ok rules people

this is the situation 2 weeks ago I played round 1 club champs.

on the 9th I played my 2nd into a group of trees a jungle about 4mt square, my ball was found by a playing partner, it was buried and crap all over it.
I gathered the group I was with and asked what my options were
1. was play as lies
2. unplayable drop within 2 clubs.

id I dropped I was still in the crap so I decided to try and hack it out.
I hacked one and it moved 2 foot then I took the unplayable option which I knocked out. I scored a 9 on that hole after being in there for 2.

over the last week with discussion with other members I find out its classed as a garden bed and I had a free drop, which would have put me on for 3.

also I found out that playing from the garden bed is a penalty.

Added – this is not a defined garden bed grass goes right I to it..
I am going to speak with match committee this Saturday and explain what happened.

Q. where do I stand ?

I played the ball as it lied on good faith and with consultation of my playing group, which had a ladies committee member in it and a 25 year club member…

I’m happy with whatever the result is which I see as either DQ or score stands.. mind you I did get a 9 where with drop would have been a 5 at worst and I’m currently leading A grade by 1 shot.

please some advice..

Andrew

Your score stands regardless.

Now check you local rule, does it say ‘compulsory’ relief from garden beds or not?

as posted, It is a penalty from playing a ball that lies within the garden bed..

Because the comp is still open, you’re subject to DQ for not including the penalty. May get lucky if the penalty you took for the unplayable is the same as that for playing the first shot in the bed AND where you took the drop was allowable under the free relief option you didn’t know about, in which case score will stand and you should be ok.

Even so, the full committee has the ability to waive the DQ in certain circumstances. You have to demonstrate and have them accept that you “could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts” before handing in your card

See this decision

Decision 33-7/4.5

part below

Q.A competitor returns his score card. It later transpires that the score for one hole is lower than actually taken due to his failure to include a penalty stroke(s) which he did not know he had incurred. The error is discovered before the competition has closed.
Would the Committee be justified, under Rule 33-7, in waiving or modifying the penalty of disqualification prescribed in Rule 6-6d?
A.Generally, the disqualification prescribed by Rule 6-6d must not be waived or modified.
However, if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

They can either maintain the DQ or add the penalty to your score.

Good luck!

hahhaa cool thanks .

The other options you originally had but were not mentioned were to a) hit from where you played your 2nd shot under penalty of 1 stroke
b) take an unplayable and go back as far as you like in line with the flag.
In hindsight, both would have been better options and avoided an ambiguous ruling.

May get lucky if the penalty you took for the unplayable is the same as that for playing the first shot in the bed AND where you took the drop was allowable under the free relief option you didn’t know about, in which case score will stand and you should be ok.

He has played twice from compulsory GUR. Two shot penalty each time. The unplayable lie penalty also counts. He’s four shots short.

Any leniency would hinge on how accurately the GUR was marked, as 33-2 requires.

May get lucky if the penalty you took for the unplayable is the same as that for playing the first shot in the bed AND where you took the drop was allowable under the free relief option you didn’t know about, in which case score will stand and you should be ok.

He has played twice from compulsory GUR. Two shots each time. The unplayable lie penalty also counts. He’s four shots short.

Any leniency would hinge on how accurately the GUR was marked, as 33-2 requires.

 

not marked at all.

oh well will see what happens…

Steb

I’m betting the local rule doesn’t follow the specimen and the area hasn’t been marked/defined. Wasn’t clear also that the second stroke was from the GUR – probably was tho, a small chance of an out. I’d also be arguing whether it was GUR as (should have been) defined in the local rule. They’re often badly done as you know.

Bugger of a way to lose your lead in the champs, I reckon.

@p&b, careless wording on my part – I should have said ‘defined’, not ‘marked’.

I read him having two shots from within the GUR – he said he knocked it out after taking the unplayable.

I read him having two shots from within the GUR – he said he knocked it out after taking the unplayable.

 

that is correct steb, 2 from in the crap. the boundary of the area in question is not marked nor defined, grass goes right into it and all the other garden beds on course have wooden sleepers as boundary and wood chip under foot, this one does not have either.
I honestly thought I’m in the crap and I need to get it out, Ironically. I tried to milk a drop from the area, but considering the company I was in, a ladies official a club stalwart and another single figure player I took their word for it. I also had played s provisional from where I had my second shot and it was at the front of the green then since my ball was found it was subsequently picked up by my marker. just a comedy of errors which I’m sure will be corrected whatever be final decision becomes.

if its 4 shots well I can make that back, DQ I move to next year.

He has played twice from compulsory GUR. Two shot penalty each time. The unplayable lie penalty also counts. He’s four shots short.

Do you interpret the withdrawal, for the 2012 book, of Decision 25-3/2 (which said that the player’s penalty was two strokes even though he had played two stroke from an area from which play was prohibited) as a sign that the penalty should be four strokes?

P&B. Check the local rules & any conditions of play for the competition. If the area you described is not defined as a garden bed or Compulsory GUR then you did the right thing and the score should stand.
If the area is defined in some way & you were unaware of this then you are at the mercy of the Match committee & any decision that they wish to make.

P&B. Check the local rules & any conditions of play for the competition. If the area you described is not defined as a garden bed or Compulsory GUR then you did the right thing and the score should stand.
If the area is defined in some way & you were unaware of this then you are at the mercy of the Match committee & any decision that they wish to make.

http://www.golflink.com.au/...

i will take all this info and rules/decisions to them on Saturday, plead the not defined case, then fall back on Decision 33-7/4.5
as a final resort :)

i will accept any decision they come up with, rules are rules, would hate to win thinking i cheated the others even if it was mistaken…

@RG, yes (well that and I know of no remaining rule overriding 20-7.) I think the withdrawal was a good one—I see no reason why two strokes in the same play-prohibited GUR should be treated differently to one stroke in each of two different play-prohibited GUR’s.

I also never quite worked out why the same decision needed to excuse the player from 18-2a under equity for lifting without authority from a wrong putting green.

What are your thoughts or knowledge of the withdrawal?

If the Garden has no clear boundary , i.e. a wooden border , then it can only be treated as Through The Green …..IMO

Because the comp is still open

A stipulated round is 18 holes or less.. I feel sure that the competition is closed because the rules do not define what a multi-round competition is. Do you have a reference to the rules for this?

He has played twice from compulsory GUR. Two shot penalty each time. The unplayable lie penalty also counts. He’s four shots short

Multiple breaches of the same rule usually only result in one penalty?

A stipulated round is 18 holes or less.. I feel sure that the competition is closed because the rules do not define what a multi-round competition is. Do you have a reference to the rules for this?

The decision references “competition” not “stipulated round” – it’s a multi-round competition and the results haven’t been finalised. Has to be still “open”, doesn’t it?

The decision references “competition”

and the definitition of competition is? there has got to be a reference somewhere to what this means for multi round events.

“competition” is as established by the committee – R33-1

I think the decision is very deliberate in referencing “competition”. Is that not your view, Mark?

34-1 makes it clear when the competition is closed:

“A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced”

Multiple breaches of the same rule usually only result in one penalty?

Only if from a single act or related acts. These were two independent shots that had an unreasonable connection in time, in location and even had an additional intervening event in the middle.

As an example in Conditions of play.\
The competition will be run over 72 holes , being 4 rounds of 18 holes to be played on A B( Dates ) weekend & X Y (Dates) Weekend
etc
The competition is closed after the completion of the 4th round.
It is up to the Match committee to decide if
A- the area is in fact a Garden Bed that is Compulsory GUR.
B- If the answer to A is yes. Wether the GUR was Suitably Defined.
C- If player should be DQed for A breach of the rules that was not corrected.Ie playing from Compulsory GUR & not adding penalties
D- If Player should be DQed for signing for an incorrect score .
E- That the players Reasoning be accepted & the score be let stand.
As I read the OP , The match committee do not even know at this time that there has been any rules breach. This also should probably be taken into consideration .

I went back this evening to gather evidence and where I played from is completely different to all the garden beds on the course, no bark and no boundary looks like a clump trees, where all the other garden beds have boundaries are clean and bark.
I feel it might be allowed to pass and then a clear local rule stated for the area. will see in a few days. I will post result.

Is that not your view, Mark?

I cant know everything!