Club Championship Ruling

[KevCarter]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1409001567' post='10006097']
[quote name='Moonlightgrm' timestamp='1409001158' post='10006045']
The final say: Our pro decided to call the USGA and ask how they would have handled this situation, they told him he ruled correctly. [size=5][b]The intent is obvious for this specific case.[/b][/size] Clearly the golfer did not want to play the ball from the divot, if the rules allowed relief. The rules do allow for relief, thus the 2nd ball is the ball that is scored. PAR (4) is the correct score for this player.
[/quote]

Thanks for following up!
[/quote]



[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409010248' post='10006903']
Hi Kevin, Hardluckster:

Imagine a player doubting about his rights so he wants to play 2 balls under 3-3. He says: “I’m not sure really, [b]maybe I have to [/b]drop (or “[b]maybe I’m allowed[/b]” to drop or “[b]maybe I should[/b]” drop) another ball and see which is correct. Or imagine he asks: I can play two balls right? And he does, without making the announcement and he plays both balls all the way to the hole and asks the Committee for a ruling before returning his score (which is part of the actions that may show his intent).

We don’t know if [b]he wanted[/b], he [b]thought he had to[/b] or [b]he thought he could[/b] drop. We don’t know if the drop area was nice on the fairway or almost unplayable… we don’t know if the line of play would improve with the drop or not.

We could suggest any number of scenarios where it would be “obvious” that the player wanted this or that. Let’s just say that his words were in the general sense of my lines above.

If the player is not deemed to have played under 3-3 and he strikes his original first, he would be playing under stroke and distance from a wrong place with the second one (or practicing?). If it was a wrong lace, was itr a serious breach?. Then he plays both balls… since he goes back to his original each time, we would need to rule that he made practice strokes each time he hit the second ball… you could be adding penalty strokes very, very fast.

If the player’s actions made clear his intention, D 3-3/6.5 allows the committee to deem that he was proceeding under 3-3. [b]That doesn’t mean that he was “correctly” proceeding under such Rule[/b]. He won’t be penalized, but Rule 3-3 tells us exactly what to do if the player didn’t say which ball he prefers to count, so the Rule must be applied.

I’m guessing that in the OP situation, the player did say which ball he wanted to count.

I hope this helps.
[/quote]

Cancun,

I agree with what you have written 100%. However, based upon the post quoted above, the USGA ruled on the players intent, not the declaration, which I believe was nonexistent. That is the issue I've had since my first post early on in the thread. I was always taught, when officiating and applying 3-3, you must start with determining what was said by the player. Did he declare which ball he wanted to count if allowed? That has now been thrown out the window with determining his "intent" after the fact. I disagree with the ruling, if in fact the player made no declaration.

Kevin

[Cancun]

My advice to you Kevin: don’t change your understanding of the Rule for what has been said (either by me or by others) in this thread. I don’t mean any disrespect to anybody and I’ve enjoyed reading, but there’s a simple truth:

All we know is this:

[quote name='Moonlightgrm' timestamp='1408744874' post='9989811']
[b]The guy makes the provisional declaration, then plays the first ball.[/b] 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.

[b]Our club pro gives the ruling, as I felt he would, relief and 2nd ball counts.[/b] 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?
[/quote]

We also know that the pro wanted to confirm the ruling and the USGA told him he was right.

We don’t know the terms of the “provisional statement” and we don’t know anything about the conversation between the player and the pro, nor about the terms of the consult from the pro to the USGA. That’s why I strongly recommend you to trust how you’ve interpreted the Rule…

My best to you!

[Hardluckster]

My sole purpose in posting on this topic from the outset has been to try to wrap my head around the ruling, specifically what would be correct if in this situation the player did not declare for the second ball as his choice. I am by no means a rules expert and probably just about everyone here knows more about the rules than I do, but I am still lost as to what the correct ruling should be - at least as the rules are now written.

I see the conflicting issue between rule 3-3 and the issue of intent. I can also see the logic behind the intent argument, but see no allowance for it in the RoG.

I have learned many things about the rules since starting to read this forum; many of you know so much about them. Hopefully I will come to understand the reasoning behind this one also.

I personally do not have an issue with the failure to declare the playing of a second ball, due to decision 3-3/6.5. Maybe I am thinking way too simplistically, but to me that decision allows for inference on that point. I could better understand the USGA ruling if there was any coinciding allowance for the declaration of the second ball. Again, that is possibly way too simplistic a viewpoint.

Bottom line is I am still confused.

[Hardluckster]

Cancun, I agree that there are way too many unknowns for a solid conclusion at this point.

What about this hypothetical scenario: player A hits into a deep divot in fairway, stance is in GUR, he asks for ruling and gets conflicting opinions. He drops a ball, without declaring, and hits to 15 feet. He then hits the original to 60 feet. He made no declaration of any sort. He makes the 60 footer for birdie and makes par with the ball that was dropped. When he finishes he reports tot he committee that he played two balls because he was unsure of the proper ruling. He admits to not declaring for the second ball because he was ignorant of the need for doing so.

By rule it would seem to me that his original ball must be counted. I wonder what the USGA would say.

[rogolf]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1409015144' post='10007365']
Cancun, I agree that there are way too many unknowns for a solid conclusion at this point.

What about this hypothetical scenario: player A hits into a deep divot in fairway, stance is in GUR, he asks for ruling and gets conflicting opinions. [b]He drops a ball, without declaring[/b], and hits to 15 feet. He then hits the original to 60 feet. [b]He made no declaration of any sort.[/b] He makes the 60 footer for birdie and makes par with the ball that was dropped. When he finishes he reports tot he committee that he played two balls because he was unsure of the proper ruling. [b]He admits to not declaring[/b] for the second ball because he was ignorant of the need for doing so.

By rule it would seem to me that his original ball must be counted. [b]I wonder what the USGA would say.[/b]
[/quote]

I'm hesitant to enter the discussion at this point, but the USGA and R&A have already answered your question in Decision 3-3/0.5, point 1 - "if the competitor does not announce or select in advance, the score with the original ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise, the score with the second ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules."

[Cancun]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1409015144' post='10007365']
Cancun, I agree that there are way too many unknowns for a solid conclusion at this point.

What about this hypothetical scenario: player A hits into a deep divot in fairway, stance is in GUR, he asks for ruling and gets conflicting opinions. He drops a ball, without declaring, and hits to 15 feet. He then hits the original to 60 feet. He made no declaration of any sort. He makes the 60 footer for birdie and makes par with the ball that was dropped. When he finishes he reports tot he committee that he played two balls because he was unsure of the proper ruling. He admits to not declaring for the second ball because he was ignorant of the need for doing so.

By rule it would seem to me that his original ball must be counted. I wonder what the USGA would say.
[/quote]

I like the way you present it Hardluckster . At least now we know precisely what happened in the scenario.

First: What happened before is exactly what 3-3 is about: a doubtful point as on the Rules. He had to make a statement stating which ball he wanted to count and he didn’t.

D 3-3/6.5 allows the Committee to deem that he was playing under 3-3, so there’s no penalty for playing the second ball. For me, that’s about all we can get from that decision. We will infer, from his actions and from what was said at the moment, that he was playing under 3-3… and that’s the only thing I think we should infer.

Now: if he was proceeding under 3-3 and he failed to say which ball he wanted to count, the original ball counts. The score after the ruling is irrelevant, as I see it. Of course this wouldn’t be the first time I could be wrong (I’m becoming an expert in that )

Imagine that the player scores the birdie you mentioned, but he holes out from the spot where the doubt arose and makes an eagle, or imagine that he three putts with the first one and still makes the eagle with the other one… As I see it, we should rule which ball counts and, as far as I see it, the score is not an element to determine that.

If the player proceeds under 3-3 and he failed to say which ball he wants to count, the original ball counts… that’s the ruling I’d make.

As for a player benefitting from a mistake in the application of a Rule, let me ask you:

A player sends his tee shot way to the right, 270 yards from the tee into an area that he believes is OB. When he sees that the ball is beyond the stakes, he drops another ball two within two club-lengths of and no closer to the hole than the spot where the ball last crossed the stakes line. He adds a penalty stroke and finishes the hole. We know that OB means stroke and distance and that would be a serious breach. Surprise: the stakes where red and the player thought it was OB when it was really a lateral water hazard. The spot where the player dropped was correct as per the applicable Rule… end of the story: He was lucky and his score was correct thanks to a mistake in the application of Rule 27.

That’s how I see it… but I haven’t sent any question to the USGA …

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409016889' post='10007589']

I like the way you present it Hardluckster . At least now we know precisely what happened in the scenario.

First: What happened before is exactly what 3-3 is about: a doubtful point as on the Rules. He had to make a statement stating which ball he wanted to count and he didn’t.

D 3-3/6.5 allows the Committee to deem that he was playing under 3-3, so there’s no penalty for playing the second ball. For me, that’s about all we can get from that decision. We will infer, from his actions and from what was said at the moment, that he was playing under 3-3… and that’s the only thing I think we should infer.

Now: if he was proceeding under 3-3 and he failed to say which ball he wanted to count, the original ball counts. The score after the ruling is irrelevant, as I see it. Of course this wouldn’t be the first time I could be wrong (I’m becoming an expert in that )

Imagine that the player scores the birdie you mentioned, but he holes out from the spot where the doubt arose and makes an eagle, or imagine that he three putts with the first one and still makes the eagle with the other one… As I see it, we should rule which ball counts and, as far as I see it, the score is not an element to determine that.

If the player proceeds under 3-3 and he failed to say which ball he wants to count, the original ball counts… that’s the ruling I’d make.
[/quote]

The way I read the rule, I agree with this completely.

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409016889' post='10007589']
As for a player benefitting from a mistake in the application of a Rule, let me ask you:

A player sends his tee shot way to the right, 270 yards from the tee into an area that he believes is OB. When he sees that the ball is beyond the stakes, he drops another ball two within two club-lengths of and no closer to the hole than the spot where the ball last crossed the stakes line. He adds a penalty stroke and finishes the hole. We know that OB means stroke and distance and that would be a serious breach. Surprise: the stakes where red and the player thought it was OB when it was really a lateral water hazard. The spot where the player dropped was correct as per the applicable Rule… end of the story: He was lucky and his score was correct thanks to a mistake in the application of Rule 27.

That’s how I see it… but I haven’t sent any question to the USGA …
[/quote]

While I understand and appreciate this analogy, and even see how it can be applied to the application of 3-3, there are differences that still cause me concern. In the original scenario that I presented, the players intent seems to me to be blaringly obvious - and that is my problem with rule 3-3 and with decision 3-3/6.5.

Maybe this will clear up my problem with the rule and decision (at least as it would pertain to my hypothetical example: if there was no allowance for the committee to infer intent as to the player invoking 3-3, I would have no issue with them not being able to infer his intention as to which ball he wished to score. I have trouble grasping that they can infer one but not the other, when the rule clearly states the player must declare both. Of course, if they couldn't infer his intention to use 3-3 there would be no reason to infer which ball was his intention to score (oh, this is painful and I feel like a dog that is chasing his own tail) because at that point he would be penalized for "practicing", which brings in a whole new set of parameters. Argh!

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1409016767' post='10007577']

I'm hesitant to enter the discussion at this point, but the USGA and R&A have already answered your question in Decision 3-3/0.5, point 1 - "if the competitor does not announce or select in advance, the score with the original ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise, the score with the second ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules."
[/quote]

Don't hesitate, rogolf, cause I obviously need all the help I can get trying to wrap my mind around this ruling. All input is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

[Sawgrass]

Perhaps it's useful to note that a player's actions are there to imply his intention to invoke 3-3, but in many cases there would be no external evidence of which ball he hoped to score.

[myspinonit]

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1409016767' post='10007577']
I'm hesitant to enter the discussion at this point, but the USGA and R&A have already answered your question in Decision 3-3/0.5, point 1 - "if the competitor does not announce or select in advance, the score with the original ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise, the score with the second ball counts if played in accordance with the Rules."
[/quote]

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1409016767' post='10007577']
Don't hesitate, rogolf, cause I obviously need all the help I can get trying to wrap my mind around this ruling. All input is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
[/quote]

I'm hesitant too, but as someone who interpreted government legislation for a living, and applied it to individual cases, the answer that came back to the question for this thread is odd, especially in light of the decision Rogolf has brought forward. And as others have said, there is a question what was actually asked for the USGA ruling, and what the player actually said.

In my prior working world there was legislation, regulation and policies, all of which had to go back to the legislation to apply to specific cases. Sometimes answers to questions or policies came out that didn't quite meet legislative requirements. Policies (and regulations) that were not supported by the legislation were not defendable.

I may be out to lunch here how the R and A and USGA operate. But... I suggest in that comparative context that a golf Rule is "legislation:" and a "decision" is a "regulation", and MUST be supported by the Rule. A question posed, that gets an answer, is not a decision (regulation) , though probably by a vary knowledgeable authorized person, is really a policy interpretation based on the facts as presented to deal wit the case. But...it must always lead directly back to the Rule (Legislation). If it does not, it is wrong.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='myspinonit' timestamp='1409021840' post='10008265']

I'm hesitant too, but as someone who interpreted government legislation for a living, and applied it to individual cases, the answer that came back to the question for this thread is odd, especially in light of the decision Rogolf has brought forward. And as others have said, there is a question what was actually asked for the USGA ruling, and what the player actually said.

In my prior working world there was legislation, regulation and policies, all of which had to go back to the legislation to apply to specific cases. Sometimes answers to questions or policies came out that didn't quite meet legislative requirements. Policies (and regulations) that were not supported by the legislation were not defendable.

I may be out to lunch here how the R and A and USGA operate. But... I suggest in that comparative context that a golf Rule is "legislation:" and a "decision" is a "regulation", and MUST be supported by the Rule. A question posed, that gets an answer, is not a decision (regulation) , though probably by a vary knowledgeable authorized person, is really a policy interpretation based on the facts as presented to deal wit the case. But...it must always lead directly back to the Rule (Legislation). If it does not, it is wrong.
[/quote]

I think I actually understand this.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1409021467' post='10008205']
Perhaps it's useful to note that a player's actions are there to imply his intention to invoke 3-3, but in many cases there would be no external evidence of which ball he hoped to score.
[/quote]

But there could be times when the actions would not specifically imply intent, no? I swear that I am not attempting to be argumentative.

I think I'm just gonna concede that i will most likely not ever completely understand the logic of this hypothetical.

[HitEmTrue]

Let's assume the player didn't announce which ball he wanted to score before hitting both balls.

Let's also assume that the pro asked the player which ball he was hoping to score when he took the procedure (not after the hole was over), and that the player said his hope was that he could get relief and use the second ball.

Do you believe the pro rules correctly in this scenario? I do.

[Newby]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1409035619' post='10009017']
Let's assume the player didn't announce which ball he wanted to score [b]before hitting both balls.[/b]

Let's also assume that the pro asked the player which ball he was hoping to score when he took the procedure (not after the hole was over), and that the player said his hope was that he could get relief and use the second ball.

Do you believe the pro rules correctly in this scenario? I do.
[/quote]

Given the precise wording of the Rule, how do you make that case? The whole point is that the player doesn't have the opportunity to see which shot has the better outcome.

[i][size=4][color=#000000]After the doubtful situation has arisen and[b] before taking further action[/b], the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] must announce to his [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Marker"]marker[/url][/i][color=#000000] or [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Fellow-Competitor"]fellow-competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] permit.[/color][/size][/i]

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1409038202' post='10009053']
[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1409035619' post='10009017']
Let's assume the player didn't announce which ball he wanted to score [b]before hitting both balls.[/b]

Let's also assume that the pro asked the player which ball he was hoping to score when he took the procedure (not after the hole was over), and that the player said his hope was that he could get relief and use the second ball.

Do you believe the pro rules correctly in this scenario? I do.
[/quote]

Given the precise wording of the Rule, how do you make that case? The whole point is that the player doesn't have the opportunity to see which shot has the better outcome.

[i][size=4][color=#000000]After the doubtful situation has arisen and[b] before taking further action[/b], the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Competitor"]competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] must announce to his [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Marker"]marker[/url][/i][color=#000000] or [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Fellow-Competitor"]fellow-competitor[/url][/i][color=#000000] that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the [/color][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][color=#000000] permit.[/color][/size][/i]
[/quote]

The pro and the USGA made a ruling for the 2nd ball (higher score) without evidence of player announcing that is the ball he wanted to use beforehand.

The player admitting which ball he hoped would count BEFORE taking both shots has no bearing in your mind?

[Newby]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1409039170' post='10009081']

The pro and the USGA made a ruling for the 2nd ball (higher score) [b]without evidence[/b] of player announcing that is the ball he wanted to use beforehand.[/quote]

Neither of the OP's 2 posts tell us what was actually said by who to whom. ie player to FCs, player to pro or pro to USGA.

[quote]
The player admitting which ball he hoped would count BEFORE taking both shots has no bearing in your mind?
[/quote]

I saw nothing about the player 'hoping'. Perhaps I missed it.

[edwjmcgrath]

I'll bet that the pro's description to the USGA did not match what the OP said.
The rule is clear and the USGA doesn't get simple answers wrong.

[Hardluckster]

I have emailed my hypothetical from above to the USGA. When I get a response I will let the board know how they ruled.

[larrybud]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1408912423' post='9998885']
3-3 is about being unsure of the rules
They are not sure which will conform to the particular rule so they play a second just in case the first doesn't conform. The second will only apply if the first doesn't.
[/quote]

Right, but in this case, if he wanted to play the ball out of a divot, he would never have even questioned taking a drop.

The fact that he wanted to take an *optional* drop implies to me that he wanted the 2nd ball to count.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1409044338' post='10009185']
[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1409039170' post='10009081']
The pro and the USGA made a ruling for the 2nd ball (higher score) [b]without evidence[/b] of player announcing that is the ball he wanted to use beforehand.[/quote]

Neither of the OP's 2 posts tell us what was actually said by who to whom. ie player to FCs, player to pro or pro to USGA.

[quote]
The player admitting which ball he hoped would count BEFORE taking both shots has no bearing in your mind?
[/quote]

I saw nothing about the player 'hoping'. Perhaps I missed it.
[/quote]

Newby, there has been a lot of discussion over these 3 pages about an IMPLIED invoking of Rule 3-3 through actions, rather than words (dec 3-3/6.5). Further discussion on whether there are any situations where the desired ball (yet unannounced) can also be implied. I was merely throwing out a scenario where the player may admit to the committee (after the round) his intent (before hitting both balls, but unannounced) that works against his favor.

Also, the OP is the person who suggested that the player play a second ball to get a ruling later. The OP also called that ball a provisional. I don't think we are standing on a shaky limb when believing that there was no announcement regarding the desired ball to score.

Moonlightgrm, it would be great if you could shed more light on whether there was such an announcement made by the player.

[Veng]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409010248' post='10006903']
Hi Kevin, Hardluckster:

Imagine a player doubting about his rights so he wants to play 2 balls under 3-3. He says: “I’m not sure really, [b]maybe I have to [/b]drop (or “[b]maybe I’m allowed[/b]” to drop or “[b]maybe I should[/b]” drop) another ball and see which is correct. Or imagine he asks: I can play two balls right? And he does, without making the announcement and he plays both balls all the way to the hole and asks the Committee for a ruling before returning his score (which is part of the actions that may show his intent).

We don’t know if [b]he wanted[/b], he [b]thought he had to[/b] or [b]he thought he could[/b] drop. We don’t know if the drop area was nice on the fairway or almost unplayable… we don’t know if the line of play would improve with the drop or not.

We could suggest any number of scenarios where it would be “obvious” that the player wanted this or that. Let’s just say that his words were in the general sense of my lines above.

If the player is not deemed to have played under 3-3 and he strikes his original first, he would be playing under stroke and distance from a wrong place with the second one (or practicing?). If it was a wrong lace, was itr a serious breach?. Then he plays both balls… since he goes back to his original each time, we would need to rule that he made practice strokes each time he hit the second ball… you could be adding penalty strokes very, very fast.

If the player’s actions made clear his intention, D 3-3/6.5 allows the committee to deem that he was proceeding under 3-3. [b]That doesn’t mean that he was “correctly” proceeding under such Rule[/b]. He won’t be penalized, but Rule 3-3 tells us exactly what to do if the player didn’t say which ball he prefers to count, so the Rule must be applied.

I’m guessing that in the OP situation, the player did say which ball he wanted to count.

I hope this helps.
[/quote]
How can you argue a difference between "Announcing to proceed under 3-3" and "Announcing which ball he wants to hit"? The text of the rules makes no distinction between the two. "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." I don't think this argument holds water, and it makes a real mess of the rules as the decision then seems to contradict the rules. I suggest the following interpertation instead:

After more thought, I don't believe 3-3/6.5 finds or deemed the player to have made an announced. They found he attemtped to proceed under 3-3 and did so incorrectly. Before the issue of announcement is addressed, the issue of player runs afowl of failing to report and is DQed. This interpertation means 3-3/6.5 does not apply, as the player in question did report the facts to the offical afterwards. Since he failed to announce he was proceeding under 3-3 AND he failed to announce which ball he intended to score, 3-3 b (ii) determins his fate, the first ball plays.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Veng' timestamp='1409064992' post='10010729']
[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409010248' post='10006903']
Hi Kevin, Hardluckster:

Imagine a player doubting about his rights so he wants to play 2 balls under 3-3. He says: “I’m not sure really, [b]maybe I have to [/b]drop (or “[b]maybe I’m allowed[/b]” to drop or “[b]maybe I should[/b]” drop) another ball and see which is correct. Or imagine he asks: I can play two balls right? And he does, without making the announcement and he plays both balls all the way to the hole and asks the Committee for a ruling before returning his score (which is part of the actions that may show his intent).

We don’t know if [b]he wanted[/b], he [b]thought he had to[/b] or [b]he thought he could[/b] drop. We don’t know if the drop area was nice on the fairway or almost unplayable… we don’t know if the line of play would improve with the drop or not.

We could suggest any number of scenarios where it would be “obvious” that the player wanted this or that. Let’s just say that his words were in the general sense of my lines above.

If the player is not deemed to have played under 3-3 and he strikes his original first, he would be playing under stroke and distance from a wrong place with the second one (or practicing?). If it was a wrong lace, was itr a serious breach?. Then he plays both balls… since he goes back to his original each time, we would need to rule that he made practice strokes each time he hit the second ball… you could be adding penalty strokes very, very fast.

If the player’s actions made clear his intention, D 3-3/6.5 allows the committee to deem that he was proceeding under 3-3. [b]That doesn’t mean that he was “correctly” proceeding under such Rule[/b]. He won’t be penalized, but Rule 3-3 tells us exactly what to do if the player didn’t say which ball he prefers to count, so the Rule must be applied.

I’m guessing that in the OP situation, the player did say which ball he wanted to count.

I hope this helps.
[/quote]
How can you argue a difference between "Announcing to proceed under 3-3" and "Announcing which ball he wants to hit"? The text of the rules makes no distinction between the two. "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." I don't think this argument holds water, and it makes a real mess of the rules as the decision then seems to contradict the rules. I suggest the following interpertation instead:

After more thought, I don't believe 3-3/6.5 finds or deemed the player to have made an announced. They found he attemtped to proceed under 3-3 and did so incorrectly. Before the issue of announcement is addressed, the issue of player runs afowl of failing to report and is DQed. This interpertation means 3-3/6.5 does not apply, as the player in question did report the facts to the offical afterwards. Since he failed to announce he was proceeding under 3-3 AND he failed to announce which ball he intended to score, 3-3 b (ii) determins his fate, the first ball plays.
[/quote]

This would be completely the opposite of your last post to me?

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1409066748' post='10010935']
[quote name='Veng' timestamp='1409064992' post='10010729']
[b]After more thought, [/b][/quote]

This would be completely the opposite of your last post to me?
[/quote]

He changed his mind.

I don't know what to think, yet.

[Cancun]

[quote name='Veng' timestamp='1409064992' post='10010729']
How can you argue a difference between "Announcing to proceed under 3-3" and "Announcing which ball he wants to hit"? The text of the rules makes no distinction between the two. "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." [/quote]

I’m sorry Veng: I can’t see your point. I don’t argue the difference between making the announcement and declaring which ball the player wants to count. The Rules tell us those are two different things when they say that the player has to do one AND the other, which means these are two different statements. A player may do none, one or both of them. D 3-3/6.5 allows assuming one but not the other…


[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1409035619' post='10009017'] Let's assume the player didn't announce which ball he wanted to score before hitting both balls. Let's also assume that the pro asked the player which ball he was hoping to score when he took the procedure (not after the hole was over), and that the player said his hope was that he could get relief and use the second ball. Do you believe the pro rules correctly in this scenario? I do. [/quote]

I can surely see your point HitEm. The concept of [b]Justice[/b] somehow wants to let the player take his par (the second ball) instead of a birdie (the original ball), since a mistake in the application of the Rule would give him an advantage. I agree that, if asked before hitting any ball, the player was 99.99 likely to say that he preferred the second ball and that it’s logical to assume that he wanted that ball to count.

I’ve talked about the importance of the player’s intent in several threads so I completely understand your point.

On the other hand: the idea of this Rule is to help when a doubtful situation arises. [b]The Rules are not there to punish the players.[/b] The Rule allows the player to chose which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit (obviously before hitting any of them). [b]By not following the procedure, the player loses that privilege. There’s no reason to penalize the player![/b]

By Rule, [b]he lost his chance[/b] to choose the ball he wanted and that’s his only downside. This group seems to be trying to penalize him for sinking a 60 ft putt!

Imagine this: the same scenario. The original ball is 60 ft from the hole (in 2) and the second ball is 5 ft from the cup (also in 2). As the players arrive to the green they see the 3 members of the Rules Committee. The players decide to tell them what happened back there and the Committee answers that the original ball must count, since the player didn’t specifically announce which ball he wanted to count.

Would you agree with that ruling? Would that sound fair to you? I think most will say yes. Then the player proceeds to sink the 60 footer for birdie… I say [b]good for him[/b]!

I hope this perspective helps… and I hope you all have a good day!

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409067520' post='10011037']
On the other hand: the idea of this Rule is to help when a doubtful situation arises. [b]The Rules are not there to punish the players.[/b] The Rule allows the player to chose which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit (obviously before hitting any of them). [b]By not following the procedure, the player loses that privilege. There’s no reason to penalize the player![/b]
[/quote]

I'm not suggesting that he be punished. Only trying to understand the ruling, and whether there is any wriggle room (there apparently is some) regarding players intent. The result hopefully would have been the same (2nd ball counting) if he'd birdied the second ball and made par with the original.

[Veng]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1409066748' post='10010935']
[quote name='Veng' timestamp='1409064992' post='10010729']
[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409010248' post='10006903']
Hi Kevin, Hardluckster:

Imagine a player doubting about his rights so he wants to play 2 balls under 3-3. He says: “I’m not sure really, [b]maybe I have to [/b]drop (or “[b]maybe I’m allowed[/b]” to drop or “[b]maybe I should[/b]” drop) another ball and see which is correct. Or imagine he asks: I can play two balls right? And he does, without making the announcement and he plays both balls all the way to the hole and asks the Committee for a ruling before returning his score (which is part of the actions that may show his intent).

We don’t know if [b]he wanted[/b], he [b]thought he had to[/b] or [b]he thought he could[/b] drop. We don’t know if the drop area was nice on the fairway or almost unplayable… we don’t know if the line of play would improve with the drop or not.

We could suggest any number of scenarios where it would be “obvious” that the player wanted this or that. Let’s just say that his words were in the general sense of my lines above.

If the player is not deemed to have played under 3-3 and he strikes his original first, he would be playing under stroke and distance from a wrong place with the second one (or practicing?). If it was a wrong lace, was itr a serious breach?. Then he plays both balls… since he goes back to his original each time, we would need to rule that he made practice strokes each time he hit the second ball… you could be adding penalty strokes very, very fast.

If the player’s actions made clear his intention, D 3-3/6.5 allows the committee to deem that he was proceeding under 3-3. [b]That doesn’t mean that he was “correctly” proceeding under such Rule[/b]. He won’t be penalized, but Rule 3-3 tells us exactly what to do if the player didn’t say which ball he prefers to count, so the Rule must be applied.

I’m guessing that in the OP situation, the player did say which ball he wanted to count.

I hope this helps.
[/quote]
How can you argue a difference between "Announcing to proceed under 3-3" and "Announcing which ball he wants to hit"? The text of the rules makes no distinction between the two. "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." I don't think this argument holds water, and it makes a real mess of the rules as the decision then seems to contradict the rules. I suggest the following interpertation instead:

After more thought, I don't believe 3-3/6.5 finds or deemed the player to have made an announced. They found he attemtped to proceed under 3-3 and did so incorrectly. Before the issue of announcement is addressed, the issue of player runs afowl of failing to report and is DQed. This interpertation means 3-3/6.5 does not apply, as the player in question did report the facts to the offical afterwards. Since he failed to announce he was proceeding under 3-3 AND he failed to announce which ball he intended to score, 3-3 b (ii) determins his fate, the first ball plays.
[/quote]

This would be completely the opposite of your last post to me?
[/quote]
Yes, I've changed my mind on what I think the ruling should be.

[Veng]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409067520' post='10011037']
I’m sorry Veng: I can’t see your point. I don’t argue the difference between making the announcement and declaring which ball the player wants to count. The Rules tell us those are two different things when they say that the player has to do one AND the other, which means these are two different statements. A player may do none, one or both of them. D 3-3/6.5 allows assuming one but not the other…[/quote]
First, I don't believe D3-3/6.5 allows assuming the announcement of either, so this is a bit of a moot point. If D3-3/6.5 says that intent can be announcemnt, then intent should be announcment for all cases in 3-3 where the word announcment is made. If you don't apply the same definitions and requirements to the same word at all times, then it opens everything up for ambiguity. You must consistently apply definitions across the rule.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Veng' timestamp='1409069080' post='10011241']

Yes, I've changed my mind on what I think the ruling should be.
[/quote]

Seems to be a lot of us in that boat, Veng.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1409067520' post='10011037']

Imagine this: the same scenario. The original ball is 60 ft from the hole (in 2) and the second ball is 5 ft from the cup (also in 2). As the players arrive to the green they see the 3 members of the Rules Committee. The players decide to tell them what happened back there and the Committee answers that the original ball must count, since the player didn’t specifically announce which ball he wanted to count.

Would you agree with that ruling? Would that sound fair to you? I think most will say yes. Then the player proceeds to sink the 60 footer for birdie… I say [b]good for him[/b]!

I hope this perspective helps… and I hope you all have a good day!
[/quote]

Very well put, Cancun. Indeed this would take away a great deal of the "injustice" of what I understand the OP to mean, as well as the hypothetical situation that I discussed earlier. Very well put!

[Hardluckster]

My question to the USGA is as follows:

[i]What about this hypothetical scenario: a player hits his tee shot into a deep divot in fairway. Upon taking his stance, with the ball played back in his stance, he is standing with his forward foot in GUR. He asks his playing partners for a ruling and gets conflicting opinions: one says he gets relief but the other claims his stance is abnormal and that he is therefore not entitled to relief. He drops a ball, without declaring he is playing a second ball under rule 3-3, and hits it to the green 15 feet from the hole. He then hits the original to ball to the green within 60 feet. He made no declaration of any sort concerning which ball he wished to count. He makes the 60 footer for birdie and makes par with the ball that was dropped. When he finishes he reports to the committee that he played two balls because he was unsure of the proper ruling. He admits to not declaring for the second ball because he was ignorant of the need for doing so.[/i]

[i]Which ball should be scored in this scenario?[/i]

The answer from the USGA was that the original ball is scored. He did not declare, therefore the original ball counts, assuming it was played under the rules.

If his original ball had not been one of the balls played in this scenario, he would have counted the first ball that he had put into play.

All of this is just as stated in Decision 3-3/0.5.