Pitch Mark Question

[Almostscratchonce]

A player in a 4-ball match play event hits an approach that leaves a pitch mark in the collar, and his ball comes to rest off the putting surface. If the mark does not influence his line of play or stance, is he permitted to repair it prior to playing from off the green?

[Sawgrass]

Sure, as long as he's fixing it solely for the purpose of caring for the course. If he was doing it to help himself or someone else, it's unacceptable. He should make sure he doesn't fix it prior to his shot if he thinks it's a "close call" as to whether it will help him, as he may be questioned.

[joey2aces]

in a match play scenario do they lose the hole as a team or is he just out of the hole?

[Cancun]

Yes, assuming that it doesn’t have any effect in the other players’ game either. That is considered as caring for the course and we all should encourage it. My advice is that fixing it AFTER making the stroke is just as easy as doing it before and it avoids any comments.

 

If the pitch mark affects play of another player, the answer would depend:

 

If a ball is already at rest before a pitch mark is made, the player may fix it (even if it affects the line of play). If the pitch mark was already there before, he may not fix it.

 

Edit: As always... Sawgrass is fast! Sorry, already answered LOL.

[Sawgrass]

in a match play scenario do they lose the hole as a team or is he just out of the hole?

In four ball match play, a player's violation for improving his line of play takes him out of the hole and leaves his partner to score. But . . . did the player's illegally fixing the pitch mark help both his next stroke and his partner's next stroke?

[Almostscratchonce]

Thanks for the insight. It was pointed out to me in a "friendly-reminder" manner, and didn't lead to any sort of debate/controversy, but opponent pointed out that some-guys would take issue. I thought I was in the clear, as the mark was 3 feet clear of my line (pitch carried well past it anyhow) and stance. Partner was on opposite side of the green, so no advantage for him. Glad to know I was correct in my thought on the rule & partner made the par for us to keep 1 up lead into final hole.

[Sawgrass]

Thanks for the insight. It was pointed out to me in a "friendly-reminder" manner, and didn't lead to any sort of debate/controversy, but opponent pointed out that some-guys would take issue. I thought I was in the clear, as the mark was 3 feet clear of my line (pitch carried well past it anyhow) and stance. Partner was on opposite side of the green, so no advantage for him. Glad to know I was correct in my thought on the rule & partner made the par for us to keep 1 up lead into final hole.

 

Almost, if there was a debate about this, Decision 13-2/0.5 would have been the source of the final outcome. Maybe you'd like to read it.

 

[Almostscratchonce]

Thanks, Sawgrass. Read that dec. and feel we reached the correct conclusion. The pitch mark was about 45 degrees to the left of my intended line (about a 1' behind my left heel). For the mark to come into play, the ball would've needed to travel through my left foot.

 

Had it been in a position that was deemed to have improved lie, line or stance and incurred a penalty, would our side lose the hole, or is partner's score not impacted?

[Sawgrass]

Thanks, Sawgrass. Read that dec. and feel we reached the correct conclusion. The pitch mark was about 45 degrees to the left of my intended line (about a 1' behind my left heel). For the mark to come into play, the ball would've needed to travel through my left foot.

 

Had it been in a position that was deemed to have improved lie, line or stance and incurred a penalty, would our side lose the hole, or is partner's score not impacted?

 

If you were deemed to improve your lie, you would suffer a loss of hole penalty, though in Four Ball that's essentially DQing you from that one hole and leaving your partner on his own to score what he will. That twist is covered in Rule 30, and the potential of that same illegal act improving both the player's and his partner's situation is covered there too, potentially DQing both players from the single hole:

 

 

 

30-3

 

f. Effect of Other Penalties

 

If a player's breach of a Rule assists his partner's play or adversely affects an opponent's play, the partner incurs the applicable penalty in addition to any penalty incurred by the player.

 

In all other cases where a player incurs a penalty for breach of a Rule, the penalty does not apply to his partner. Where the penalty is stated to be loss of hole, the effect is to disqualify the player for that hole.

[Almostscratchonce]

Thanks, Sawgrass. Read that dec. and feel we reached the correct conclusion. The pitch mark was about 45 degrees to the left of my intended line (about a 1' behind my left heel). For the mark to come into play, the ball would've needed to travel through my left foot.

 

Had it been in a position that was deemed to have improved lie, line or stance and incurred a penalty, would our side lose the hole, or is partner's score not impacted?

 

If you were deemed to improve your lie, you would suffer a loss of hole penalty, though in Four Ball that's essentially DQing you from that one hole and leaving your partner on his own to score what he will. That twist is covered in Rule 30, and the potential of that same illegal act improving both the player's and his partner's situation is covered there too, potentially DQing both players from the single hole:

 

 

 

30-3

 

f. Effect of Other Penalties

 

 

If a player's breach of a Rule assists his partner's play or adversely affects an opponent's play, the partner incurs the applicable penalty in addition to any penalty incurred by the player.

 

In all other cases where a player incurs a penalty for breach of a Rule, the penalty does not apply to his partner. Where the penalty is stated to be loss of hole, the effect is to disqualify the player for that hole.

 

Many Thanks! I appreciate your contributions here.

[smeech8000]

Thanks for the insight. It was pointed out to me in a "friendly-reminder" manner, and didn't lead to any sort of debate/controversy, but opponent pointed out that some-guys would take issue. I thought I was in the clear, as the mark was 3 feet clear of my line (pitch carried well past it anyhow) and stance. Partner was on opposite side of the green, so no advantage for him. Glad to know I was correct in my thought on the rule & partner made the par for us to keep 1 up lead into final hole.

 

Almost, if there was a debate about this, Decision 13-2/0.5 would have been the source of the final outcome. Maybe you'd like to read it.

 

Thanks for the reference Sawgrass.

 

I find it interesting that the examples of changes unlikely to create a potential advantage seem to all adhere to the commonality that the shot will not be physically affected by those changes (all seem to be a removal of distractions or mental effect of the shot), then the last example of changes likely to create a potential advantage cites removal of distraction as one of the incriminating aspects of the action. I do give significant weight to the fact that the immediately following phrase uses OR as opposed to AND; as it is it makes the removal of distraction an incriminating aspect all by itself:

 

pulls strands of grass from rough a few inches behind his ball to test the wind, but thereby reduces a potential distraction for the player, or resistance to his club, in the area of his intended swing.

 

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it though.

 

Semi-related thought - would a player have a reasonable basis in defending any action which could be construed as granting a potential advantage by saying it was not their intent to gain an advantage by doing so?

[Sawgrass]

 

 

Semi-related thought - would a player have a reasonable basis in defending any action which could be construed as granting a potential advantage by saying it was not their intent to gain an advantage by doing so?

The issue with R 13-2 is whether you improve things, not whether you intended to improve things. For instance, I want to putt from the fringe but there's a previously existing ball mark on my line of play. So I start to go to my bag to switch my putter for my wedge, and I trip and fall on the ball mark accidentally flattening it out.

 

I have thereby violated the Rule -- even though I was pure of heart (and sloppy of feet).