If the statements made in the OP are true (compulsory drop), then it has to be DQ for incorrect score on card.

Anyone contesting a club championship really should know Rule 28.
That would have saved you.

peter

PeterS
It is clear that the guy knew Rule 28. His problem was he made a poor decision and decided to play the ball as it lay.
Many strokes later he holed out.
The subsequent discovery was he was eligible for relief under Rule 25 and not only that, it seems relief was in fact compulsory by Local Rule.

The big problem was very poor delineation of the so called garden area.
The Committee has apparently done a mea culpa on the marking and decided the player could not know the area was compulsory relief.
Right or wrong the Committee made its decision.

Hi there,

Been frantically trying to get some guidance on a somewhat similar situation as to whether the procedure scenario are acceptable.

Local rule states garden bed can either be of 3 situations:
1) if marked by white pegs or lines, compulsory GUR
2) if tied to paths or man-made tracks: immovable obstruction
3) if neither of above, or specified as integral part of course: through the green.

Scenario 1:
Player played towards what looks like garden bed area, ball found at rest just inside such area. But like this post mentioned previously, player cannot find white pegs or marks because it was grown over.

To save time, player retrieved ball, and thinking he would request a ruling from / report the case to the committee later, drop the ball that satisfies both rules: the abnormal ground condition (one club length from nearest point of relief) and the unplayable (2 club lengths from where ball came to rest). He then played out the hole. He told his marker that the score of the hole would depend on what the committee will tell him. If it is garden bed, no penalty. If integral part of the course, he then would add the penalty.

Is this procedure correct?

Scenario 2:
Same situation. But player thought garden bed is type 3 (integral part of the course) per local rule, so took the unplayable option. His score for the hole included the penalty stroke. But as he was walking towards the next tee, he came to notice now there are faint white lines bordering the garden area, meaning it is compulsory GUR. He argued that it was unclear/obscure line/ peg markings that caused him to played such. He was not ignorant of the rules, and his unplayable drop is no different than a GUR drop, so there should not be any penalty, and the score should then be corrected.

What is the ruling here?

With such a situation, what should have been the recommended procedure? Would playing 2 balls help in such a situation?

Thank you and appreciate your enlightenment.

Shank,

Have a look at Decision 3-3/11 regarding Scenario 1 (and, while you’re there, you may want to read Decision 3-3/12 as well).

In Scenario 2, your player has proceeded under Rule 28 and he cannot get that penalty stroke back after having dropped the ball under that rule (if he had realized the status of the area before dropping the ball then he could have proceeded under Rule 25-1 instead: Decision 28/13).

Were I a member of the Committee and if I agreed with the player that we (the Committee) had failed to mark this area adequately, I would waive the penalty (or suggest that the round be canceled if our negligence had a greater effect on the competition). And, if anyone pointed to the second sentence of Rule 33-7 to tell me that I couldn’t do that, I would nod knowingly and walk away.

RulesGeek,

You are just wonderful. Had been browsing nearly all Decisions of Rule 25 and Rule 28 the last 2 days and the only thing close was as you pointed out Decision 28/13.

Scenario 2 was what actually happened at a significant competition among 2 golf teams of serious and enthusiastic golfers held in conjunction with an official stroke play event at a local golf club. So the concern was more on the result between the teams than the club organised event. As you might imagine, there were two schools of though among the “committee”: that whats done is done and the player should know the rules; it’s action that counts, not what you have intended, doubted, suspected. The other school was sympathetic to the player as it was the golf club’s failure to mark the area adequately that caused it. Like you said, Rule 33-7 was quoted, but to cut the story short, the decision was to award the player the benefit.

Scenario 1 was brought out during the discussion process to see what could have been done if a similar situation happen again in future, and nobody was sure whether a player can drop a ball under 2 rules. Your pointing to Decision 3-3/11 and 3-3/12 gave us the exact answer, that it is permissible.

Well, RulesGeek you’ve made my day, and I have learned a lot. A sincere Thank you to you for taking the time and effort to answer my query.

As an aside, I was using the Rules Explorer from the R&A and found their search function giving out too many possibilities. Noticed you referred me to the USGA site. How did you find their search facility? What method do you normally use to search for situations / decisions?. Noticed also there is available a Decisions app for smartphones from the R&A, wondered if the search function is any better?

Have taken too much of the time already. Will understand if you do not comment further. Thanks again for your help. Cheers,

Shank

You are just wonderful.

That’s a universally held opinion – just browse a few of the other recent threads and you’ll see. [if any readers need an emoticon to understand that I’m joking, feel free to insert one (anywhere that it fits).]

IMO, the fault here lies with the course for littering their holes with areas from which they do not want player to play. Flowers are beautiful and smell nice and if they absolutely must be near a golf course then they should be located in pots adjacent to the clubhouse entrances.

When searching for Decisions, I use my own database of Decisions. I began keeping that database back when I was part of the group that proofread the book. The database (and its regular-expression search) helped us to keep the phrasing of Decisions consistent, to verify that cross-references and index entries were correct, etc. Unfortunately, I cannot share the database as the Rules and Decisions are a copyright-protected work (also, if I were to make it available for sharing I would want to clean up some of the quirks that still exist). The web page that display my search results also gives me a USGA-site link so that is what I put in my posts.

You’re welcome and don’t worry about taking up too much of my time.

In Scenario 2, your player has proceeded under Rule 28 and he cannot get that penalty stroke back after having dropped the ball under that rule (if he had realized the status of the area before dropping the ball then he could have proceeded under Rule 25-1 instead: Decision 28/13).

Players don’t usually quote which rule under which they are taking a drop (at least, not at club level). Some might comment “I’m taking a drop out of the garden”, whereas others might say nothing. The player is required to advise his marker how many strokes he took for the hole. On reflecting the hole just played, sometimes players change the report of the number of strokes. In this scenario, such a correction would be seen as ‘normal’.

Is there any obligation to state a reference to the rule under which a player is taking action?

...Is there any obligation to state a reference to the rule under which a player is taking action?...

Fortunately not :-)
I have never heard a player state a Rule number nor have I told a player which Rule number to proceed under in my entire “career” as a Referee.
This goes for both professionals as well as amateurs at any level.

Most high level amateurs and most professionals know their Rules, but can’t put a number on them.

Ok then, if the drop conformed to 25-1 (one club length), why is he penalised as dropping under rule 28?

Shank, who posted the descriptions, indicated that the player’s drop conformed to a “GUR” drop.

I agree that, if he dropped more than one club length, then he has no grounds for any revision of his score.

Ok then, if the drop conformed to 25-1 (one club length), why is he penalised as dropping under rule 28?

Shank, who posted the descriptions, indicated that the player’s drop conformed to a “GUR” drop.

I agree that, if he dropped more than one club length, then he has no grounds for any revision of his score.

OldBogey

GolfLink

OlindaGolfClub

I very much agree with your thoughts here OB, as long as it was dropped accordingly the GUR drop should be fine shouldn’t it??

RulesDoc
That’s reassuring for us amateurs to know that even most professionals can’t put a number on the rules!

OldBogey
Presume you are talking about my Scenario 2. There at the garden bed, which the player took as through the green, the only two options available to him were either to smash the ball out, which may take like 8 or 11 shots, or take the unplayable. To him, GUR was not permissible as he could not see any marking or indication. So in taking the unplayable, which is within 2 club lengths from where the ball originally lay, that one stroke penalty will count once he make the drop, unless as described in Decision 28/13, he discovered the GUR condition and changed his mind before the drop.

So without the GUR situation, even if the resulting drop was “within 1 club length from the nearest point of relief per Rule 25”, as there was no relief situation available (GUR was non existent as perceived by him), he would have no other drop option except under Rule 28.

Hope this clarifies. And sorry to cause the confusion with my kind of diction in my original post.

Shank

Oops, I keep forgetting the 3 options:

Play the ball as it lies,
Declare it unplayable (Rule 28), or
Penalty of Stroke and Distance (Rule 27-1a)

Shank

Three options under rule 28.
27-1a doesn’t come into it.

So, while you’re there, Shank. Did he drop within one club length (for GUR) or more than one but within two (unplayable)?

Old Bogey,

Sorry, problem with my brevity again.

I said under Scenario 2, the real situation, when his ball was in the garden bed, he would have 3, not just 2 options I mentioned previously:
Smash / play ball as it lies, or
Unplayable,(which has 3 options, including one using rule 27-1a), or
Stroke and distance. 27-1a

But he took the unplayable using the 2-club length drop.

As GUR was never considered, the free relief drop could not be taken. The nearest point of relief was never established. So cannot say whether his drop is one club length (from point of relief) or not. All I can say is his drop is as per the 2 club length procedure under Rule 28.

Scenario 1 was then brought up as a discussion hypothetically whether one can drop a ball that can satisfy the requirement of two rules viz Rule 25 and Rule 28 as the status of the garden bed was not determined. RulesGeek confirmed that it is permissible.

Old Bogey, I was using Rule numbers here to elucidate what we are referring to. The conversation was probably like this: (this is not intended to insult your intelligence, but to show what transpired).

“Gee my ball went towards the garden bed under those trees…..
(after walking up to the garden bed)
Did you see my ball?
Here it is, just inside this clump of bushes.
Is this garden GUR or not?
Can’t see any pegs or white lines!
Shit, too risky to hack it out.
I’ll take the unplayable then…...”.
(Drop the ball as per Rule 28)
only after holing out, he discovered faint white lines around the garden bed…...
“Damn… Is there anyway that can allow me not to count the penalty stroke?
Too late mate….Sorry,
But that was actually GUR….
But you took the drop under the unplayable rule
The Rules are silly….
Well that is the Rule,,,,Can try complaining to the committee! about the obscure marking!”..........

Shank

Ok, clarified. Penalty applies.

Unplayable has 3 options, but none of them relate to 27-1a which is for a lost ball.

Unplayable has 3 options, but none of them relate to 27-1a which is for a lost ball.

Snipped from Rule 28, unplayable ball:

”...If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he must, under penalty of one stroke:
a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1….”

Rule 28a, 26-1a and 27-1a are indeed 3 different Rules, but it’s the same procedure and the same penalty in all three of them.
28a and 26-1a both relates to Rule 27-1a.

I read that !
How did I not ‘see’ that ????

Apologies to Shanks.

Thanks RulesDoc for the clarification.

Just playing the devil.

Rule 27-1a states that “At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played…...”

So even if my ball is not lost, my ball is not in the bunker, my ball is not in water, and my ball is not unplayable, I just don’t like where it has landed, and without undue delay, I can go back and put another ball in play as per the procedure stipulated under this 27-1a rule, taking the penalty stroke. Permissible?

Shank
BTW, how do I extract and highlight someone’s previous post and put it in my reply to better refer what was said?

1. Yes, permissible.

2. Click “quote” and maybe remove the pieces you don’t like to quote. Remember to keep the “blockquotes” and the < p > in the beginning and the < / p > in the end of the wanted text or text-bit.
If you don’t like the text posted, you can edit, but it’s not as good as getting it right the first time. Good enough for mus-spellings, though.

Thanks RulesDoc for quick reply…... Most helpful….. Shank

I very much agree with your thoughts here OB, as long as it was dropped accordingly the GUR drop should be fine shouldn’t it??

If this player’s intention when he dropped the ball was to proceed under the unplayable ball rule then that is what he did (and the one-stroke penalty applies).

Apologies to Shanks.

OldBogey…...Don’t worry about it…..Cheers…...Shank