Club Championship Ruling

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1409753480' post='10055997']
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.
[/quote]

Thank you for the legwork and the follow up. Very much appreciated!

Kevin

[edwjmcgrath]

It's also just as stated in the note to 3-3a.

[Hardluckster]

Yeah, 3-3/0.5 was even used in the explanation from the USGA. If the OP situation was as described in my hypothetical, the pro missed it. Too many unknowns to be sure, tho.

[edwjmcgrath]

Your hypothetical was not quite the same as the OP, but the way I see it, the pro missed it anyway.

In your hypothetical, the player drops a ball ("takes further action") without declaring that he's intending to play under 3-3.
In the OP, the player declares that he intends to play 2 balls before taking further action.

In both cases, the player neglects to declare which ball he wishes to count.

In your hypothetical, the player plays the dropped ball first.
In the OP, the player plays the original ball first.

In your hypothetical, because the player took further action, the note to 3-3a applies. 3-3 is not applicable and the original ball counts EVEN IF the player had subsequently indicated his intent to play under 3-3 and declared which ball he wished to count.

In the OP, the player declares (or close enough) that he is playing under 3-3 but fails to declare which ball he wishes to count. 3-3 IS applicable, and 3-3b(ii) tells you how to score. The original ball counts.

Same answer but for two different reasons.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1409772585' post='10058227']
Your hypothetical was not quite the same as the OP, but the way I see it, the pro missed it anyway.

In your hypothetical, the player drops a ball ("takes further action") without declaring that he's intending to play under 3-3.
In the OP, the player declares that he intends to play 2 balls before taking further action.

In both cases, the player neglects to declare which ball he wishes to count.

In your hypothetical, the player plays the dropped ball first.
In the OP, the player plays the original ball first.
[/quote]

So far I agree completely.

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1409772585' post='10058227']
In your hypothetical, because the player took further action, the note to 3-3a applies. 3-3 is not applicable and the original ball counts EVEN IF the player had subsequently indicated his intent to play under 3-3 and declared which ball he wished to count.
[/quote]

I might say here that 3-3/6.5 suggests to me that this may not be correct. I purposefully proposed this situation in such a way that it would, to a degree, mimic the situation in this decision. I read that to mean that the committee could conclude the intent to use 3-3 even though it was not stated before playing the second ball, and playing it first. But maybe I misunderstand the decision.

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1409772585' post='10058227']
In the OP, the player declares (or close enough) that he is playing under 3-3 but fails to declare which ball he wishes to count. 3-3 IS applicable, and 3-3b(ii) tells you how to score. The original ball counts.

Same answer but for two different reasons.
[/quote]

Again, I agree. The intent to invoke 3-3 was much easier to discern in the OP.

[edwjmcgrath]

Ok, sorry. I agree that 3-3/6.6 says that 3-3 does apply to the situation in your hypothetical.
I'm still not clear why you changed so many things from the original post.
In the OP, the player declares intent while in your hypothetical it must be implied.
In the OP, the player plays the OB first while in yours he plays the dropped ball.
Are you trying to answer the original question or something else?

[Cancun]

Hardluckster

In the OP, the player was entitled to play under 3-3. He didn’t announce it (or maybe he did, it doesn’t make a difference here). Since he failed to announce [u]which ball he wanted to count[/u] and [u]he played the original ball[/u] (first or after the other) [b][u]the original ball counts[/u].[/b]

In the scenario presented in your post 64, the player fails to announce that he will play under 3-3, but that can be inferred from his actions (D 3-3/6.5). Nevertheless, he also fails to announce which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit, because of that [b][u]the original ball counts[/u][/b].

The fact that he sinks a great putt after that has nothing to do with the ruling.

The preferred ball in case the Rules permit [b]can’t be inferred[/b]. That is never allowed and that is not the intention of D 3-3/6.5. If a player didn’t announce anything and played 2 balls, he would be severely penalized (practice, or “stroke and distance, wrong ball, you name it). The score would be a mess. D 3-3/6.5 allows to infer that the player was playing under 3-3 and saves him a lot of problems and, most likely, a DQ. In return, he must inform the Committee of what he did before returning his scar or he will be DQ’d. That's rthe purpose of that decision.

Imagine these scenarios in which [u]the original ball is one of the two balls played[/u]:
[list]
[*]The player doesn’t say anything: [u]The original ball counts[/u]. The player is not penalized for practicing and he’s not deemed to have played under stroke and distance, but must inform the Committee before returning his card. D 3-3/6.5 helps in saving the player from a huge problem, but the preferred ball [u]can’t be inferred[/u].
[*]The player announces his intention to play under 3-3 but fails to announce which ball he wants to count: [u]the original ball counts[/u]
[*]The player doesn’t announce his intention to play under 3-3 but announces which ball he wants to count. His intention to play under 3-3 can be inferred (it’s implied in announcing which ball he wants to count). He must inform the Committee and [u]the preferred ball would count if the Rules allow.[/u]
[*]The player announces his intention to play under 3-3 and which ball he wants to count: We don’t write anything about him and [u]this thread wouldn’t exist![/u]
[/list]

I hope that clears the doubts that you seem to have Hardluckster

Have a good night

[Hardluckster]

I guess I changed the situation from the original post, and made it so much like 3-3/6.5, because I wanted to make certain in my mind that the USGA agreed with posts here that intent to use 3-3 could be inferred but that intent on which ball to play could not (even if logically it was obvious).

Heck, even I came to realize - if you read back through my later posts - that the original ball had to be scored.

My major issue with the hypothetical issue, and somewhat with the OP, is this: no further action can be taken before declaring to invoke 3-3, then declaring which ball to count....... oh, unless it is obvious that 3-3 was obviously being invoked and then it can be inferred because it was logical. The declaration on the ball to be scored cannot be inferred - even if intent was blatantly obvious. I would have no issue at all with the rule if 3-3/6.5 did not exist, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the committee can read logical intent on one issue but not the other.

But the committee cannot. That is the USGA ruling and it follows the written rules verbatim.

If, in the original scenario, the player didn't declare the ball to score - then the pro missed it. We did not know if the pro, when contacting the USGA, told them that the player declared to score the 2nd ball (or if he even did declare) - I think it is now obvious that the pro must have explained to the USGA that the player declared to play the 2nd (but I am inferring this, and I have learned from this instance that inferring isn't always allowed ).

[szaino]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1409799023' post='10060997']
I guess I changed the situation from the original post, and made it so much like 3-3/6.5, because I wanted to make certain in my mind that the USGA agreed with posts here that intent to use 3-3 could be inferred but that intent on which ball to play could not (even if logically it was obvious).

Heck, even I came to realize - if you read back through my later posts - that the original ball had to be scored.

My major issue with the hypothetical issue, and somewhat with the OP, is this: no further action can be taken before declaring to invoke 3-3, then declaring which ball to count....... oh, unless it is obvious that 3-3 was obviously being invoked and then it can be inferred because it was logical. The declaration on the ball to be scored cannot be inferred - even if intent was blatantly obvious. I would have no issue at all with the rule if 3-3/6.5 did not exist, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the committee can read logical intent on one issue but not the other.

But the committee cannot. That is the USGA ruling and it follows the written rules verbatim.

If, in the original scenario, the player didn't declare the ball to score - then the pro missed it. We did not know if the pro, when contacting the USGA, told them that the player declared to score the 2nd ball (or if he even did declare) - I think it is now obvious that the pro must have explained to the USGA that the player declared to play the 2nd (but I am inferring this, and I have learned from this instance that inferring isn't always allowed ).
[/quote]

The player must declare which ball he wants to play, this can not be inferred because a player may play the 2 balls under 3-3 in any order he chooses, thus just because a player invokes 3-3 and plays a 2nd ball, it doesn't neccassarily mean that he wants that one to count.

Here is why:
In the original example- suppose the player said I am taking relief from the ground under repair. His opponent says I don't think you are entitled to do that. Because they are unsure, the player invokes 3-3. He takes his drop and plays that ball. He then puts the 2nd ball into play by playing it from the original lie in the divot without relief.

[Moonlightgrm]

Wow, you guys are still kicking this around. Golf Channel was celebrating Arnold Palmer's 85th birthday this week. During one of the broadcasts, they discussed Arnie's controversial plugged ball ruling, on the 12th hole in the 1958 Master's, where he played a 2nd ball after disagreeing with the ruling he was given by the on course Master's official. Arnie said, and I quote, "I told the official I am playing a second ball and will appeal to the committee". Clifford Roberts drove out to the 15th tee to tell Arnie the committee has ruled in your favor, the 2nd ball counts, whereupon Ken Venturi went ballistic. According to today's USGA rules, Arnie would not be so pleased with the ruling. He never specifically declared he wanted the 2nd ball to count. Come on fellas, we all know his intent. He was playing ball 2 in hopes of receiving relief. The same can be said about my original post. I was there. There is zero doubt in my mind, the 3rd players mind, and I am certain the player's mind that he played the 2nd ball because he did not want to have to score the first ball which rested in that horrible divot. Please, let common sense reign!

[sui generis]

[quote name='Moonlightgrm' timestamp='1410574579' post='10109959']
Wow, you guys are still kicking this around. Golf Channel was celebrating Arnold Palmer's 85th birthday this week. During one of the broadcasts, they discussed Arnie's controversial plugged ball ruling, on the 12th hole in the 1958 Master's, where he played a 2nd ball after disagreeing with the ruling he was given by the on course Master's official. Arnie said, and I quote, "I told the official I am playing a second ball and will appeal to the committee". Clifford Roberts drove out to the 15th tee to tell Arnie the committee has ruled in your favor, the 2nd ball counts, whereupon Ken Venturi went ballistic. According to today's USGA rules, Arnie would not be so pleased with the ruling. He never specifically declared he wanted the 2nd ball to count. Come on fellas, we all know his intent. He was playing ball 2 in hopes of receiving relief. The same can be said about my original post. I was there. There is zero doubt in my mind, the 3rd players mind, and I am certain the player's mind that he played the 2nd ball because he did not want to have to score the first ball which rested in that horrible divot. [color=#ff0000]Please, let common sense reign![/color]
[/quote]

A player could, as in this case, know his obligations under 3-3 or he could trust to luck. The player who knows the Rules fares better than the negligent player who appeals to the sad substitute of "common sense." Though, common sense occasionally comes through by accident.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Moonlightgrm' timestamp='1410574579' post='10109959']
Wow, you guys are still kicking this around. Golf Channel was celebrating Arnold Palmer's 85th birthday this week. During one of the broadcasts, they discussed Arnie's controversial plugged ball ruling, on the 12th hole in the 1958 Master's, where he played a 2nd ball after disagreeing with the ruling he was given by the on course Master's official. Arnie said, and I quote, "I told the official I am playing a second ball and will appeal to the committee". Clifford Roberts drove out to the 15th tee to tell Arnie the committee has ruled in your favor, the 2nd ball counts, whereupon Ken Venturi went ballistic. According to today's USGA rules, Arnie would not be so pleased with the ruling. He never specifically declared he wanted the 2nd ball to count. Come on fellas, we all know his intent. He was playing ball 2 in hopes of receiving relief. The same can be said about my original post. I was there. There is zero doubt in my mind, the 3rd players mind, and I am certain the player's mind that he played the 2nd ball because he did not want to have to score the first ball which rested in that horrible divot. Please, let common sense reign!
[/quote]

So I am going to assume from the way you stated this reply that the player did not declare his second ball to count. If that is indeed true then his first ball, based on the USGA reply to the hypothetical that I submitted to them, should have counted in your situation.

[edwjmcgrath]

Here is the rule from the 1956-1960 rules of golf, in case anyone wonders if it was different:

[size=4][color=#000033][background=rgb(222, 239, 255)]In stroke play only, when a competitor is doubtful of his rights or procedure, he may play out the hole with the ball in play and, at the same time, complete the play of the hole with a second ball. Before playing a [url="http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1956.html#stroke"]stroke[/url] with either ball, the competitor must announce to his marker his intention to proceed under this Rule and must announce which ball he wants to score with if the Rules permit.
On completing the round the competitor must report the facts immediately to the Committee. If it be found that the Rules allow the procedure selected in advance, the score with the ball so selected shall be his score for the hole. Should the competitor fail to announce in advance his procedure or selection, the score with the second ball shall be his score for the hole if played in accordance with the Rules.[/background][/color][/size]

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='szaino' timestamp='1410462151' post='10102701']
The player must declare which ball he wants to play, this can not be inferred because a player may play the 2 balls under 3-3 in any order he chooses, thus just because a player invokes 3-3 and plays a 2nd ball, it doesn't neccassarily mean that he wants that one to count.

Here is why:
In the original example- suppose the player said I am taking relief from the ground under repair. His opponent says I don't think you are entitled to do that. Because they are unsure, the player invokes 3-3. He takes his drop and plays that ball. He then puts the 2nd ball into play by playing it from the original lie in the divot without relief.
[/quote]

Szaino, in Rule 3-3 the '2nd' does not refer to order in which the player plays his two balls but just to an optional ball. That is why it is said that the order of the balls is irrelevant.

Otherwise you are correct.

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1409793147' post='10060399']
Ok, sorry. I agree that 3-3/6.6 says that 3-3 does apply to the situation in your hypothetical.
I'm still not clear why you changed so many things from the original post.
In the OP, the player declares intent while in your hypothetical it must be implied.
In the OP, the player plays the OB first while in yours he plays the dropped ball.
Are you trying to answer the original question or something else?
[/quote]

My thoughts exactly having read some of these posts and the OP. Why bother to ask USGA something that is more or less entirely different from the OP? The outcome you can read from OP's post #100.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410695711' post='10114745']
[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1409793147' post='10060399']
Ok, sorry. I agree that 3-3/6.6 says that 3-3 does apply to the situation in your hypothetical.
I'm still not clear why you changed so many things from the original post.
In the OP, the player declares intent while in your hypothetical it must be implied.
In the OP, the player plays the OB first while in yours he plays the dropped ball.
Are you trying to answer the original question or something else?
[/quote]

My thoughts exactly having read some of these posts and the OP. Why bother to ask USGA something that is more or less entirely different from the OP? The outcome you can read from OP's post #100.
[/quote]

As I stated above, my intent in my hypothetical to the USGA was to make certain in my mind that the USGA agreed with posts here that intent to use 3-3 could be inferred but that intent on which ball to play could not (even if logically it was obvious). I was attempting to create a situation, similar to the OP, but which eliminated all other variables. As you stated earlier, the order the balls were played is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that the outcome to the OP was that the 'provisional ball' should have been scored, or are you saying the original had to be scored? As I read post #100, it suggests that the player did not declare the ball he wanted to count, but that intent was 'clear'. I see no way that the ball played under relief could have been correctly scored

[isaacbm]

I'm still confused about something after reading this entire thread.

To me, the reason the player hit the second ball was because he wasn't sure of the rule. Why does it matter which ball he "intends" to use? I've been in a similar situation and my "intentions" were to score the ball that followed the rules of golf. If our group was unsure of a rule, we agreed to play both balls until the rule was cleared up. Which ever ball followed the rules was our "intended" ball to use.

The whole "declaration" part of it is so bizarre to me...




Edit: Ok, I had a brain fart there...

I realize there are instances where a player can choose whether he takes relief of plays it as it lies. So obviously there has to be intent.
I was thinking that it was a case of being a definitive rule that didn't involve a player making a choice....

So just to clear up: Is it a players choice to play a ball if his foot is touching ground under? Or is it a mandatory drop? I don't have my rules book handy...

[KevCarter]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410706695' post='10115247']
I'm still confused about something after reading this entire thread.

To me, the reason the player hit the second ball was because he wasn't sure of the rule. Why does it matter which ball he "intends" to use? I've been in a similar situation and my "intentions" were to score the ball that followed the rules of golf. If our group was unsure of a rule, we agreed to play both balls until the rule was cleared up. Which ever ball followed the rules was our "intended" ball to use.

The whole "declaration" part of it is so bizarre to me...




Edit: Ok, I had a brain fart there...

I realize there are instances where a player can choose whether he takes relief of plays it as it lies. So obviously there has to be intent.
I was thinking that it was a case of being a definitive rule that didn't involve a player making a choice....

So just to clear up: Is it a players choice to play a ball if his foot is touching ground under? Or is it a mandatory drop? I don't have my rules book handy...
[/quote]

Players choice if your foot touches the line, unless it was after a drop taking relief. So, as you said, the player would have 2 balls that would have been accepted by the rules...

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1410708537' post='10115343']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410706695' post='10115247']
I'm still confused about something after reading this entire thread.

To me, the reason the player hit the second ball was because he wasn't sure of the rule. Why does it matter which ball he "intends" to use? I've been in a similar situation and my "intentions" were to score the ball that followed the rules of golf. If our group was unsure of a rule, we agreed to play both balls until the rule was cleared up. Which ever ball followed the rules was our "intended" ball to use.

The whole "declaration" part of it is so bizarre to me...




Edit: Ok, I had a brain fart there...

I realize there are instances where a player can choose whether he takes relief of plays it as it lies. So obviously there has to be intent.
I was thinking that it was a case of being a definitive rule that didn't involve a player making a choice....

So just to clear up: Is it a players choice to play a ball if his foot is touching ground under? Or is it a mandatory drop? I don't have my rules book handy...
[/quote]

Players choice if your foot touches the line, unless it was after a drop taking relief. So, as you said, the player would have 2 balls that would have been accepted by the rules...
[/quote]

Unless the committee has a local rule in place that actually prohibits play from GUR?

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410709641' post='10115381']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1410708537' post='10115343']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410706695' post='10115247']
I'm still confused about something after reading this entire thread.

To me, the reason the player hit the second ball was because he wasn't sure of the rule. Why does it matter which ball he "intends" to use? I've been in a similar situation and my "intentions" were to score the ball that followed the rules of golf. If our group was unsure of a rule, we agreed to play both balls until the rule was cleared up. Which ever ball followed the rules was our "intended" ball to use.

The whole "declaration" part of it is so bizarre to me...




Edit: Ok, I had a brain fart there...

I realize there are instances where a player can choose whether he takes relief of plays it as it lies. So obviously there has to be intent.
I was thinking that it was a case of being a definitive rule that didn't involve a player making a choice....

So just to clear up: Is it a players choice to play a ball if his foot is touching ground under? Or is it a mandatory drop? I don't have my rules book handy...
[/quote]

Players choice if your foot touches the line, unless it was after a drop taking relief. So, as you said, the player would have 2 balls that would have been accepted by the rules...
[/quote]

Unless the committee has a local rule in place that actually prohibits play from GUR?
[/quote]

Also a possibility.

[isaacbm]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1410710382' post='10115407']
[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410709641' post='10115381']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1410708537' post='10115343']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410706695' post='10115247']
I'm still confused about something after reading this entire thread.

To me, the reason the player hit the second ball was because he wasn't sure of the rule. Why does it matter which ball he "intends" to use? I've been in a similar situation and my "intentions" were to score the ball that followed the rules of golf. If our group was unsure of a rule, we agreed to play both balls until the rule was cleared up. Which ever ball followed the rules was our "intended" ball to use.

The whole "declaration" part of it is so bizarre to me...




Edit: Ok, I had a brain fart there...

I realize there are instances where a player can choose whether he takes relief of plays it as it lies. So obviously there has to be intent.
I was thinking that it was a case of being a definitive rule that didn't involve a player making a choice....

So just to clear up: Is it a players choice to play a ball if his foot is touching ground under? Or is it a mandatory drop? I don't have my rules book handy...
[/quote]

Players choice if your foot touches the line, unless it was after a drop taking relief. So, as you said, the player would have 2 balls that would have been accepted by the rules...
[/quote]

Unless the committee has a local rule in place that actually prohibits play from GUR?
[/quote]

Also a possibility.
[/quote]This is the reason for the brain fart.

I played an event this summer where all ground under was mandatory relief because of a dangerous situation. Most of the ground under actually had men working in it at that time with heavy equipment and the rest were flower beds that were lumped into the same category because the staff were actually in there fixing them. So all ground under had to take relief...

So in this case, intent was not an issue...

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410704446' post='10115151']
[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410695711' post='10114745']
My thoughts exactly having read some of these posts and the OP. Why bother to ask USGA something that is more or less entirely different from the OP? The outcome you can read from OP's post #100.
[/quote]

As I stated above, my intent in my hypothetical to the USGA was to make certain in my mind that the USGA agreed with posts here that intent to use 3-3 could be inferred but that intent on which ball to play could not (even if logically it was obvious). I was attempting to create a situation, similar to the OP, but which eliminated all other variables. As you stated earlier, the order the balls were played is irrelevant.

[/quote]

In order to get an answer from USGA to the question presented in the OP the correct way is to ask that very same question. As you can see your answer has already been questioned in post #100. This would not have happened had you asked the OP question as it was written.


[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410704446' post='10115151']
Are you suggesting that the outcome to the OP was that the 'provisional ball' should have been scored, or are you saying the original had to be scored? As I read post #100, it suggests that the player did not declare the ball he wanted to count, but that intent was 'clear'. I see no way that the ball played under relief could have been correctly scored
[/quote]

First of all, there is no provisional ball in this case, only original ball and 2nd ball (even though OP incorrectly uses term provisional).

Second, as the player in the original case did not declare which ball he wishes to count then R3-3b(ii) applies and the original ball is the one to count as it was played according to the Rules. I fail to see any problem in such a straightforward case.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410710517' post='10115413']
I played an event this summer where all ground under was mandatory relief because of a dangerous situation. Most of the ground under actually had men working in it at that time with heavy equipment and the rest were flower beds that were lumped into the same category because the staff were actually in there fixing them. So all ground under had to take relief...

So in this case, intent was not an issue...
[/quote]

I've played a lot of events, not at your level, but pretty competitive. I've also been pretty good with the rules for a very long time, like you as well. It's amazing under the heat of battle how that knowledge can be lost. I've made some really silly mistakes with the rules in my career, costing me more shots than I care to remember. Understanding what happens to my brain under the gun, let's me understand how tour players can make what are apparent to some, as very stupid mistakes...

Kevin

[sui generis]

Just so we all know, there are four "musts" when a player in stroke play is uncertain of the applicable Rule or his rights or obligations. If he chooses to invoke 3-3, he should, by Rule, prior to playing any ball:

(1) state his intention to play two balls,
(2) state which ball he wishes to count and
(3) inform the Committee prior to returning his score card.

The fourth "must" is also for his own protection, he should:

(4) hole out with both balls.

If a player omits any of these "musts" he runs the real risk of a less than adequate outcome.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410712594' post='10115539']
Just so we all know, there are four "musts" when a player in stroke play is uncertain of the applicable Rule or his rights or obligations. If he chooses to invoke 3-3, he should, by Rule, prior to playing any ball:

(1) state his intention to play two balls,
(2) state which ball he wishes to count and
(3) inform the Committee prior to returning his score card.

The fourth "must" is also for his own protection, he should:

(4) hole out with both balls.

If a player omits any of these "musts" he runs the real risk of a less than adequate outcome.
[/quote]

Great summary!!!

On the local rules sheet for my members, I use the following paragraph. I think I may switch it to a form such as you just posted. Your list version may be much easier to read quickly and understand. Cheers!

========================================================
If there is any doubt as to the proper ruling or procedure in Stroke Play Only, play a Second Ball in accordance with Rule 3-3, and obtain a ruling from the committee upon completion of the round. You must declare you are playing a second ball to your fellow competitors before proceeding, and must declare which score you would like to count if the rules permit. The competitor must report the facts to the committee before signing the scorecard. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410712594' post='10115539']
Just so we all know, there are four "musts" when a player in stroke play is uncertain of the applicable Rule or his rights or obligations. [color=#FF0000]If he chooses to invoke 3-3, he [u]MUST[/u], by Rule, prior to playing any ball[/color]:

(1) state his intention to play two balls,
(2) state which ball he wishes to count and
(3) inform the Committee prior to returning his score card.

The fourth "must" is also for his own protection, he should:

(4) hole out with both balls.

If a player omits any of these "musts" he runs the real risk of a less than adequate outcome.
[/quote]

I took the liberty of changing one very important word...

[isaacbm]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1410712073' post='10115501']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410710517' post='10115413']
I played an event this summer where all ground under was mandatory relief because of a dangerous situation. Most of the ground under actually had men working in it at that time with heavy equipment and the rest were flower beds that were lumped into the same category because the staff were actually in there fixing them. So all ground under had to take relief...

So in this case, intent was not an issue...
[/quote]

I've played a lot of events, not at your level, but pretty competitive. I've also been pretty good with the rules for a very long time, like you as well. It's amazing under the heat of battle how that knowledge can be lost. I've made some really silly mistakes with the rules in my career, costing me more shots than I care to remember. Understanding what happens to my brain under the gun, let's me understand how tour players can make what are apparent to some, as very stupid mistakes...

Kevin
[/quote][quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1410712073' post='10115501']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1410710517' post='10115413']
I played an event this summer where all ground under was mandatory relief because of a dangerous situation. Most of the ground under actually had men working in it at that time with heavy equipment and the rest were flower beds that were lumped into the same category because the staff were actually in there fixing them. So all ground under had to take relief...

So in this case, intent was not an issue...
[/quote]

I've played a lot of events, not at your level, but pretty competitive. I've also been pretty good with the rules for a very long time, like you as well. It's amazing under the heat of battle how that knowledge can be lost. I've made some really silly mistakes with the rules in my career, costing me more shots than I care to remember. Understanding what happens to my brain under the gun, let's me understand how tour players can make what are apparent to some, as very stupid mistakes...

Kevin
[/quote]

I've been pretty cautious/aware over the years. Never been DQ' d ever, and generally I go over the rules before every big event.
Last year though, in a two hole stretch, I stepped on my ball and then played the wrong ball! Maybe it's age! Lol!

[gopherguts]

Not to anyone in particular but,,,,,,,, [size=4] [/size]

[gopherguts]

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410715724' post='10115715']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410712594' post='10115539']
Just so we all know, there are four "musts" when a player in stroke play is uncertain of the applicable Rule or his rights or obligations. [color=#FF0000]If he chooses to invoke 3-3, he [u]MUST[/u], by Rule, prior to playing any ball[/color]:

(1) state his intention to play two balls,
(2) state which ball he wishes to count and
(3) inform the Committee prior to returning his score card.

The fourth "must" is also for his own protection, he should:

(4) hole out with both balls.

If a player omits any of these "musts" he runs the real risk of a less than adequate outcome.
[/quote]

I took the liberty of changing one very important word...
[/quote]

Then you didn't read the whole thread.

Not that I blame you mind you but there's another hour or so of my life I'll never get back.

Thankfully I have the football game on though,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[edwjmcgrath]

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410715724' post='10115715']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410712594' post='10115539']
Just so we all know, there are four "musts" when a player in stroke play is uncertain of the applicable Rule or his rights or obligations. [color=#FF0000]If he chooses to invoke 3-3, he [u]MUST[/u], by Rule, prior to playing any ball[/color]:

(1) state his intention to play two balls,
(2) state which ball he wishes to count and
(3) inform the Committee prior to returning his score card.

The fourth "must" is also for his own protection, he should:

(4) hole out with both balls.

If a player omits any of these "musts" he runs the real risk of a less than adequate outcome.
[/quote]

I took the liberty of changing one very important word...
[/quote]
What happens if he plays 2 balls but fails to state his intention to play 2 balls?