Club Championship Ruling

[Moonlightgrm]

We're playing in three-some's in round 1. One of my competitors gets a bad break and his tee ball ends up in a deep divot. However, when he takes his stance by positioning the ball back in his stance, his front foot is touching a GUR painted line. I tell him he gets relief. Our other member of the three-some says no, the rule applies when taking your normal stance. Rather than argue, I tell the guy to play it as is, but declare you're going to play a 2nd ball, then we'll get a ruling from our club pro.

 

The guy makes the provisional declaration, then plays the first ball. He manages to reach the front edge of the green about 60 feet from the cup. Playing his provisional ball, he lands it pin high to about 15 feet. He proceeds to drain the 60 footer!! He 2-putts the provisional ball.

 

Our club pro gives the ruling, as I felt he would, relief and 2nd ball counts. Par not birdie. The guy feels he may have been wronged. Anyone want to chime in and explain why the ruling was correct? Or incorrect?

 

Our pro got it right on the money based on what I recall the rule book says...

 

Got to get a new copy of the rules of golf to keep in my golf bag.

[tatertot]

So the guy (the player who the ruling worked against) thinks he should get to choose which score he takes? Taking a provisional in this instance doesn't give him the right to choose.

[rogolf]

A couple of points - the 2nd ball is not a provisional, it is a second ball played under Rule 3-3. The player does not get a choice of which score to take - he must declare which he wants to score with before he plays either ball. He must report the fact that he played two balls to the Committee before returning his score card. The ruling of the Committee is final.

[KevCarter]

This is kind of a sticky wicket. You really need to study 3-3 and how to correctly play a second ball. Nothing like a provisional. From your text, I am guessing he didn't correctly announce his intentions, see 3-3b ii, the score with the first ball counts. If he made the proper declaration, announced he wanted the second ball to count, then it's a judgement call as to the validity of his stance. If ruled a valid stance for the shot at hand, the second ball would count.

[Colin L]

Picking up the point about his stance, was he positioning the ball back in his stance because that was the way to deal with a shot from divot hole? If so, he would be eligible for relief from the GUR. The other player is wrong to say he had to take his "normal stance." The rule is that you don't get relief if you are adopting an "unreasonably abnormal stance." That is a long way from adapting your "normal stance" to deal with a specific situation like a divot hole, an uphill or downhill lie etc.

[360jive]

You can always play the ball as it lies except in out of bounds, protected hazards and GUR. He gets the birdie

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='360jive' timestamp='1408750069' post='9990261']
You can always play the ball as it lies except in out of bounds, protected hazards and GUR. He gets the birdie
[/quote]

Did you even read the thread?

Here is a snip of the rule:

[i]"3-3. Doubt as to Procedure
a. Procedure

In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.

After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, [b]the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.[/b]"[/i]

The rule also states that unless he makes the announcement as in bold above, the score with the original ball counts.

[BrianL99]

Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know

[KevCarter]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

[size=4][b]Note:[/b][color=#000000] If the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. [b]However, the [/b][/color][b][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/color][/b][/size]

[BrianL99]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408752204' post='9990471']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000] If the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. [b]However, the [/b][/color][b][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

Thanks Kev, you responded before I even had a chance to find it in the RoG !

[KevCarter]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408752846' post='9990529']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408752204' post='9990471']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000] If the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. [b]However, the [/b][/color][b][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

Thanks Kev, you responded before I even had a chance to find it in the RoG !
[/quote]

Cheers Brian, I already had the page open from the previous answer. Cheating again, but I enjoy the relaxed rules...

[Cancun]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

Hi Brian! You made two questions and Kev already answered one of them. Take a look at 3-3/6.5 Brian:

[quote name='The Rules of Golf']
[b] 3-3/6.5[/b]

[b] Competitor Plays Second Ball Without Announcing Intention to Invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url] and Fails to Report Facts to Committee[/b]

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball came to rest on an artificially-surfaced road which had not been declared an integral part of the course. Without announcing his decision to invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url] or the ball with which he would score if the Rules permitted, the competitor dropped and played a second ball in accordance with Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-24/#24-2b"]24-2b[/url]. The competitor then played the original ball as it lay and completed play of the hole with both balls, scoring 4 with the original ball and 5 with the dropped ball.
The competitor returned his score card to the Committee with a score of 4 on the hole in question and failed to report the facts to the Committee.
What is the ruling?
A.Although the competitor did not announce his decision to invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url], [color=#ff0000][b] it is clear from the facts that he intended to invoke such Rule.[/b][/color] As the competitor did not report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card, he is disqualified under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3a"]3-3a[/url].
[/quote]

It’s a different situation, but from the answer I would say that, if it’s clear for his acts that he intended to invoke such Rule and he called it a “provisional” instead of “a second ball under Rule 3-3” and he informs the Committee before returning his score, he should be deemed to have played under 3-3.

Clearly, the rest of the procedure for playing a second ball had to be correct (make the announcement before taking any action in regards to the original, saying which one he wants to count in case the Rules permit and inform the Committee timely…)

Have a good night!

[BrianL99]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1408754759' post='9990697']

It’s a different situation, but from the answer I would say that, if it’s clear for his acts that he intended to invoke such Rule and he called it a “provisional” instead of “a second ball under Rule 3-3” and he informs the Committee before returning his score, he should be deemed to have played under 3-3.

Clearly, the rest of the procedure for playing a second ball had to be correct (make the announcement before taking any action in regards to the original, saying which one he wants to count in case the Rules permit and inform the Committee timely…)

Have a good night!
[/quote]

Works for me!

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1408754759' post='9990697']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

Hi Brian! You made two questions and Kev already answered one of them. Take a look at 3-3/6.5 Brian:

[quote name='The Rules of Golf']
[b] 3-3/6.5[/b]

[b] Competitor Plays Second Ball Without Announcing Intention to Invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url] and Fails to Report Facts to Committee[/b]

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball came to rest on an artificially-surfaced road which had not been declared an integral part of the course. Without announcing his decision to invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url] or the ball with which he would score if the Rules permitted, the competitor dropped and played a second ball in accordance with Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-24/#24-2b"]24-2b[/url]. The competitor then played the original ball as it lay and completed play of the hole with both balls, scoring 4 with the original ball and 5 with the dropped ball.
The competitor returned his score card to the Committee with a score of 4 on the hole in question and failed to report the facts to the Committee.
What is the ruling?
A.Although the competitor did not announce his decision to invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url], [color=#ff0000][b] it is clear from the facts that he intended to invoke such Rule.[/b][/color] As the competitor did not report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card, he is disqualified under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3a"]3-3a[/url].
[/quote]

It’s a different situation, but from the answer I would say that, if it’s clear for his acts that he intended to invoke such Rule and he called it a “provisional” instead of “a second ball under Rule 3-3” and he informs the Committee before returning his score, he should be deemed to have played under 3-3.

Clearly, the rest of the procedure for playing a second ball had to be correct (make the announcement before taking any action in regards to the original, saying which one he wants to count in case the Rules permit and inform the Committee timely…)

Have a good night!
[/quote]

[s]Based on this decision, it appears my answer in post #4 was incorrect. Thanks for the clarification Cancun![/s]

Kevin

edit: please disregard this post, it confused the issue further

[myspinonit]

This was a good thread for me for a group that does have some relaxed "local rules " (I know, I know) but needs some way to resolve issues and keep playing without acrimony hopefully.

[wobgon]

[quote name='360jive' timestamp='1408750069' post='9990261']
You can always play the ball as it lies except in out of bounds, protected hazards and GUR. He gets the birdie
[/quote]
Another well thought out post......

[Cancun]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408755937' post='9990781']
Based on this decision, it appears my answer in post #4 was incorrect. Thanks for the clarification Cancun!
Kevin
[/quote]

I think your answer was spot on Kev and R 3-3b clearly supports that. As I see it, the decision I quoted respects that, but gives us a base to say that there is some (little) room for flexibility in what the player says or how the player proceeds (not much really).

In your post you say that the player must announce his intentions [b]and that’s what the Rule says[/b]. As I understand the decision, it seems to show us that the player might, at some degree, “show” his intentions. On the other hand, if a player doesn’t say something, his actions could be less than clear.

He still has to say which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit… so it’s not like he can just “do” without saying… .

The best way to be sure is to go by the Rule and make a clear statement!

Have a good weekend my friend!

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1408757129' post='9990897']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408755937' post='9990781']
Based on this decision, it appears my answer in post #4 was incorrect. Thanks for the clarification Cancun!
Kevin
[/quote]

I think your answer was spot on Kev and R 3-3b clearly supports that. As I see it, the decision I quoted respects that, but gives us a base to say that there is some (little) room for flexibility in what the player says or how the player proceeds (not much really).

In your post you say that the player must announce his intentions [b]and that’s what the Rule says[/b]. As I understand the decision, it seems to show us that the player might, at some degree, “show” his intentions. On the other hand, if a player doesn’t say something, his actions could be less than clear.

He still has to say which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit… so it’s not like he can just “do” without saying… .

The best way to be sure is to go by the Rule and make a clear statement!

Have a good weekend my friend!
[/quote]

Thanks again!

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408752204' post='9990471']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000] If the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. [b]However, the [/b][/color][b][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

This is why the good people of GolfWRX county want you out there posting!

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1408758110' post='9991001']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408752204' post='9990471']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000] If the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. [b]However, the [/b][/color][b][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

This is why the good people of GolfWRX county want you out there posting!
[/quote]

Opinions vary... LOL

Cheers!

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1408754759' post='9990697']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1408751937' post='9990437']
Just curious ...

I suspect both players (OP & the player he's speaking of), didn't know the correct "term" and incorrectly called it a "provisional". Per Kevin's post, is it required that the player use the correct terminology or is it sufficient that after discussion, it was clear he was playing an "alternate" ball (per 3.3(a)), with the expectation that the Committee (Pro) would make a determination after the round?

Additionally, if he didn't make the "proper announcement" and it was ruled his first ball is the one that should have counted, isn't he then penalized for playing the 2nd ball?

Inquiring minds want to know
[/quote]

Hi Brian! You made two questions and Kev already answered one of them. Take a look at 3-3/6.5 Brian:

[quote name='The Rules of Golf']
[b] 3-3/6.5[/b]

[b] Competitor Plays Second Ball Without Announcing Intention to Invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url] and Fails to Report Facts to Committee[/b]

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball came to rest on an artificially-surfaced road which had not been declared an integral part of the course. Without announcing his decision to invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url] or the ball with which he would score if the Rules permitted, the competitor dropped and played a second ball in accordance with Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-24/#24-2b"]24-2b[/url]. The competitor then played the original ball as it lay and completed play of the hole with both balls, scoring 4 with the original ball and 5 with the dropped ball.
The competitor returned his score card to the Committee with a score of 4 on the hole in question and failed to report the facts to the Committee.
What is the ruling?
A.Although the competitor did not announce his decision to invoke Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url], [color=#ff0000][b] it is clear from the facts that he intended to invoke such Rule.[/b][/color] As the competitor did not report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card, he is disqualified under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3a"]3-3a[/url].
[/quote]

It’s a different situation, but from the answer I would say that, if it’s clear for his acts that he intended to invoke such Rule and he called it a “provisional” instead of “a second ball under Rule 3-3” and he informs the Committee before returning his score, he should be deemed to have played under 3-3.

Clearly, the rest of the procedure for playing a second ball had to be correct (make the announcement before taking any action in regards to the original, saying which one he wants to count in case the Rules permit and inform the Committee timely…)

Have a good night!
[/quote]

You, on the other hand, need no encouragement!

(Though we need your posts.)

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1408757129' post='9990897']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1408755937' post='9990781']
Based on this decision, it appears my answer in post #4 was incorrect. Thanks for the clarification Cancun!
Kevin
[/quote]

I think your answer was spot on Kev and R 3-3b clearly supports that. As I see it, the decision I quoted respects that, but gives us a base to say that there is some (little) room for flexibility in what the player says or how the player proceeds (not much really).

In your post you say that the player must announce his intentions [b]and that’s what the Rule says[/b]. As I understand the decision, it seems to show us that the player might, at some degree, “show” his intentions. On the other hand, if a player doesn’t say something, his actions could be less than clear.

He still has to say which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit… so it’s not like he can just “do” without saying… .

The best way to be sure is to go by the Rule and make a clear statement!

Have a good weekend my friend!
[/quote]

Ok, so as I read this you both seem to think that the club pro missed the call on this situation based on the fact that the player did not declare which ball he wished to count.

While I don't necessarily disagree, I see a potential for a real problem with this situation. The player obviously wished to score the second ball originally or he would have never played the second ball - there was absolutely no need to play a second ball if he did not desire it to count.

Thoughts? I know the rule states that a declaration must be made, but this seems to be one of those instances where the rules could allow a player to actually benefit from interpreting a rule incorrectly. Am I misunderstanding?

As I read what is being proposed here a player could benefit from intentionally not declaring which ball he wished to count, therefore making the second ball a moot point if he had a better score on the original ball OR, if his second was better he could hope that the committee missed the fact that he hadn't declared and score that ball instead.

[Sawgrass]

Here's the note from 3-3a:

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000][size=2] If the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/size][/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000][size=2] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/size][/color]

I read that as meaning if prior to announcing his intention to play a second ball he drops or hits his original, only the original or dropped ball counts, no penalty. Don't need to consult the committee, because 3-3 was not in play.

But if he first declares his intention to play two balls via 3-3-- and subsequently fails to consult the committee before signing his card -- he is DQed whether or not he stated which ball he hoped would count.

Not sure . . . interested in further responses.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1408759827' post='9991181']
Here's the note from 3-3a:

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000][size=2] If the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/size][/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000][size=2] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/size][/color]

I read that as meaning if prior to announcing his intention to play a second ball he drops or hits his original, only the original or dropped ball counts, no penalty. Don't need to consult the committee, because 3-3 was not in play.

But if he first declares his intention to play two balls via 3-3-- and subsequently fails to consult the committee before signing his card -- he is DQed whether or not he stated which ball he hoped would count.

Not sure . . . interested in further responses.
[/quote]

Sawgrass, I know that your rules interpretations are spot on. If you were replying to my post above, I agree with what you say........ except that there is an allowance under another decision that indicates that the committee can "infer" intent to play a second ball even though it was not declared. There is no such decision that I can find that allows this inference for the declaration of which ball he wishes to count - and that, as I now understand it, is my problem with this situation.

If he took further action before declaring to play two balls, which he did, the committee can assume by his actions that he intended to invoke 3-3. Can they do the same assumptions concerning which ball he wished to count? I can't find a specific reference to this.

[edwjmcgrath]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1408759827' post='9991181']
Here's the note from 3-3a:

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000][size=2] If the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/size][/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000][size=2] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/size][/color]

I read that as meaning if prior to announcing his intention to play a second ball he drops or hits his original, only the original or dropped ball counts, no penalty. Don't need to consult the committee, because 3-3 was not in play.

But if he first declares his intention to play two balls via 3-3-- and subsequently fails to consult the committee before signing his card -- he is DQed whether or not he stated which ball he hoped would count.

Not sure . . . interested in further responses.
[/quote]
Agree.

[edwjmcgrath]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1408760484' post='9991269']
[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1408759827' post='9991181']
Here's the note from 3-3a:

[b]Note:[/b][color=#000000][size=2] If the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule [/size][/color][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-03/#3-3"]3-3[/url][color=#000000][size=2] is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any [/size][/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Penalty-Stroke"]penalty strokes[/url][/i][color=#000000][size=2] incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.[/size][/color]

I read that as meaning if prior to announcing his intention to play a second ball he drops or hits his original, only the original or dropped ball counts, no penalty. Don't need to consult the committee, because 3-3 was not in play.

But if he first declares his intention to play two balls via 3-3-- and subsequently fails to consult the committee before signing his card -- he is DQed whether or not he stated which ball he hoped would count.

Not sure . . . interested in further responses.
[/quote]

Sawgrass, I know that your rules interpretations are spot on. If you were replying to my post above, I agree with what you say........ except that there is an allowance under another decision that indicates that the committee can "infer" intent to play a second ball even though it was not declared. There is no such decision that I can find that allows this inference for the declaration - and that, as I now understand it, is the problem with this situation.

If he took further action before declaring to play two balls, which he did, the committee can assume by his actions that he intended to invoke 3-3. Can they do the same assumptions concerning which ball he wished to count? I can't find a specific reference to this.
[/quote]

IMO. The committee has some leeway to infer that the player intended to play two balls under 3-3 based on conversation or other verbal indications. Simply playing one ball and then playing a different ball does not meet that test.
On the other hand, the requirement for the player to declare which ball he wishes to count is pretty cut and dried. I don't see support for the committee inferring which ball the player wished to count if he did not declare it.

In the case we are talking about, the player is confused between 3-3 and 27-2 but clearly intends to play two balls and let the committee decide. The committee should rule that the player intended to play under 3-3. However, he did not declare which ball he wished to count even though it might be obvious that he would prefer to take relief. The committee should rule that the first ball played counts.

[Hardluckster]

'edwjmcgrath, From reading 3-3/6.5 I seem to disagree about simply playing another ball not meeting the test for applying 3-3. That decision seems to me to suggest that no verbal communication is necessary and allows the committee to make that inference.

IMO, if that inference can be made it seems that there should be (but is not, strictly according to the RoG) a reasonable allowance for the committee to make the assumption concerning which ball the player intended to have counted.

I understand that in this instance the player simply stated the incorrect terminology. Strictly speaking, the pro got it wrong according to the letter of the law. This situation just got me thinking about other possibilities.

Unless I am missing something in the rules, this seems to me to be one of those instances where another decision should be included that would allow for that inference. Either that, or do away with the allowance for the committee to assume the invoking of 3-3 without a declaration.

Of course, this is only my reading of the rules, but I find it interesting that this situation hasn't been addressed by the RoG.

EDIT: After further thought, the allowance for the committee to infer the intent to invoke 3-3 does have the effect of allowing the committee to ignore the penalty for playing a ball that is not in play. Maybe that is the reason for this particular exception?

[Newby]

When the rule determines that the first ball should count if the player makes no declaration, it removes all the doubts and problems associated with inferring the players intent.

IMO the intent to play under 3-3 is clearly distinguishable from a practice stroke. Further it is not as critical as the provisional ball declaration.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1408764123' post='9991571']
'edwjmcgrath, From reading 3-3/6.5 I seem to disagree about simply playing another ball not meeting the test for applying 3-3. That decision seems to me to suggest that no verbal communication is necessary and allows the committee to make that inference.

IMO, if that inference can be made it seems that there should be (but is not, strictly according to the RoG) a reasonable allowance for the committee to make the assumption concerning which ball the player intended to have counted.

I understand that in this instance the player simply stated the incorrect terminology. Strictly speaking, the pro got it wrong according to the letter of the law. This situation just got me thinking about other possibilities.

Unless I am missing something in the rules, this seems to me to be one of those instances where another decision should be included that would allow for that inference. Either that, or do away with the allowance for the committee to assume the invoking of 3-3 without a declaration.

Of course, this is only my reading of the rules, but I find it interesting that this situation hasn't been addressed by the RoG.

EDIT: After further thought, the allowance for the committee to infer the intent to invoke 3-3 does have the effect of allowing the committee to ignore the penalty for playing a ball that is not in play. Maybe that is the reason for this particular exception?
[/quote]

IMO, the rules have dealt with it. You must make the declaration, or the first ball will count. I mucked up the issue when I was confused by the purpose of 3-3/6.5, and I believe in the end you got to the correct answer as well. Thanks to Mr Sawgrass, Mr. Cancun, Mr. Newby, and Mr. Mcgrath for cleaning up after me.

[edwjmcgrath]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1408764123' post='9991571']
'edwjmcgrath, From reading 3-3/6.5 I seem to disagree about simply playing another ball not meeting the test for applying 3-3. That decision seems to me to suggest that no verbal communication is necessary and allows the committee to make that inference.
[/quote]
You're right that it doesn't require verbal communication, but it does require some clear indication of intent. In 3-3/6.5, the player left his ball in play on the obstruction and played another ball (substitution would not have been allowed by 24-2b). That is enough to show the intent. If however, the player did it in reverse-played the ball off the cart path and then dropped a ball under 24-2b, that would not be clear intent in my mind.