antip

LOL, there has been so much hand-wringing over this issue, let me be very clear. This question has gone in to the USGA. The question: putting green scenario in match play, player A's putt, his third stroke, comes to rest a foot above the hole, opponent B concedes A's next stroke but before A can lift their ball a gust of wind blows it into the hole. What has A scored for the hole? The ruling is A scored 3. A concession does not take a ball out of play (see the definition of in play), this scenario of the ball being moved by natural forces after the concession and before any action that takes the ball out of play, such as lifting, is no different than if the opponent had conceded the next stroke while the ball were still in motion and the concession became irrelevant because the ball was holed.

Your suspicion is not the case. There is no mention of overhanging, the explicit language was ball was at rest a foot above the hole and after the concession and before the player could act on the concession, the ball was blown into the hole.

Not at odds at all. There is no "as soon as .." language. 6.5 states the hole is completed when the player holes out or the player's next stroke is conceded. In this case, the next stroke was conceded, but the next stroke was never needed.

It's a USGA ruling. But it also logical as well as being correct. Your ball is always subject to the vagaries of nature while it is in play, unless the special exceptions in 9.3 apply. Yes, anyone can lift that ball at rest after a concession, that is not at issue, but the ball is in play until it is lifted. In the OP, the really weird quirk is the ball was moved into the hole by natural forces. I've seen that once in 60 years on golf courses. More commonly, it is just moving the ball to a different postion.

Yes, it is different from what some said. It is also correct and is Ruling Body affirmed in case anyone has any doubt. I also point out there are other scenarios on course where the "In Play" definition has meaningful impacts. When a ball is left on the course during a suspension, that ball also remains in play until one of the defined conditions that take a ball out of play have been met.

This is an excellent discussion topic that highlights a tricky issue not always well understood. The original question gets at the issue does a concession change the status of the ball. And the answer is no, demonstrated in the definition of "In Play", which confirms a ball remains in play until holed except it is no longer in play if lifted, lost or subbed by another ball. A concession, of itself, does not alter that status of in play. Consequently, if natural forces move that ball at rest after a concession is given but before the ball is lifted, that ball is "live" and the concession only has relevance to the player's next stroke, not the prior stroke. As the ball rolled into the hole, this player's 3rd stroke was holed. This answer only changes if the movement of the ball was caused by the player in the process of lifting the ball - and only then if there is KVC (95 per cent certainty) that the player caused the ball to move. Ball overhanging the hole is an entirely different issue, covered fully in Rule 13.3.

You've been mulling this for a while Colin 🙂. Agree entirely!

The Teeing Area is a magic place. Have a read of Rule 6.2b.

In this part of the world, white lines normally represent GUR, OOB is usually marked differently (white stakes with black tops, black stakes or a variety of other reference to fences and boundaries), so touching the GUR white line matters, relief is available.

Clearly, you have a unique opinion on whether there is any contradiction in my words.

They are not in conflict. Touching the course (or overhanging) is on the course. Touching the PA is in the PA. Touching the GUR is in the GUR, etc.

The language of the definitions, as cited above, is complex. The short answers: 1. If your ball is touching any part of the course, or is overhanging any part of the course (the leaf is irrelevant), it is in bounds. 2. If your ball is touching the edge of the penalty area or is overhanging the edge of the penalty area (as noted above, it is a vertical line), the ball is in the penalty area. Which would mean no relief from the concrete path. Things growing are not relevant in this process, it is about touching that vertical line.

You are not alone.

Throwing is not an action 'authorised', it is just not a banned action. But testing the green by rolling a ball is a rule breach. Good luck trying the 'accident' BS.

The player doesn't get to choose whether they made a stroke or not, it is a question of fact. Was the player intending to make a stroke at the ball? If the player intends to make a stroke and swings, then the stroke counts and the ball is in a correct place regardless of whether it is whiffed or moved. There is no penalty here, just the stroke counts. By contrast, if the player was not intending to make a stroke but their actions accidentally moved their ball, then there is no stroke, but there is a 9.4 penalty for moving their ball in play and the ball is currently in a wrong place. If the player replaces and plays, there is one stroke penalty and that latter stroke counts. If the player fails to replace before playing, the one stroke penalty becomes a total penalty of 2 strokes, as laid out above.

LOL, I never saw a cart in my first decade on golf courses. Ergo, no cart paths.

If this person was aware of the volume and nature of the chemicals applied to the green, she may be more selective of the the nappy changing venue in the future.

I don't see an issue with throwing anything that isn't designed as a swing aid. Throwing a golf ball is using equipment in an unusual way, but this is only a breach if done as part of a stroke.

I get the impression we sometimes get a little spillover from other WRX forums onto this forum.

Unless the opponent made a request. And if they did make the request and you fail to mark, the opponent has breached 14.1 and is subject to that one stroke penalty.

On the OP: There is no relief for A under the Rules - it is play as lies unless a Committee/the course responsible entity advises otherwise. For B, holes made by animals - see the definition of animal hole as it includes multiple aspects - relief is available under Rule 16.1b.

And the good news is from 2023 the Rule now points to that by affirming the potential role of 14.1.

You tinkered with the dark side, human nature!

I understand the sentiment but occasionally see some bizarre behaviours in match play, often influenced by limited understanding of the rules. I have no issue whatsoever with someone asking hypotheticals on a rules site, even if the actions reek of poor sportsmanship. Multiple forms of outright cheating (eg foot wedge and hands on ball without justification) and handicap manipulation are more prevalent problems.

I have sent in questions relating to scenario of multiple objectives - playing out of order to gain advantage AND to save time. Response was "permitted" - as long as saving time is part of it, all okay. This is similar to 8.2 - you can get away with bad intent providing you are caring for the course.