Club Championship Ruling

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410711978' post='10115495']

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]

Wasn't really trying to get an answer to the OP. After reading quite a few posts on the earlier pages debating the committee being allowed to discern intent w/respect to which ball to score I wanted a definitive answer from USGA.

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410711978' post='10115495]
[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).
[/quote]
Yeah, no kidding. That's the reason for the quotation marks around 'provisional ball' in my post. I would say many people might incorrectly label this as a provisional.

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410711978' post='10115495]
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.
[/quote]

In the original case it was never actually explained whether or not the declaration was made, unless I missed that post from moonlight. In fact, as I remember, several of the replies in this thread specifically asked him if the player had declared the ball he wanted scored - he never responded, unless I missed the post.

In response #100 he seems to me to suggest no declaration, but that he feels the second ball should be scored. Maybe I just read it wrong, though.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1410718308' post='10115895']
[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?
[/quote]

Well, he 'should' have declared 3-3.

[sui generis]

[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]

Technically, I heartily agree, but we've all seen some instances where the accepted requisite declarations may be implicit rather than explicit. So, even though the Rule says "must" there are occasions where "should" does suffice. When I teach this stuff there is never any doubt that "must" means "must."

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1410718308' post='10115895']
[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?
[/quote]

Don't know what you mean, Ed. Rule 3-3 says 'must' so I changed 'should' to 'must'. The rest is described in Rule 3-3.

[edwjmcgrath]

Sorry Bean, I'm just being pedantic.
Every time I've ever tried to summarize a rule by omitting something I find it lacking.
3-3 is only a few words longer than the summary and, in this case it's missing the subtlety between 'may' and 'must'.
3-3 says essentially that the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count, he MUST blah blah.
That distinction between may and must is what much of this thread is about.
I don't find the exact wording in 3-3 to be that much more complicated that we can't use its exact wording to explain it.

[Moonlightgrm]

Ken Venturi wins the 1958 Masters Tournament! Arnie did not use the appropriate language.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Moonlightgrm' timestamp='1410739907' post='10117365']
Ken Venturi wins the 1958 Masters Tournament! Arnie did not use the appropriate language.
[/quote]

According to this 2008 ESPN article ( http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/masters08/columns/story?id=3321633 ), John Morrissett, who was USGA director of rules in 2008, believed Arnie was in error in his method of playing under this rule.

Venturi had issue with the fact that the balls were not played concurrently, not really with the declaration of which ball should count. At least that has always been my understanding of the event.

I have always found this a most fascinating incident in the history of golf. Was Palmer given an incorrect ruling by the rules official? Most likely. Was he entitled to play a second ball? I think so. Did he follow the correct procedure in playing under this rule? I don't think so. Just one of those controversial instances in the history of the game.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410747877' post='10118071']


Venturi had issue with the fact that the balls were not played concurrently, not really with the declaration of which ball should count.
[/quote]

Venturi had the issue of being a sore loser.

[Moonlightgrm]

I have learned a lot from this thread. Did my playing companion use the appropriate language? No

According to the rule book, should his error in omission make the first ball the ball in play? Yes

In the spirit of good sportsmanship and fair play, should the second ball be scored? I believe the answer is yes, without question. Common sense trumps verbiage in my opinion.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Moonlightgrm' timestamp='1410787367' post='10119429']
I have learned a lot from this thread. Did my playing companion use the appropriate language? No

According to the rule book, should his error in omission make the first ball the ball in play? Yes

In the spirit of good sportsmanship and fair play, should the second ball be scored? I believe the answer is yes, without question. Common sense trumps verbiage in my opinion.
[/quote]

Moonlight,

I agree with you. I, too, have learned a lot from this thread (and others on this forum). Your playing companion should have made birdie on the hole - according to the rules. I do not think I will ever forget how to correctly use 3-3.

That said, I also agree that your competitor's intent was obvious and his 2nd ball was played within the rules (accept that he didn't actually declare it as the ball to be scored). Common sense would suggest that the 2nd should have been scored, but the rules just don't allow it.

Have a great day.

[HitEmTrue]

[size=4]There are situations were a player simply isn't sure which course of action is correct, and invokes rule 3-3. Without announcement, it isn't obvious which ball the person hopes to score in *every* situation. Would it make sense to write the rule in a way that says the player must announce, unless it is obvious which one he hopes to play? How do you define obvious? [/size]

[size=4]The very fact there is controversy over the outcome of this situation tells me that the rule itself should govern, not something nebulous like "common sense." [/size][size=4]If he didn't announce which one he wanted to score before hitting, the first ball should count. [/size]

And yes, if you read my previous posts in this thread, I've changed my mind.

[Cancun]

Good morning gentlemen: I invite you to consider that the score for the hole has [u]nothing[/u] to do with the ruling. I think that's something you can keep from this thread!

[i]Common sense[/i] seems to be somehow tricking you because you’re trying to link the “birdie” of “par” with the player’s intention, hence, with the ruling. The problem with common sense is that, regardless of not being all that common, is also [b]not uniform[/b]. You will agree with me in that a Rule’s application [b]must [/b]be uniform. Please take a look at this “common sense” example:
[list]
[*]The player [u]wanted[/u] to take free relief, so it’s not fair to have him benefit from a Rule’s “technicality” and ignore the ball played with free relief. He should have counted the second ball instead of the original! (par instead of birdie), since that's the ball he wanted to count!
[/list]

Now here’s another common sense example:
[list]
[*]The player wanted to take free relief under a Rule and had doubts if he was allowed. Another Rule establishes a procedure for a player in such situation. He failed to apply that procedure, so –just as the same Rule establishes- he lost the privilege that the Rule allows.
[/list]

The first example sounds like “justice” in terms of the final outcome but please remember that the score has nothing to do with the ruling. The second has all the common sense you may ask for in terms of Rules.

If the player made an 8 after that, or if he made an eagle is just “noise” in terms of the Rules. You should ignore it. I’m quoting my post 84 (my apologies) but I think it summarizes the situation from the Rules standpoint and eliminates the "justice" part of the ruling:

[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]!
[/quote]

Have a good day gentlemen!

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1410793537' post='10119999']
[size=4]There are situations were a player simply isn't sure which course of action is correct, and invokes rule 3-3. Without announcement, it isn't obvious which ball the person hopes to score in *every* situation. Would it make sense to write the rule in a way that says the player must announce, unless it is obvious which one he hopes to play? How do you define obvious? [/size]

[size=4]The very fact there is controversy over the outcome of this situation tells me that the rule itself should govern, not something nebulous like "common sense." [/size][size=4]If he didn't announce which one he wanted to score before hitting, the first ball should count. [/size]

And yes, if you read my previous posts in this thread, I've changed my mind.
[/quote]

Yeah. I know. This is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" instances for me.

I know there are times when "obvious" is not so obvious. Those situations demand a verbal declaration. I also agree that allowing, or expecting, the committee to be able to determine that is sometimes a gray area. But, there are instances when it is clear and obvious what the player's intentions were - and in those cases the water becomes cloudy, at least to me - although by rule, the cloudiness is removed through filtering (applying the rule as it is written).

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410794940' post='10120173']
[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1410793537' post='10119999']
[size=4]There are situations were a player simply isn't sure which course of action is correct, and invokes rule 3-3. Without announcement, it isn't obvious which ball the person hopes to score in *every* situation. Would it make sense to write the rule in a way that says the player must announce, unless it is obvious which one he hopes to play? How do you define obvious? [/size]

[size=4]The very fact there is controversy over the outcome of this situation tells me that the rule itself should govern, not something nebulous like "common sense." [/size][size=4]If he didn't announce which one he wanted to score before hitting, the first ball should count. [/size]

And yes, if you read my previous posts in this thread, I've changed my mind.
[/quote]

Yeah. I know. This is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" instances for me.

I know there are times when "obvious" is not so obvious. [b]The rules[/b] demand a verbal declaration. I also agree that allowing, or expecting, the committee to be able to determine that is sometimes a gray area. But, there are instances when it is clear and obvious what the player's intentions were - and in those cases the water becomes cloudy, at least to me - although by rule, the cloudiness is removed through filtering (applying the rule as it is written).
[/quote]

fixed it for you.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1410794592' post='10120145']
Good morning gentlemen: I invite you to consider that the score for the hole has [u]nothing[/u] to do with the ruling. I think that's something you can keep from this thread!

[i]Common sense[/i] seems to be somehow tricking you because you’re trying to link the “birdie” of “par” with the player’s intention, hence, with the ruling.
[/quote]

Cancun, I'm pretty sure that those advocating scoring of second ball believe it should be that way regardless of the scores of the two balls.

Regardless, I agree with what you are saying about common sense and the rules.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1410794592' post='10120145']
Good morning gentlemen: I invite you to consider that the score for the hole has [u]nothing[/u] to do with the ruling. I think that's something you can keep from this thread!

[i]Common sense[/i] seems to be somehow tricking you because you’re trying to link the “birdie” of “par” with the player’s intention, hence, with the ruling. The problem with common sense is that, regardless of not being all that common, is also [b]not uniform[/b]. You will agree with me in that a Rule’s application [b]must [/b]be uniform. Please take a look at this “common sense” example:[list]
[*]The player [u]wanted[/u] to take free relief, so it’s not fair to have him benefit from a Rule’s “technicality” and ignore the ball played with free relief. He should have counted the second ball instead of the original! (par instead of birdie), since that's the ball he wanted to count![size=4][[/size]
[/list]
[/quote]

If the scores were reversed, I still see this as a situation where the player wanted to count the second ball. I still think it is "obvious", at least to me, that the relief was his intent.

[size=4][quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1410794592' post='10120145'][/size]
Now here’s another common sense example:[list]
[*]The player wanted to take free relief under a Rule and had doubts if he was allowed. Another Rule establishes a procedure for a player in such situation. He failed to apply that procedure, so –just as the same Rule establishes- he lost the privilege that the Rule allows.
[/list]

The first example sounds like “justice” in terms of the final outcome but please remember that the score has nothing to do with the ruling. The second has all the common sense you may ask for in terms of Rules.

If the player made an 8 after that, or if he made an eagle is just “noise” in terms of the Rules. You should ignore it. I’m quoting my post 84 (my apologies) but I think it summarizes the situation from the Rules standpoint and eliminates the "justice" part of the ruling:

[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]!
[/quote]

Have a good day gentlemen!
[/quote]

I will admit that the score, if you allow it, can cloud the issue. I really don't think that score is the issue for me (at least not anymore - when then thread first appeared I did let it influence my judgement). I can just see where there could be instances when the intent could be determined by the committee, just as the committee is capable of judging intent to play 2 balls (even though I completely understand that its not allowed under the rules).

I'm probably being "clear as mud".

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1410795142' post='10120197']
[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410794940' post='10120173']
[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1410793537' post='10119999']
[size=4]There are situations were a player simply isn't sure which course of action is correct, and invokes rule 3-3. Without announcement, it isn't obvious which ball the person hopes to score in *every* situation. Would it make sense to write the rule in a way that says the player must announce, unless it is obvious which one he hopes to play? How do you define obvious? [/size]

[size=4]The very fact there is controversy over the outcome of this situation tells me that the rule itself should govern, not something nebulous like "common sense." [/size][size=4]If he didn't announce which one he wanted to score before hitting, the first ball should count. [/size]

And yes, if you read my previous posts in this thread, I've changed my mind.
[/quote]

Yeah. I know. This is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" instances for me.

I know there are times when "obvious" is not so obvious. [b]The rules[/b] demand a verbal declaration. I also agree that allowing, or expecting, the committee to be able to determine that is sometimes a gray area. But, there are instances when it is clear and obvious what the player's intentions were - and in those cases the water becomes cloudy, at least to me - although by rule, the cloudiness is removed through filtering (applying the rule as it is written).
[/quote]

fixed it for you.
[/quote]

So you did!

[Hardluckster]

It seems to me that common sense is what allows, from Decision 3-3/6.5, for the committee to be able to infer intent as to using Rule 3-3.

Just me, I guess.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410795749' post='10120247']
It seems to me that common sense is what allows for 3-3/6.5
[/quote]

[size=4]He may have avoided telling the committee out of fear of having to count the score of 5. So he got DQ'd instead of getting the correct score of 4 on that hole. Quite ironic.[/size]

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1410800717' post='10120725']
[quote name='Hardluckster' timestamp='1410795749' post='10120247']
It seems to me that common sense is what allows for 3-3/6.5
[/quote]

[size=4]He may have avoided telling the committee out of fear of having to count the score of 5. So he got DQ'd instead of getting the correct score of 4 on that hole. Quite ironic.[/size]
[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of this being the decision that allows the committee to infer the use of Rule 3-3. Not so much about the reporting of the rule being invoked to the committee.

Or am I wrong? Is there another decision that allows for the assumption of the use of Rule 3-3?

Or is it just "common sense"?

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1410739529' post='10117313']
Sorry Bean, I'm just being pedantic.
Every time I've ever tried to summarize a rule by omitting something I find it lacking.
3-3 is only a few words longer than the summary and, in this case it's missing the subtlety between 'may' and 'must'.
3-3 says essentially that the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count, he MUST blah blah.
That distinction between may and must is what much of this thread is about.
I don't find the exact wording in 3-3 to be that much more complicated that we can't use its exact wording to explain it.
[/quote]

Ed,

once a player chooses (= may) to invoke 3-3 he agrees he MUST do certain things.

If this is complicated I must beg your pardon for not seeing how.

EDIT: Sorry Ed, but this '[color=#0000ff]the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but [/color][color=#ff0000]if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count[/color][color=#0000ff], he MUST blah blah[/color]' comes from out of space, not from the Rules. It is NOT for the player to decide if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count but [b]IT IS A MUST[/b]. If he does not choose the Rules say what to do next but it is NOT for the player to choose.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410805223' post='10121109']
[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1410739529' post='10117313']
Sorry Bean, I'm just being pedantic.
Every time I've ever tried to summarize a rule by omitting something I find it lacking.
3-3 is only a few words longer than the summary and, in this case it's missing the subtlety between 'may' and 'must'.
3-3 says essentially that the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count, he MUST blah blah.
That distinction between may and must is what much of this thread is about.
I don't find the exact wording in 3-3 to be that much more complicated that we can't use its exact wording to explain it.
[/quote]

Ed,

once a player chooses (= may) to invoke 3-3 he agrees he MUST do certain things.

If this is complicated I must beg your pardon for not seeing how.

EDIT: Sorry Ed, but this '[color=#0000ff]the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but [/color][color=#ff0000]if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count[/color][color=#0000ff], he MUST blah blah[/color]' comes from out of space, not from the Rules. It is NOT for the player to decide if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count but [b]IT IS A MUST[/b]. If he does not choose the Rules say what to do next but it is NOT for the player to choose.
[/quote]

I LIKE pedantic. Really.

[gopherguts]

So has anybody actually come up with a situation where the player plays 2 balls but wants the FIRST one to count ?

I don't count the one offered earlier about dropping from a cart path because in THAT case the player wasn't sure it it was a MANDATORY drop and KNEW he wanted to play from the cart path (instead of deep rough) but wasn't sure he was [u]allowed[/u] to and so played a 2nd ball IN CASE the one off the cart path was not permitted.

After all, the point we're arguing here is when one isn't sure one is entitled to relief - NOT when one isn't sure whether or not he MUST take it.

[sui generis]

[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410825762' post='10122889']
So has anybody actually come up with a situation where the player plays 2 balls but wants the FIRST one to count ?

I don't count the one offered earlier about dropping from a cart path because in THAT case the player wasn't sure it it was a MANDATORY drop and KNEW he wanted to play from the cart path (instead of deep rough) but wasn't sure he was [u]allowed[/u] to and so played a 2nd ball IN CASE the one off the cart path was not permitted.

After all, the point we're arguing here is when one isn't sure one is entitled to relief - NOT when one isn't sure whether or not he MUST take it.
[/quote]

Ball #1 is in an area indicated by painted stakes that are not white, yellow or red. Player is uncertain of the meaning of the stakes, no relevant Local Rules on the back of the score card and FC's are no help. Player opts to play a second ball while stating that he wishes to score with the first ball because NPR is behind a bush.

[gopherguts]

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410826743' post='10122983']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410825762' post='10122889']
So has anybody actually come up with a situation where the player plays 2 balls but wants the FIRST one to count ?

I don't count the one offered earlier about dropping from a cart path because in THAT case the player wasn't sure it it was a MANDATORY drop and KNEW he wanted to play from the cart path (instead of deep rough) but wasn't sure he was [u]allowed[/u] to and so played a 2nd ball IN CASE the one off the cart path was not permitted.

After all, the point we're arguing here is when one isn't sure one is entitled to relief - NOT when one isn't sure whether or not he MUST take it.
[/quote]

Ball #1 is in an area indicated by painted stakes that are not white, yellow or red. Player is uncertain of the meaning of the stakes, no relevant Local Rules on the back of the score card and FC's are no help. Player opts to play a second ball while stating that he wishes to score with the first ball because NPR is behind a bush.
[/quote]

I see that the same as the "mandatory" cart example above.

Even though he would rather play the first ball he's not sure if he's allowed to (might be OB).

[sui generis]

[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410827579' post='10123065']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410826743' post='10122983']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410825762' post='10122889']
So has anybody actually come up with a situation where the player plays 2 balls but wants the FIRST one to count ?

I don't count the one offered earlier about dropping from a cart path because in THAT case the player wasn't sure it it was a MANDATORY drop and KNEW he wanted to play from the cart path (instead of deep rough) but wasn't sure he was [u]allowed[/u] to and so played a 2nd ball IN CASE the one off the cart path was not permitted.

After all, the point we're arguing here is when one isn't sure one is entitled to relief - NOT when one isn't sure whether or not he MUST take it.
[/quote]

Ball #1 is in an area indicated by painted stakes that are not white, yellow or red. Player is uncertain of the meaning of the stakes, no relevant Local Rules on the back of the score card and FC's are no help. Player opts to play a second ball while stating that he wishes to score with the first ball because NPR is behind a bush.
[/quote]

I see that the same as the "mandatory" cart example above.

Even though he would rather play the first ball he's not sure if he's allowed to (might be OB).
[/quote]

Never mind.

[edwjmcgrath]

[quote name='Mr. Bean' timestamp='1410805223' post='10121109']
[quote name='edwjmcgrath' timestamp='1410739529' post='10117313']
Sorry Bean, I'm just being pedantic.
Every time I've ever tried to summarize a rule by omitting something I find it lacking.
3-3 is only a few words longer than the summary and, in this case it's missing the subtlety between 'may' and 'must'.
3-3 says essentially that the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count, he MUST blah blah.
That distinction between may and must is what much of this thread is about.
I don't find the exact wording in 3-3 to be that much more complicated that we can't use its exact wording to explain it.
[/quote]

Ed,

once a player chooses (= may) to invoke 3-3 he agrees he MUST do certain things.

If this is complicated I must beg your pardon for not seeing how.

EDIT: Sorry Ed, but this '[color=#0000ff]the player MAY complete the hole with two balls, but [/color][color=#ff0000]if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count[/color][color=#0000ff], he MUST blah blah[/color]' comes from out of space, not from the Rules. It is NOT for the player to decide if he wants to choose which ball he wants to count but [b]IT IS A MUST[/b]. If he does not choose the Rules say what to do next but it is NOT for the player to choose.
[/quote]
What I was trying to say is that if the player wants any say in which ball will count, he must state it before he plays either ball. If he fails to state it, then the rules will determine which ball will count. I'm sure that we agree on this. This only reinforces the point that I was trying to make which is, trying to summarize a rule is fraught with potential problems. The rules have been word-smithed to death and summarizing them inevitably misses or confuses something.

[gopherguts]

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410829149' post='10123245']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410827579' post='10123065']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410826743' post='10122983']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410825762' post='10122889']
So has anybody actually come up with a situation where the player plays 2 balls but wants the FIRST one to count ?

I don't count the one offered earlier about dropping from a cart path because in THAT case the player wasn't sure it it was a MANDATORY drop and KNEW he wanted to play from the cart path (instead of deep rough) but wasn't sure he was [u]allowed[/u] to and so played a 2nd ball IN CASE the one off the cart path was not permitted.

After all, the point we're arguing here is when one isn't sure one is entitled to relief - NOT when one isn't sure whether or not he MUST take it.
[/quote]

Ball #1 is in an area indicated by painted stakes that are not white, yellow or red. Player is uncertain of the meaning of the stakes, no relevant Local Rules on the back of the score card and FC's are no help. Player opts to play a second ball while stating that he wishes to score with the first ball because NPR is behind a bush.
[/quote]

I see that the same as the "mandatory" cart example above.

Even though he would rather play the first ball he's not sure if he's allowed to (might be OB).
[/quote]

Never mind.
[/quote]

So you don't see a difference between a guy who WANTS to hit his first ball bit isn't sure if he's permitted to so he hits a 2nd one and one who DOESN'T WANT to hit the 1st ball because he wants relief if he's entitled to it ?

What eva,,,,,,,,,,

[sui generis]

[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410830902' post='10123439']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410829149' post='10123245']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410827579' post='10123065']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1410826743' post='10122983']
[quote name='gopherguts' timestamp='1410825762' post='10122889']
So has anybody actually come up with a situation where the player plays 2 balls but wants the FIRST one to count ?

I don't count the one offered earlier about dropping from a cart path because in THAT case the player wasn't sure it it was a MANDATORY drop and KNEW he wanted to play from the cart path (instead of deep rough) but wasn't sure he was [u]allowed[/u] to and so played a 2nd ball IN CASE the one off the cart path was not permitted.

After all, the point we're arguing here is when one isn't sure one is entitled to relief - NOT when one isn't sure whether or not he MUST take it.
[/quote]

Ball #1 is in an area indicated by painted stakes that are not white, yellow or red. Player is uncertain of the meaning of the stakes, no relevant Local Rules on the back of the score card and FC's are no help. Player opts to play a second ball while stating that he wishes to score with the first ball because NPR is behind a bush.
[/quote]

I see that the same as the "mandatory" cart example above.

Even though he would rather play the first ball he's not sure if he's allowed to (might be OB).
[/quote]

Never mind.
[/quote]

So you don't see a difference between a guy who WANTS to hit his first ball bit isn't sure if he's permitted to so he hits a 2nd one and one who DOESN'T WANT to hit the 1st ball because he wants relief if he's entitled to it ?

What eva,,,,,,,,,,
[/quote]

You'll figure it out on your own, someday.

[Cancun]

Hi Gopher:

Let me see if I understand the logic you suggest:[list]
[*]You say that, for a mandatory relief, the player would rather not to take relief. He would take relief only if it’s a must, but otherwise the original should count if the Rules permit…
[*]For an optional relief, the player would want to take that relief, so the ball played under relief would count if played under the Rules…
[/list]

While it sounds logic and it’s likely to be correct, I see situations where you would not know if the player played two balls because [i]he wanted to[/i], or because [i]he thought he had to[/i]… You don’t know what the player thinks. Since the score for each ball is [b]already known [/b]when the facts are presents to the Committee, the player could argue anything. What if it was a mandatory relief but the player didn’t know it and he wanted to take relief? Then you could avoid some problems by having the player say WHY he’s playing two balls (he makes an announcement after all) [b]so that we could infer which one he wants to count.[/b]

That is without even talking about those times when none of the balls is the original (or the original is not played as it lay) and the player takes relief under two different Rules… and then the player would have to say which ball he wants to count, if the Rules permit…

[b]Forgive me, but if we’ll ask the player to make a statement, it should be one where we don’t have to infer anything. The Rule, as it is today, asks [u]the same[/u] to any player who’s playing two balls because of a doubt as to procedure: he must say which ball he wants to count if the Rules permit.[/b]

I truly believe it’s much easier this way. Nobody infers and nobody uses common sense (which is not always uniform). It’s simple, it’s clear and it leaves no room for interpretation or for anybody changing their mind. It’s the same statement, regardless of the kind of situation the player might be facing… Now: if the player doesn’t make the announcement he doesn’t get to choose. I don’r see any reason why the Committee would have to try to solve his problems if he didn’t do his homework. Life is tough mi friend!

Good night gentlemen!