bkuehn1952 wrote:

Rulesman wrote: bkuehn1952 wrote: If he had made the case prior to his action that the abandoned ball interfered with his intended play, I might give him some leeway under the exception for removing an "obstruction". Where does it say that anyone has to give notice before removing a movable obstruction from anywhere? I agree that generally one does not need to seek permission. However, the action of sticking the club in the water and scooping out a ball strikes me as testing unless he pointed out prior to his fishing expedition that an abandoned ball was interfering with his intended stroke. The ball was near the player's own ball but it was not mentioned that it was close enough to be a problem.

it's in equity in this case that you'd have someone witness or at least give them the option to witness moving the movable obstruction. There are some rules that state that there is a definite need under the rules to allow a fellow competitor to oversee the lifting, etc.

I think in this case, it wouldn't have mattered because you can't remove obstructions from a hazard. Doesn't matter either way.

So if I go after the ball because it's a ProV with my ball retriever, am I safe if I wait until after my shot?

Bryan K wrote:

So if I go after the ball because it's a ProV with my ball retriever, am I safe if I wait until after my shot?

Yea, I think jev pointed out that the sequence was off. Hit your ball, then go fishing.

birdieXris wrote:

it's in equity in this case that you'd have someone witness or at least give them the option to witness moving the movable obstruction. There are some rules that state that there is a definite need under the rules to allow a fellow competitor to oversee the lifting, etc.

Equity has nothing to do with it. The only cases where a witness is required is where the rule says so. If it doesn't say so, the rule doesn't need it.

Quote:

I think in this case, it wouldn't have mattered because you can't remove obstructions from a hazard.

That is not correct. You do not get relief from an immovable obstruction if your ball is in a water hazard but there is no constraint on moving a movable obstruction

bkuehn1952 wrote:

The ball was near the player's own ball but it was not mentioned that it was close enough to be a problem.

There is no need to have interference in order to move a movable obstruction. It can be moved at any time. There is no constraint.

Rulesman wrote:

bkuehn1952 wrote: The ball was near the player's own ball but it was not mentioned that it was close enough to be a problem. There is no need to have interference in order to move a movable obstruction. It can be moved at any time. There is no constraint.

In removing the obstruction, the player tested the hazard by inserting his club into the water. Similarly, if a can were laying in a bunker, I would have no problem with a player gently lifting the can with his hand without touching the sand. If he scooped the can out with a bunch of sand using his club, I would consider that testing the hazard, not removing an obstruction.

Which circles back to my original suggestion that unless an obstruction interferes with the shot, why try to walk that fine line between testing the hazard and removing an obstruction? Just make your shot and pick up the ball later. If the obstruction actually interferes and your actions are going to appear to constitute testing, why not clear the situation up prior to proceeding? Probably would save a lot of arguing after the fact.

Rulesman wrote:

birdieXris wrote: it's in equity in this case that you'd have someone witness or at least give them the option to witness moving the movable obstruction. There are some rules that state that there is a definite need under the rules to allow a fellow competitor to oversee the lifting, etc. Equity has nothing to do with it. The only cases where a witness is required is where the rule says so. If it doesn't say so, the rule doesn't need it. Quote: I think in this case, it wouldn't have mattered because you can't remove obstructions from a hazard. Golf is all about equity. You don't have to but that's what equity is. Fairness. Anyway. an abndoned ball is an obstruction? That is not correct. You do not get relief from an immovable obstruction if your ball is in a water hazard but there is no constraint on moving a movable obstruction

1) An abandoned ball is an obstruction. See the definition.

2) Equity in golf is not about 'fairness', it is about treating like situations in a like manner.

It is a bit strange, but yes, the abandoned ball is a movable obstruction that may be removed from the hazard. And exception #1 in rule 13-4 seems to say you may touch the water when removing obstructions from the hazard. It's just very bad form, but I don't think the player will be penalized for this.

Question 10:
10) A competitor, whose ball is lying in a bunker, takes his stance and grounds his club four inches behind the ball. Gravity then causes the ball to move. He replaces the ball and plays a stroke. The competitor has incurred:
a. One penalty stroke.
b. Two penalty strokes.
c. Three penalty strokes.
d. Four penalty strokes.

Now, this one I think can spark a bit of debate. Obsiously, being in a bunker, the player is not allowed to ground his club. But he does and thus he addresses the ball. Or does he not? See the definition of "addressing the ball"! I am told the USGA Rules courses dictate "immediately behind" to mean "any closer or he would touch the ball" or "up to 1/4 inch". Has anyone here attended a USGA Rules course lately?

jev wrote:

Question 10: 10) A competitor, whose ball is lying in a bunker, takes his stance and grounds his club four inches behind the ball. Gravity then causes the ball to move. He replaces the ball and plays a stroke. The competitor has incurred: a. One penalty stroke. b. Two penalty strokes. c. Three penalty strokes. d. Four penalty strokes. Now, this one I think can spark a bit of debate. Obsiously, being in a bunker, the player is not allowed to ground his club. But he does and thus he addresses the ball. Or does he not? See the definition of "addressing the ball"! I am told the USGA Rules courses dictate "immediately behind" to mean "any closer or he would touch the ball" or "up to 1/4 inch". Has anyone here attended a USGA Rules course lately?

I have not attended a USGA Rules course but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express so therefore I feel qualfied to comment.

My initial reaction was he incurred an additional penalty for the ball moving. A "Decision" by the USGA, however, seems to point to no penalty. The decision described a player placing his club on the ground some distance from the ball and then moving it forward to immediately behind the ball. Merely grounding the club some distance from the ball was not deemed to be the cause of the ball moving. Instead, one would have to look at all the facts prior to reaching a conclusion one way or the other.

In the absence of any other information, my conclusion would be 2 strokes for grounding and play the ball were it came to rest. Since he picked the ball up, moved it back and played it when he should have left it alone, he gets 2 more strokes for a total of 4.

By the way, jev, thanks for sharing these questions. As a "Rules Snob" it has been humbling to realize how little I know about the small details of the Rules of Golf.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

jev wrote: Question 10: 10) A competitor, whose ball is lying in a bunker, takes his stance and grounds his club four inches behind the ball. Gravity then causes the ball to move. He replaces the ball and plays a stroke. The competitor has incurred: a. One penalty stroke. b. Two penalty strokes. c. Three penalty strokes. d. Four penalty strokes. Now, this one I think can spark a bit of debate. Obsiously, being in a bunker, the player is not allowed to ground his club. But he does and thus he addresses the ball. Or does he not? See the definition of "addressing the ball"! I am told the USGA Rules courses dictate "immediately behind" to mean "any closer or he would touch the ball" or "up to 1/4 inch". Has anyone here attended a USGA Rules course lately? I have not attended a USGA Rules course but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express so therefore I feel qualfied to comment. My initial reaction was he incurred an additional penalty for the ball moving. A "Decision" by the USGA, however, seems to point to no penalty. The decision described a player placing his club on the ground some distance from the ball and then moving it forward to immediately behind the ball. Merely grounding the club some distance from the ball was not deemed to be the cause of the ball moving. Instead, one would have to look at all the facts prior to reaching a conclusion one way or the other. In the absence of any other information, my conclusion would be 2 strokes for grounding and play the ball were it came to rest. Since he picked the ball up, moved it back and played it when he should have left it alone, he gets 2 more strokes for a total of 4.

I think you're right on this one. Total of 4. I can't find the decision you're referring to but the act of "addressing" is pretty crazy. You can take your stance but not ground the club and take a swing and you've made a stroke without addressing the ball. 4 should be right on this one. Where's rulesman?


Then again.... we'd be looking at 3 this way: Obviously in the players mind he'd addressed the ball in his own way, conceding that he's addressed it, he replaced it and then played a stroke under rule 18-2b. I can't find a decision on this either. In that case it would be 3 strokes. 2 for the grounding infraction and one for causing the ball to move. Replacing and playing is right in this case.

birdieXris wrote:

Then again.... we'd be looking at 3 this way: Obviously in the players mind he'd addressed the ball in his own way, conceding that he's addressed it, he replaced it and then played a stroke under rule 18-2b. I can't find a decision on this either. In that case it would be 3 strokes. 2 for the grounding infraction and one for causing the ball to move. Replacing and playing is right in this case.

Yea, never thought about whether the player felt he had addressed the ball even though the Rules give him some leeway if his club is not immediately behind the ball. All these situations further confirm my approach of trying to never touch the ball or move it until it is on the green unless I am absolutely sure of the right approach. When in doubt, just play it as it lays.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

birdieXris wrote: Then again.... we'd be looking at 3 this way: Obviously in the players mind he'd addressed the ball in his own way, conceding that he's addressed it, he replaced it and then played a stroke under rule 18-2b. I can't find a decision on this either. In that case it would be 3 strokes. 2 for the grounding infraction and one for causing the ball to move. Replacing and playing is right in this case. Yea, never thought about whether the player felt he had addressed the ball even though the Rules give him some leeway if his club is not immediately behind the ball. All these situations further confirm my approach of trying to never touch the ball or move it until it is on the green unless I am absolutely sure of the right approach. When in doubt, just play it as it lays.

Really, All one needs technically to play is knowledge of 3-3 and a biiiiiig notebook. hahaha.

jev wrote:

It is a bit strange, but yes, the abandoned ball is a movable obstruction that may be removed from the hazard. And exception #1 in rule 13-4 seems to say you may touch the water when removing obstructions from the hazard. It's just very bad form, but I don't think the player will be penalized for this. Question 10: 10) A competitor, whose ball is lying in a bunker, takes his stance and grounds his club four inches behind the ball. Gravity then causes the ball to move. He replaces the ball and plays a stroke. The competitor has incurred: a. One penalty stroke. b. Two penalty strokes. c. Three penalty strokes. d. Four penalty strokes. Now, this one I think can spark a bit of debate. Obsiously, being in a bunker, the player is not allowed to ground his club. But he does and thus he addresses the ball. Or does he not? See the definition of "addressing the ball"! I am told the USGA Rules courses dictate "immediately behind" to mean "any closer or he would touch the ball" or "up to 1/4 inch". Has anyone here attended a USGA Rules course lately?

I don’t think whether or not he is deemed to have addressed the ball is relevant due to the exception in rule 18-2b that states “If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.” This precise exception came up in one of the previous questions as well. So my interpretation is that when the ball rolled backwards due to gravity, which is not an outside agent, it must be played as it lies. He should incur two strokes for grounding his club for sure.

Now under rule 20-7c, I believe he is forced to take another accrued two-stroke penalty for playing from the wrong spot (provided the rules committee hasn’t determined that he is in serious breach).
So I believe that the correct answer is D.