Ball lost -plugged in fairway.
vic
Our club has suffered up until Christmas with very wet and boggy fairways
with the consequence that it is very easy to lose a ball when it has plugged
in the fairway. There is a section of the membership that has been playing a
free drop where they think the ball has disappeared, whereas others return
to where they played the ball from with a 2 shot penalty.
What is the correct interpretation of the rules in these ground conditions?
A definative answer would be appreciated since one of the free drop brigade
has promised to walk down the first fairway naked if he is wrong it could be
an interesting sight in this frosty weather
Thanks in anticipation
Neil Mariner.
Wendy Dominick
previously played with a one stroke penalty.Rule 27-1.
Rule 25-2 covers an embedded ball. There is no provision in the rule for a ball
that can't be found. In order to proceed under 25-2 the ball must be found.
Wendy
John P Williams
.com> writes
Concur with Wendy, as usual. the only reason I reply is that your post
is signed by yourself but I opened it in the name of your Sophie. I
thought that here is an interesting lady golfer queuing up to see this
guy walk naked down the fairway!!! :-)
Note the one stroke penalty only. Assuming a tee shot has been hit then
you count that shot, add the penalty and you are playing your next shot
from the tee.
>
>Neil Mariner.
>
>
--
Regards
Pat Williams
For most amateurs the best wood in the bag is the pencil
Kev Nurse
original message used "boggy" as a description of the fairway, there might
be a case to say that the plugged ball(s) could have been lost inside casual
water. This would be supported particularly if a ball was last seen
entering a large area where it is known that CW is pushed up around the
players' shoes due to their weight. Speculation.
Regards
Kev
Mick Bryan
"Wendy Dominick" <wld...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010114190924...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Can a "Winter Rule" be made to accommodate this? Possibly lost in casual
water, which has made the ground boggy?
Cheers,
Mick
Neil Mariner
"Wendy Dominick" <wld...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010114190924...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
I imagine that these disreputable free relief merchants are claiming relief
under 25-1a.
A boggy fairway may be made to produce casual water almost anywhere on it,
if when you take your stance you shuffle your feet a bit until free water
emerges around your shoes (Shock horror, surely this never happens). Once
you have established the fact that the area in which the ball was seen to
enter is an area of abnormal ground conditions due to casual water, then you
can take a free drop under 25-1b(i), provided that as 25-1c requires there
is reasonable evidence that the ball entered and is lost in that abnormal
ground condition.
Regards
Glassjaw
John P Williams
<ma...@knurse.com> writes
For once, Kev, I disagree with you and your "might be" speculation.
Casual water relief may only be determined when it is obviously visible
and when the player takes his stance at the ball and water emerges from
around his feet due to his weight, not simply because a person's weight
brings up water in a general location. Boggy ground, or 'mushy earth' as
it is stated in the Decisions, is not casual water as per Decision 25/1.
IMO a ball lost in the manner prescribed is a lost ball, hard though
this may be to accept. The player must have taken his stance at the ball
and how can he do this if the ball is lost!
Were it otherwise at my course we would be claiming free relief from
lost balls virtually on every round.
I disagree also with Neil's post also on the same basis, in that mushy
earth is an abnormal ground condition caused by casual water but is
disallowed under the Decision I have quoted.
>Regards
>Kev
David Patrick
fairway. It should be marked before lifting and it can be cleaned. The
ball should then be dropped as close to the original site as possible and
free of penalty. If there is a local rule in force for 'preferred lie' -
not uncommon during the winter or in periods of severe weather, the ball may
be placed on the fairway within a 6 inch radius of the original lie.
Please post suitable photograph of disbelieving member.
"vic" <Sophie_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:93t7in$88t$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Mick Bryan
"David Patrick" <dee...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:93vkam$ikk$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> If there is a local rule in force for 'preferred lie' -
> not uncommon during the winter or in periods of severe weather, the
ball may
> be placed on the fairway within a 6 inch radius of the original lie.
>
But no nearer the hole!
Cheers,
Mick
John P Williams
<dee...@lineone.net> writes
David,
Forgive me for correcting you but you have several errors in your post.
>Once winter rules are in, a plugged ball can indeed be lifted from the
>fairway.
Winter rules are immaterial. A plugged, or embedded ball, is dealt with
by Rule 25-2 in any game, at any time, thus seasonal rules for abnormal
conditions do not matter. Incidentally relief is given by 25-2 in
'closely mown areas' which can and does include tees and green surrounds
and the like, not just fairways.
> It should be marked before lifting
Not true. A ball need only be marked if it is to be replaced. In this
instance the ball is not being replaced but dropped, different functions
under the rules.
However there is nothing to stop you from marking the spot lifted.
> and it can be cleaned. The
>ball should then be dropped
>as close to the original site as possible and
>free of penalty. If there is a local rule in force for 'preferred lie' -
>not uncommon during the winter or in periods of severe weather, the ball may
>be placed on the fairway within a 6 inch
It is a recommended distance but by no means universally mandatory. A
committee has it within it's powers to state any distance it so wishes,
even to take the ball to the semi rough. See Appendix I 3b.
>radius of the original lie.
You forgot 'not nearer the hole'. Radius allows 180 degrees nearer the
hole.
I trust that you do not object to the corrections, for this group is
read by experienced and newer golfers and the latter may well take what
is read as correct.
Good golfing.
Neil Mariner
"John P Williams" <Pate...@patricroft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aAwZNdAL...@patricroft.demon.co.uk...
> Regards
>
> Pat Williams
Pat
I do not like the idea of free drops for balls lost in plugged in Casual
Water as it leaves too much to subjective opinion. I think that relief from
balls lost in CW is designed to provide a way out when a ball lands on a
fairway which has been flooded by an overflowed pond for example.
However, CW is defined clearly in the rules of golf.
If you actually see (and I would suggest that your playing partners would
also have to agree) that your ball lands (anywhere except a hazard or a
green) in an area where casual water is prevalent, despite searching it
cannot be found and CW is generally present were you to take your stance,
then you have reasonable evidence of a ball lost in CW and you can obtain
relief under 25-1b(i).
If it is lost in "mushy earth" then you certainly cannot gain relief unless
this description includes the presence of free water around your shoes in
the area which you saw your ball land.
I disagree that you have to find the ball, as 25-1c explicitly describes
what to do when a ball in these circumstances cannot be found.
You say that you might be claiming free relief from lost balls on every
round, and indeed you might but you cannot contradict a rule of golf just
because you think its wrong.
Is there anything in Decisions which would prevent a free drop for a lost
plugged ball in CW if there is insufficient water present to conceal a ball?
It's loss would then be as a direct result of being plugged and therefore no
relief.
If anyone can identify a way of preventing the use of rule 25-1 in this way
I would be obliged. If we succeed, I promise to post the photos of the
naked "member" as it makes his way up the first fairway (hopefully whilst
the cold weather is still with us).
John P Williams
Neil,
>I do not like the idea of free drops for balls lost in plugged in Casual
>Water as it leaves too much to subjective opinion.
I think that is a matter of personal opinion. My own is that it would
appear wrong to punish someone for inclement weather and/ or inadequate
course maintenance (drainage). A matter of opinion.
> I think that relief from
>balls lost in CW is designed to provide a way out when a ball lands on a
>fairway which has been flooded by an overflowed pond for example.
Not solely for that purpose.
>
>However, CW is defined clearly in the rules of golf.
It is indeed , in the definitions.
>
>If you actually see (and I would suggest that your playing partners would
>also have to agree)
Not necessary for anyone else to agree but it is usual to call someone
over to observe. The player is the sole judge but can be questioned
about his decision by committee if others object.
> that your ball lands (anywhere except a hazard or a
>green)
Specify which type of hazard you mean for casual water appears in a
bunker but not a water hazard nor a lateral, yet all are hazards.
> in an area where casual water is prevalent, despite searching it
>cannot be found and CW is generally present were you to take your stance,
>then you have reasonable evidence of a ball lost in CW and you can obtain
>relief under 25-1b(i).
And here is where we would appear to differ. 25-1b(i) gives relief from
abnormal ground conditions not a ball lost which is covered by 25-1(c).
We are discussing embedded balls. If you cannot find an embedded ball
then how can the first phrase of 25-1c be followed ie "It is a question
of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward an abnormal
ground condition is lost in such a condition."... "there must be
reasonable evidence etc." How many times have you found a ball embedded
and turned over and yet the area of ground, albeit soft, does not bring
up water when your weight is on it?
>
>If it is lost in "mushy earth" then you certainly cannot gain relief unless
>this description includes the presence of free water around your shoes in
>the area which you saw your ball land.
Remember that is when you take your stance only or if it seen before!
>
>I disagree that you have to find the ball, as 25-1c explicitly describes
>what to do when a ball in these circumstances cannot be found.
Could it be, Neil, that you are taking the words "abnormal ground
condition" literally and not as the definition puts it namely " any
casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course
made by a burrowing animal or a bird." Rule 25-1c allows relief when the
preceding conditions occur. It does not apply to ground which may have
been affected by casual water and is soft because of the water that has
been there.
>
>You say that you might be claiming free relief from lost balls on every
>round, and indeed you might but you cannot contradict a rule of golf just
>because you think its wrong.
No contradiction IMO as explained above.
>
>Is there anything in Decisions which would prevent a free drop for a lost
>plugged ball in CW
>if there is insufficient water present to conceal a ball?
I would hesitate to resolve that hypothetical condition. If the ball is
lost because it has been seen to enter the casual water and is unable to
be found then relief under 25-1(c) is allowed. Being embedded wouldn't
need to be taken into account.
>It's loss would then be as a direct result of being plugged and therefore no
>relief.
>
>If anyone can identify a way of preventing the use of rule 25-1 in this way
>I would be obliged.
Maybe what I have said above gives some differing views but then again
it may not. We have four very knowledgeable rules gurus who read this
group and they may chip in with their two pennyworth.
> If we succeed, I promise to post the photos of the
>naked "member" as it makes his way up the first fairway (hopefully whilst
>the cold weather is still with us).
If that is indeed so I will look forward to the sight. :-)
Take care.
Crispin Roche
> In article <93vkam$ikk$1...@lure.pipex.net>, David Patrick
> <dee...@lineone.net> writes
>
> David,
>
> Forgive me for correcting you but you have several errors in your post.
>
> >Once winter rules are in, a plugged ball can indeed be lifted from the
> >fairway.
>
> Winter rules are immaterial. A plugged, or embedded ball, is dealt with
> by Rule 25-2 in any game, at any time, thus seasonal rules for abnormal
> conditions do not matter. Incidentally relief is given by 25-2 in
> 'closely mown areas' which can and does include tees and green surrounds
> and the like, not just fairways.
>
An interesting point here as to which rule takes precedence. A local
"preferred lies" rule states that the ball must be PLACED within a specified
distance and Rule 25-2 says an embedded ball may be lifted cleaned and
DROPPED. There will be occasions when, for an embedded ball, placing is
more advantageous than dropping so does the player have the option invoking
the local rule instead of Rule 25-2?
Crispin Roche
Sam Smale
Crispin Roche <cro...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qwi96.181138$eT4.14...@nnrp3.clara.net...
Presumably not (since local rules cannot overrule RoG.)
Another rule I have been breaking for the last 30 years. Oh well.
John Laird
wrote:
>Crispin Roche <cro...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qwi96.181138$eT4.14...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>>
>>
>> An interesting point here as to which rule takes precedence. A local
>> "preferred lies" rule states that the ball must be PLACED within a
>specified
>> distance and Rule 25-2 says an embedded ball may be lifted cleaned and
>> DROPPED. There will be occasions when, for an embedded ball, placing is
>> more advantageous than dropping so does the player have the option
>invoking
>> the local rule instead of Rule 25-2?
>>
>Good Q.
>Presumably not (since local rules cannot overrule RoG.)
>Another rule I have been breaking for the last 30 years. Oh well.
Hmm, why not relief under 25-2 and then relief under local rule ? As
long as the local rule says "a ball lying...", then you could argue that
the embedded ball situation is not covered by this. So, lift clean and
drop, and *now* you have a ball lying on the fairway. Apply the local
rule and place it.
Alternatively, pay attention to the word "may" in 25-2 and forget the
rule. If you can claim the embedded ball is "lying on the fairway",
then place it as you would one which had rolled to a stop.
You could argue the same thing for casual water on the fairway. Drop
only, or drop and then place ? I go with the latter. The rules permit
you to take relief repeatedly.
Follow-up: you have a local rule about embedded balls in the rough.
The ground is very soft, but not quite casual water. Dropping from
shoulder height, the ball squishes deep into the turf, giving a far
worse lie than a rolling ball could ever have managed. Tough luck ?
Embedded again ? Time for a muddy shower ?
John
John P Williams
>
>An interesting point here as to which rule takes precedence. A local
>"preferred lies" rule states that the ball must be PLACED within a specified
>distance and Rule 25-2 says an embedded ball may be lifted cleaned and
>DROPPED. There will be occasions when, for an embedded ball, placing is
>more advantageous than dropping so does the player have the option invoking
>the local rule instead of Rule 25-2?
I have always interpreted that situation to be, as Sam says:-
1. Rule 25, relief from embedded ball in closely mown area followed by..
2. Local rule, place within the specified area.
Whether that is right or not?????
Kev Nurse
However, bear in mind that a player is not bound, by the RoG, to invoke Rule
25-2. He may therefore invoke an applicable LR instead. But he must
rigidly adhere to the LR regarding the distance he may move the ball. If
the LR says "move and place within 6 inches" he must not move and place
outside that distance. The astute golfer will initially lift and drop under
Rule 25-2 and then move and place under the LR if he doesn't like the lie
after the drop.
Pat,
As an aside, further up the page you disagreed with my point about CW.
Don't forget that CW pushed up around the boots, due to the player's weight,
can occur before the stance is taken. Thus if a ball is seen to land in an
area where water is pushed up by the boots, that ball did land in an area of
CW. Anyway, it was only speculation about "boggy" ground.
Regards
Kev
John P Williams
>
>Pat,
>As an aside, further up the page you disagreed with my point about CW.
>Don't forget that CW pushed up around the boots, due to the player's weight,
>can occur before the stance is taken. Thus if a ball is seen to land in an
>area where water is pushed up by the boots, that ball did land in an area of
>CW. Anyway, it was only speculation about "boggy" ground.
Kev,
I would presume that you have read Decision 25/4 which appears to
directly contradict what you say and support what I have said. No water
before pressing down, no water after but water when pressing hard. IMO
the word "hard" could mean due to the player's weight.
Have you seen a discussion about this on Braveheart? If so I would
appreciate knowing it's outcome for I still feel that stance is all
important.