newby]

[quote name='Sawgrass' post='1971604' date='Sep 25 2009, 05:22 PM']the body of the email answer to me itself explicitly tells me not to post their response on the internet, or even email it to someone.[/quote]

Could you quote the exact words of the prohibition (only) itself.
This certainly seems to be new. I have a couple of contacts that I might be able to pursue it through.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Newby' post='1972813' date='Sep 26 2009, 07:16 AM'][quote name='Sawgrass' post='1971604' date='Sep 25 2009, 05:22 PM']the body of the email answer to me itself explicitly tells me not to post their response on the internet, or even email it to someone.[/quote]

Could you quote the exact words of the prohibition (only) itself.
This certainly seems to be new. I have a couple of contacts that I might be able to pursue it through.
[/quote]

Sorry Newby, I have the text prohibiting the posting of the prohibition, but I have been prohibited from posting it.



Kevin

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Newby' post='1972813' date='Sep 26 2009, 08:16 AM'][quote name='Sawgrass' post='1971604' date='Sep 25 2009, 05:22 PM']the body of the email answer to me itself explicitly tells me not to post their response on the internet, or even email it to someone.[/quote]

Could you quote the exact words of the prohibition (only) itself.
This certainly seems to be new. I have a couple of contacts that I might be able to pursue it through.
[/quote]


Yeah, what Kevin said. But Newby, if you are interested in pursing this for an answer, I'm sure the USGA will know what you're talking about. I believe the prohibition was stated in blue-colored type in a separate one-sentence paragraph just after the answer and before the writer's "signature". (I won't have access to the computer to which I downloaded the email until early next week in order to confirm this, but I'm fairly sure I remember the above correctly.)

Hey, maybe you can negotiate us a "license" to quote them if we promise to do it in context and to credit them, which of course would be the whole point of any post like that anyway.

Here's another over-the-top thought. We can post a petition on GolfWRX and get "electronic signatures" from fellow site members, many of whom I'm sure are USGA members as well, asking for "free releif" from this immovable obstruction they created -- and then email it to them. (As if anyone ever got a lawyer to give in on something like this!)

[Newby]

I'll ask around .

[mat562]

Interesting. If I'd been asked this question in the 19th as a bit of a puzzler, my best guess would have been that the ball always has to be replaced. Obviously not. The correct procedure is now tucked away in the memory bank.

Full marks for posting it - and a brain that's in working order goes to the bloke who picked the ball up to replace the one he's currently saddled with.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Newby' post='1973367' date='Sep 26 2009, 04:09 PM']I'll ask around .[/quote]

Thanks Newby. I'm sincerely interested in learning what you discover.

[Newby]

[quote name='Sawgrass' post='1974440' date='Sep 27 2009, 03:22 PM'][quote name='Newby' post='1973367' date='Sep 26 2009, 04:09 PM']I'll ask around .[/quote]

Thanks Newby. I'm sincerely interested in learning what you discover.
[/quote]


Not a lot I'm afraid. It seems to be very variable. Sometimes both prohibition messages, sometimes the trailer and sometimes neither.

It might be worth replying and asking what the purpose is.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Newby' post='1976354' date='Sep 28 2009, 02:10 PM'][quote name='Sawgrass' post='1974440' date='Sep 27 2009, 03:22 PM'][quote name='Newby' post='1973367' date='Sep 26 2009, 04:09 PM']I'll ask around .[/quote]

Thanks Newby. I'm sincerely interested in learning what you discover.
[/quote]


Not a lot I'm afraid. It seems to be very variable. Sometimes both prohibition messages, sometimes the trailer and sometimes neither.

It might be worth replying and asking what the purpose is.
[/quote]

This morning I wrote to the Rules Associate who responded to my original question with the following:

Thank you for your response. I noted that at the bottom of it you directed me not to share your response electronically with others, and while I am pleased to know the USGA's position on my question, I did wish to quote you when discussing the issue with associates. I'm curious as to why the USGA doesn't encourage people like me from "spreading the word." It seems like at the very least it would cut down on the number of repeat questions you must receive. Can you fill me in a bit about the purpose behind this policy?


I'll let everyone know if I get a response.

[Sawgrass]

I got a prompt response from the USGA. Interestingly, they told me that they don't have the capacity to answer too many more questions than they are already handling, and they fear that our posting their answers on websites will generate many more follow-up questions, which would be problematic for them.

[Rohlio]

By the way thanks for posting the ruling on this. I shot a personal best on Sunday and wouldn't you know I was coming down the 18th hole needing a par for a 2 under 70 from the blacks (my previous best was a 72), and a clueless guy coming off the first tee picked up my drive that was just left of the fairway on 18. I watched him do it while I was still about 150 yards away. I run to the guy and ask him why he picked up my ball; he replied he didn't think anybody could drive it that far (It was only about 250 off the tee, the guy was just clueless). I then pleaded with him to come back and show me exactly where he picked it up from. The best I could get was "Near the bend in the cart path". I am glad I chose to drop it in the area where I saw him pick it up, or I would have borked this rule.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Rohlio' post='1978289' date='Sep 29 2009, 01:51 PM']By the way thanks for posting the ruling on this. I shot a personal best on Sunday and wouldn't you know I was coming down the 18th hole needing a par for a 2 under 70 from the blacks (my previous best was a 72), and a clueless guy coming off the first tee picked up my drive that was just left of the fairway on 18. I watched him do it while I was still about 150 yards away. I run to the guy and ask him why he picked up my ball; he replied he didn't think anybody could drive it that far (It was only about 250 off the tee, the guy was just clueless). I then pleaded with him to come back and show me exactly where he picked it up from. The best I could get was "Near the bend in the cart path". I am glad I chose to drop it in the area where I saw him pick it up, or I would have borked this rule.[/quote]

Congratulations on your wonderful score.

And I'm with you on celebrating the fact that you did it under the strictest of circumstances from a rules perspective. It makes all the difference in the world as far as I'm concerned. You can't stop ignorant people from messing with your ball, but you can put it back in play the same way they would if it happend in a PGA tournament.

[InTheHole]

[quote name='Sawgrass' post='1978269' date='Sep 29 2009, 01:42 PM']I got a prompt response from the USGA. Interestingly, they told me that they don't have the capacity to answer too many more questions than they are already handling, and they fear that our posting their answers on websites will generate many more follow-up questions, which would be problematic for them.[/quote]


That's an interesting response- I wouldn't have guessed that was the reason. Hey, we should all take the advice of getting "The Rules of Golf" and the accompanying "Decisions" book and give them a good read.

I'm guilty of it myself- rectifying that right now... besides, it'll be a good "cold weather" read.