Discussion wanted
JohnT
A competitor watches his fellow competitor 50 yards away from him take
relief from something in the fairway and drop his ball. Curious, he
went over and inquired as to why the player had dropped his ball.
Casual water was the answer. It had been raining for a long period
earlier, but there was no casual water visible. Aware of his
responsibility, the competitor asked the player to show him where his
ball had been and show the casual water when he took his stance. There
was none unless the player pressed down hard with his foot. The
competitor told the player that he was not entitled to relief and that
he must replace his ball. The exact original spot could not be
determined, and so the player dropped the ball at the estimated spot.
When dropped the ball made a shallow impression in the grass (not
below the level of the ground) which then filled with water. Ruling
please.
JohnT
Alistair Macdonald
water.
"JohnT" <johng...@cabletv.on.ca> wrote in message
news:5697bf28-3aae-4f79...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Peter Strauss
Q. A player's ball plugged deeply in short rough. No casual water was
visible on the surface, but the pitch-mark in which the ball came to
rest is filled with water. Was the player's ball in casual water?
A. Yes.
By extension of this decision, I would be inclined to side with the
player in his having taken relief in the first place.
Peter
Mark Myers
how's the snow over in Canada? I've recently been watching Ray Mears'
series about the explorers who opened up trade routes across Canada.
Re: Discussion wanted
I have some old ones I can dig out if, ... oh right you've seen them
already.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:26:51 -0800 (PST), JohnT said...
> A rules question to hopefully put some life into this group.
>
So far I agree with Peter.
--
Mark Myers
usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
JohnT
Hi Peter,
Just to spice this up, and because you are one, let's change the
Competitor to a Rules Official. Let's also consider that the decision
you quoted refers to light rough and not the fairway. If you were
called in the first place by a player asking for relief, you could ask
him to mark his ball and lift it to see if it was indeed sitting in
casual water, even if the stance test does not show any. However, in
the case at hand you cannot duplicate the original condition of the
ball's original position after the fact.
25/4 Water Visible as Result of Undue Effort with Feet
Q. In a wet area, casual water is not visible before or after the
player takes his normal stance. However, by pressing down hard with
one foot, the player causes water to appear around the sole of his
shoe. Is the player entitled to relief under Rule 25-1b?
A. No. Water visible through undue effort with the feet is not casual
water — see Definition of “Casual Water.”
JohnT
<alistair.macdon...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> It is hard to disagree with the opponent that this in fact WAS standing
> water.
>
Hi Alistair,
Please see my reply to Peter who came to a similar conclusion. Just
for clarity, can i suggest that we stick with stroke play (competitor)
and not match play (opponent).
Cheers
JohnT
JohnT
Hi Mark,
Here where I am (Eastern shores of Lake Huron) we are expecting our
first major snow event of the winter to arrive this afternoon. Other
parts of Canada, particularly Calgary and St John's, had a real
pasting from what were obviously 2 different storms this past weekend.
Peter Strauss
OK, John. Very different scenario now, I think.
First of all, since he cannot demonstrate to me that his original ball
was, in fact, in casual water, I'd be hard-put not to penalize him under
18-2 for having lifted the ball with no probable cause.
And since he cannot place it in its original lie, due to not being able
to determine that, I'd probably assess him the 2-stroke penalty under 18-2.
He committed his first mistake by not marking where his ball had been
before he lifted it. He does have to prove to me that he was entitled
to the lift, doesn't he? Failing that, I don't have any option, seems
to me, except to rule as above.
Interesting for me to look at all this and wonder why, in the first
instance, I was so forgiving. I guess the answer is that I was looking
through the eyes of a FC, not a RO.
Looking as the latter, I'm not as forgiving.
Hmmm.....
Fascinating!
p.
JohnT
>
> how's the snow over in Canada? I've recently been watching Ray Mears'
> series about the explorers who opened up trade routes across Canada.
>
> Mark Myers
> usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/11/ontario-storm.html
M L Wadsworth
"JohnT" <johng...@cabletv.on.ca> wrote in message
news:5697bf28-3aae-4f79...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Hi John,
I have been away from the group for about 2 months because I have been too
busy on other things.
The scenario suggests that the competitor who took relief, was correct in
doing so.
When, at the provocation of his fellow-competitor, he lifted his ball
without marking it and dropped it in the area from which he had taken relief
in the first place, he had lifted his ball in play and dropped it in a wrong
place. Assuming he played it from there, he incurred a 2 stroke penalty
under Rule 20-7, the applicable Rule being 18-2a. There would likely be no
serious breach of Rule 20-7.
It is perhaps a lesson to us all, to think carefully before lifting a ball
we have put into play.
What he should have done (and to be fair, few would think to do so) was to
play a second ball under Rule 3-3.
For the benefit of some, this would have meant declaring that he was going
to play two balls and that stating which one he wanted to count if both were
played in accordance with the Rules.
He would then both play the ball dropped from casual water and drop and play
a second ball where the casual water was thought to be to satisfy his
fellow-competitor.
Even if the score with both balls was the same, the competitor must still
report his actions to the Committee.
Malcolm
M L Wadsworth
Just to spice this up, and because you are one, let's change the
Competitor to a Rules Official. Let's also consider that the decision
you quoted refers to light rough and not the fairway. If you were
called in the first place by a player asking for relief, you could ask
him to mark his ball and lift it to see if it was indeed sitting in
casual water, even if the stance test does not show any. However, in
the case at hand you cannot duplicate the original condition of the
ball's original position after the fact.
25/4 Water Visible as Result of Undue Effort with Feet
Q. In a wet area, casual water is not visible before or after the
player takes his normal stance. However, by pressing down hard with
one foot, the player causes water to appear around the sole of his
shoe. Is the player entitled to relief under Rule 25-1b?
A. No. Water visible through undue effort with the feet is not casual
water � see Definition of �Casual Water.�
If I was called by a competitor seeking relief from casual water and his
ball was partially embedded, I would not consider it appropriate to ask him
to lift his ball to see if there was water under it.
I would go by what I could see around the ball and his stance (after he had
taken the 20lb golf bag off his back!!)
However, if the competitor asked me to consider his ball may be sitting in
casual water, I would permit him to mark and lift his ball without cleaning
it, to see.
If none the ball would be replaced. It there was water , then I would grant
relief and of course he could then clean his ball.
Had I been called by the competitor claiming his fellow-competitor had taken
relief when not permitted, I would have stopped the fellow-competitor
lifting his ball until I had checked the area.
If I thought there was no casual water, then he could correct his drop under
Rule 20-6.
If it was then shown after dropping where the casual water was claimed and
his ball was then found to be in casual water, we have a new situation and
relief could then be taken under 25-1b without any penalties at all.
Malcolm