Colin L

Does when the concession is made not mean the moment at which it is made?

That's ugely at odds with 6.5 which states that that as soon ask the concession is made, the hole is completed for that player. It is difficult to accept the "logic' that after you have completed a hole your ball can still in play.

It's certainly a while since I was last caught out by an old posting. I even manage to overlook the "2 years later...." clue. 🙄

Provided the ball was at rest when the concession was made, that's correct.

That’s a pretty wild mischaracterising of folk who tell you how it is, usually without comment on whether the rule is a good one, well or badly written. Sure, when a rule changes we adapt and tell you how it now is on a that was then, this is now basis. Believe me there is plenty of constructive criticism at every level and believe me too, the ruling bodies listen.

This is a very simple situation. A putted (his third stroke); his ball came to rest; his next stroke was conceded; and so he had completed the hole in 4. What happens to his ball after the concession is irrelevant.

I do indeed, and every now and again remind myself it's a privilege. Anent my golf, I've heard it it said that golf is only sport in which the elderly take lessons and practise in the deluded belief that they can improve. I'm a bit more realistic and take lessons and practise in the hope of holding on to the little bit I've got just a little bit longer. As a referee, I'm not going to do any more matchplay assignments because I just can't maintain the concentration needed over 18 holes or more (especially for keeping the score!). But hey, I'm still here and still able to get out into the fresh air on a beautiful golf course in this gorgeous city, in great company and have fun. Who knows, but statistics suggest that playing golf could well have contributed significantly to the fact that I am still here.

If you saw my golf you would understand why I never offer advice on how to play the game. 😢

That's the player's choice as to how to play the hole. I thought you meant there's a rules issue.

I don't see an issue. If the ball is touching the edge of the boundary line it is in play. If there is interference by a part of the path that is on the course, you get relief.

It actually doesn't matter where the line is painted on the path; the boundary line is the course side edge of the line. Beyond that edge is out of of bounds. If the line were painted down the middle of the path, part of the path is on the course and the other is our off bounds. It's no different from a line painted on grass. By the way, as a general point, I get the impression from this and many other threads that a cart path seems to be regarded by some in the USA as something special rules-wise but it isn't. A cart path is either an immovable obstruction if artificially surfaced or just part of the course if grass or earth. Free relief (except in a penalty area) from the former and play the ball as it lies from the latter.

The ruling was wrong.

No. You don't get relief from an obstruction that is out of bounds.

That the path is OOB is entirely germane to the ruling. You do not get relief from an obstruction that is OOB. See Rule 16.1a(2)

From one longstanding pedant to another: of course it should have. 😉

Why would the rulemakers 'contemplate' something as bizarre as this? And what does it do that simulating throwing a ball without one wouldn't do? Sometimes, and I can be as guilty as any of this, it is too easy to seize upon something like this and try to force the rules into accommodating or punishing it. And with this one, after imagining the incredulity on the faces of my mates if I did it - or perhaps the pitying concern as they thought that Colin had finally lost it - it shouldn't take more than a moment's thought to say to the OP, "you're fine with this but think twice about actually doing it." The practicalities of having to go and pick up the thrown ball, of finding it in the jungle that is often to the side of tees along with the likely ridicule of your mates do hint that it would not be the best of ideas. And don't try it on the range; the guy in the next bay might not be too happy. @Snarkesor Interesting question, though, thanks. My reaction is about the rules nerds (myself included) tending to complicate issues too much.

It is entirely consistent with Rules 9.6 and 9.4b Do note, however, that it is different in match play where you get a penalty for touching or lifting your opponent's ball.

For the answer to your second question, see Rules 11.2a and 11.2b If your non-action is deliberate with the intention of stopping or deflecting the ball in motion and the ball does hit you, you get the general penalty and the player whose ball it is plays from where it is estimated the ball would have ended up had it not been stopped or deflected.

Are we sure that MLR D-3 (whereby you do not get relief if the interference by the wrong green is only to intended stance) wasn't in place?