OK. Everyone knows rule 3-3 - if you don't know the ruling, play two balls, count both and sort it out later - to paraphrase.

Here's something interesting that i just thought about. It's only really applicable in certain situations but... Let's just say this as a for instance, A player's ball lies on the fringe. Between the ball and the green there's an "anger divot" still attached and laying against his ball in the fringe Therefore it's not a loose impediment. Player A says it can be fixed, Player B says it can't. No rule book to be found. (in this case i think player B is correct) Anyway, Player A invokes 3-3, one without fixing and one with fixing the mark and wants to count The one fixing if it's within the rules (ball 2). Shot 1 goes in the hole and player A says OK that's good and doesn't play another ball.

is he obligated to play another ball even though the situation didn't really pertain to a rules infraction yet (i.e. tapping or fixing the ball mark on the fringe) because he announced it as his ball he wanted to count?

I believe if he indicated he wanted ball #2 to be the score that counted, he can not stop after holing ball #1. He has to hole out with ball #2 and return 2 scores to the Committee. They then decide whether he got relief and #2 counts or deny relief and he takes #1. Score does not matter.

There was a situation at an NCAA or USGA event where a player wanted ball #2 to count. Problem was that he scored a double bogey 6 with ball #2 and saved par with ball #1. The Committee indicated ball #1 was the correct or accepted score, much to the young man's relief.

See decision 3-3/7.5. The second ball would not have counted anyway since he was not allowed to move the divot. In this case, ball #1 counts and there's no harm done - as long as it was reported to the committee who in turn would have decided he was not allowed to improve the lay of the ball and thus the second ball would not have counted anyway.

jev wrote:

See decision 3-3/7.5. The second ball would not have counted anyway since he was not allowed to move the divot. In this case, ball #1 counts and there's no harm done.

Right, but the issue is whether you HAVE to play a ball at the time since you announced it. I think BK has it.

birdieXris wrote:

jev wrote: See decision 3-3/7.5. The second ball would not have counted anyway since he was not allowed to move the divot. In this case, ball #1 counts and there's no harm done. Right, but the issue is whether you HAVE to play a ball at the time since you announced it. I think BK has it.

Sorry, I added some more text while you where answering .

Decision 3-3/7.5 describes this exactly. For your reference:

Quote:

3-3/7.5 Competitor Announces Intention to Play Two Balls; Plays Original Ball Before Dropping Second Ball; Elects Not to Play Second Ball Q: A competitor's ball comes to rest in a rut made by a maintenance vehicle. Believing the Committee might declare the rut to be ground under repair, he announces that he will invoke Rule 3-3 and play a second ball in accordance with Rule 25-1b and that he wishes his score with the second ball to count if the Rules permit. He hits his original ball from the rut to one foot from the hole and then states he will not play a second ball. He completes the hole with his original ball. On completion of the round, the facts are reported to the Committee. What is the ruling? A: The answer depends on whether the Committee declares the rut to be ground under repair. If the Committee declares the rut to be ground under repair, the competitor is disqualified for failing to hole out (Rule 3-2) since the score with the second ball would have counted - see Rule 3-3 and Decision 3-3/8. Otherwise, the score with the original ball counts. If a player declares his intention to invoke Rule 3-3, he may change his mind at any time before he takes further action, such as making another stroke at his original ball or putting a second ball into play. Once he invokes the Rule and takes further action, he is bound by the procedures in Rule 3-3.

Note: "another stroke" means a stroke with the first ball after he has played it from the situation.

Nice. Covers it perfectly.

Nice having our Dutch friend watching our backs on these discussions.

I actually read that entire "decisions" book at jev's advice, and I knew that this had come up somewhere before.

I have a question regarding the actual cited situation. Is it technically legal to hit out of a "ground under repair" area? And does this have any bearing on the decision?

I ask because I thought that if an area was designated as ground under repair, the player was obligated to take relief.

Bryan K wrote:

I actually read that entire "decisions" book at jev's advice, and I knew that this had come up somewhere before. I have a question regarding the actual cited situation. Is it technically legal to hit out of a "ground under repair" area? And does this have any bearing on the decision? I ask because I thought that if an area was designated as ground under repair, the player was obligated to take relief.

It depends on the wording of the Local Rule.
The LR may prohibit play. If it doesn't specifically prohibit it then the ball may be played as it lies.

It makes no difference to the decision ruling.

Ball #1 would have counted. Rule 13-2 says you can`t improve your line of play be moving anything fixed.