Rule of the Week - Rule 3-3/2

3-3/2 Second Ball Played Despite Adverse Ruling

Q:In stroke play, a competitor believes he is entitled to relief under a Rule, but a member of the Committee disagrees. In spite of the ruling by the Committee member, the competitor invokes Rule 3-3 and opts to score with the second ball. He plays his original ball as it lies and the second ball under the Rule he believes is applicable.

May a competitor invoke Rule 3-3 in such circumstances?

A:The answer depends upon whether or not the Committee has given authority to make final decisions to its individual members.

If the Committee member concerned has not been given authority to make final decisions, the competitor is entitled to invoke Rule 3-3.

If, on the other hand, the Committee member has been given authority to make final decisions, he may, despite his own view that the competitor is not entitled to relief, permit the competitor to invoke Rule 3-3. However, if the Committee member exercises his authority and gives the competitor a final decision that he is not entitled to the relief he claims, there is then no justification for the competitor invoking Rule 3-3, and he will incur a penalty of two strokes for undue delay (Rule 6-7) if he, nevertheless, goes ahead and invokes Rule 3-3. The score with his original ball, including this two-stroke penalty, must count.

Related articles

• A Tax Advantage in Retiring Single
• My Life with Arthritis
• Free Stock Photo: Baseball Ball
• Scottish Artist Creates Room made Entirely of Chocolate
• Talk of the Times: Amanda Marchegiani about Making Strides Against Breast Cancer 5K

Rule of the Week - 20-2c/1.5

20-2c/1.5 Ball Rolls Toward Hole When Dropped at Spot from Which Previous Stroke Played

Q:A player is required or elects to play his next stroke at the spot from which his previous stroke was played. He is able to identify that specific spot by reference to the divot hole which his previous stroke made. He drops a ball immediately behind that divot hole. The ball rolls nearer the hole than the spot from which the previous stroke was played, but not more than two club-lengths from where it first struck the ground. What is the ruling?

A:Rule 20-2c(vii)(a) requires a ball to be re-dropped if it rolls and comes to rest nearer the hole than "its original position or estimated position ... unless otherwise permitted by the Rules." The original position is the spot from which the previous stroke was played. Since the dropped ball rolled nearer the hole than that spot, it must be re-dropped.

However, in many such cases the player cannot determine exactly the spot from which his previous stroke was played. In those cases, the player has satisfied the requirements of the Rule if he uses his best endeavours to estimate the spot. The estimated spot is treated as the specific spot (see Rule 20-2b) and the ball must be re-dropped if it rolls nearer the hole than the estimated spot.

The same principle applies if the spot where a ball is to be placed is not determinable and the player is required, under Rule 20-3c, to drop the ball as near as possible to the spot where it lay.

Related articles

• Creating a Winning Mindset in Golf
• Will MacKenzie Gets Hole in One and Shares Lead
• Play Room for Kids, Play Space for Kids
• Chapul’s 4 secrets to turning crickets into Shark Tank success

Rule of the Week - 6-2b/3

6-2b/3 Competitor Wins Competition with Handicap Which Was Incorrect Due to Committee Error; Error Discovered Several Days Later

Q:The Committee incorrectly calculated a competitor's handicap and posted it on the notice board as 17 when it should have been 16. The competitor won an 18-hole stroke-play event as a result of the error. May the Committee correct the error several days later and retract the prize?

A:Yes. There is no time limit on correcting such an error. Rule 34-1b is not applicable since it deals with penalties, not with Committee errors.

The competitor should not be disqualified but his net score should be increased by one stroke.

Rule of the Week - 2-4/20

2-4/20 Player Unable to Meet Match-Play Schedule Defaults; Schedule Then Changed and Player Requests Reinstatement

Q:The final matches in a competition were to be played on a Saturday. A was to play B in one match. On Thursday, A defaulted to B, saying that he would be out of town on Saturday.

On Saturday, the course was unplayable and the matches were postponed until the following Saturday. 

On Monday, A requested that he be reinstated. Should the Committee reinstate A?

A:No. A conceded the match as provided for in Rule 2-4. In the circumstances concession is irrevocable.

R & A - Spotlight on television evidence

Two recent incidents have shone a bright light on the use of television evidence in golf and the penalty structure in the situation where a player returns his score card having failed to include a penalty that he did not know he had incurred.

During the first round of the Tournament of Champions in Hawaii,Camilo Villegas moved a loose divot that might have influenced the movement of his ball in motion – a clear breach of Rule 23-1. Such an act brings with it a penalty of two strokes, but Villegas was unaware of the Rule and did not include the penalty in his score for that hole. The incident was reported to the Committee by a television viewer after Villegas had returned his score card and, as a result, Villegas was disqualified under Rule 6-6d for returning a score lower than actually taken.

A couple of weeks later in Abu Dhabi, TV images showed Padraig Harrington moving his ball in the act of removing his ball-marker during his first round, which of itself is not a penalty (Rule 20-3a), but the ball needs to be replaced. Harrington knew that he had nudged the ball forward, but felt that the ball had returned to the original spot. As it transpired, TV images showed that the ball had stopped a few millimetres short of rolling all the way back onto the original spot. Again the breach of the Rule only came to light when it was reported to the Committee by a television viewer after Harrington’s score card had been returned, and without the two-stroke penalty included in the score for that hole, disqualification under Rule 6-6d applied.

It is a fundamental principle of the Rules in stroke play that the player is responsible for the correctness of the scores on his score card, and if the player has attested for a lower score than he has actually achieved, for whatever reason, the result is disqualification. However, these cases indicate that we have entered a new age of golf viewing where increased coverage, increased use of high definition and super slow motion, the increased viewing of delayed “live” coverage and the ease with which television viewers can make contact with the tournament office through email and the internet make such incidents more likely to occur.

The issues of the escalation of the penalty from one or two strokes to disqualification after the score card has been returned and the admissibility of increasingly sophisticated television evidence have been on the agenda of the governing bodies, and we have been in discussion with the Tours on these matters, but these cases, and the reaction to them, have undoubtedly intensified the discussions on whether the Rules in this regard remain appropriate.

Rule of the Week - 16-2/3

16-2/3 Casting Shadow on Ball Overhanging Hole

Q:A player's ball came to rest overhanging the edge of the hole. The player walked up to the hole and cast his shadow on the ball, believing that this would cause the grass to wilt and his ball to fall into the hole. Was the player in breach of Rule 1-2 (Exerting Influence on Ball) when he cast his shadow on the ball?

A:No.

Rule of the Week - 25-1b/24

25-1b/24 Ball Enters Burrowing Animal Hole in Bounds and Comes to Rest Out of Bounds

Q:A player's ball entered a rabbit hole, the mouth of which was in bounds but only about a foot from a boundary fence. The rabbit hole sloped steeply down below the fence, so that the ball came to rest beyond the boundary line. What is the ruling?

A:Whether or not a ball is out of bounds depends on where it lies in relation to the boundary of the course and this must be measured vertically upward or downward -- see Definition of "Out of Bounds."

In the case cited, the ball was lying out of bounds and Rule 27-1 applied. 

Relief could not be obtained under Rule 25-1, i.e., from a hole made by a burrowing animal.

Rule of the Week - 18-2a/3

18-2a/3 Ball Lifted and Dropped Away from Boundary Stake Under Obstruction Rule

Q:A player's swing is interfered with by a stake defining out of bounds. The player mistakenly considers the stake an obstruction and he lifts his ball and drops it in the manner prescribed in Rule 24-2b. What is the ruling?

A:The player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2a and he must replace his ball before playing his next stroke. Otherwise, he loses the hole in match play or he incurs a total penalty of two strokes in stroke play -- see penalty statement under Rule 18.

www.randa.org

Rule of the Week - 18-2a/5

18-2a/5 Ball in Hazard Moves After Loose Impediment Outside Hazard Moved

Q:A player's ball lies in a hazard. He moves a loose impediment which lies outside the hazard but is near the ball. Before the player addresses the ball, it moves. Is the player penalized?

A:It is a question of fact whether the player caused the ball to move. If he did so, he incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the ball is played as it lies without penalty.