Ask Linda #234a-Illogical golf rule?

Linda,

I read your response to post #234 and was a bit surprised by your answer even though I now agree that it was correct after researching Decisions 16/2 and 16/3. However, I do not understand the logic behind those decisions. Intuitively, I think Decisions 16/2 and 16/3 are backward.

If more than 50% of an embedded ball is within the circumference of the cup, it would seem that the prior shot should be deemed to be holed because placing the ball on the lip would be on a spot that is further away than where it landed. If it were placed exactly vertically upward, it would fall in the hole 100% of the time. I cannot think of another situation where a player would be "REQUIRED" to both mark and play his next shot from a further point on the green. Even in a damaged green or with casual water, the player has the "OPTION" of playing the ball on "the spot" where it landed. Thus, Decision 16/3 seems to be a manufactured anomaly to other Rules.

Decision 16/2 states:

16/2 Ball Embedded in Side of Hole; All of Ball Below Lip of Hole
Q. A player's ball embeds in the side of a hole. All of the ball is below the level of the lip of the hole. What is the ruling?
A. The ball should be considered holed even though all of the ball is not within the circumference of the hole as required by the Definition of "Holed."
This decision also appears illogical. If the ball was not embedded in the side of the hole but rather anywhere else on the green, the spot for the next shot would be vertically above its current position on the surface of the green. So why is a player entitled to spot his ball as much 50% closer to hole (enough to deem it holed) solely because it is embedded below the surface of the green while merely touching the circumference of the hole?

To illustrate the unfairness of these Decisions, consider two situations:

Situation 1: A high arching shot embeds deeply (below the surface of the green) on a wet green next to the cup such that its outer edge is barely touching the circumference of the hole. Under Decision 16/2, that shot is deemed to be holed even though 99%+ of the ball is outside the circumference of the cup.

Situation 2: A high arching shot embeds on a wet green on the lip of the cup such that 7/8 of the ball is hanging over the cup but the ball is not below the surface of the green. Under Decision 16/3, that ball must be placed on the lip which is 3/8" further from the spot in which it came to rest.

Clearly, the shot in Situation 1 was not as good as the shot in Situation 2 but the result is one less stroke. Further, both Decisions 16/2 and 16/3 resulted in an artificial placement of the ball in a spot not consistent with where it landed on the green.

I realize you do not make the rules, but maybe you could lend some insight as to the logic behind these seemingly weird decisions. I would be surprised if I am the only person who responds to this situation.

Thanks,
Lou Lou

Dear Lou Lou,

I’m glad to learn that I have readers who are motivated to read the Decisions I cite in my answers and to spend quality time analyzing and considering the implications of those Decisions. I will do my very best to try to justify the logic behind these particular Decisions.

Let’s first look at your statement that you “cannot think of another situation where a player would be "REQUIRED" to both mark and play his next shot from a further point on the green.” Here’s one: Rule 17-4 talks about what to do when your ball is resting against the flagstick. If the flagstick is removed and the ball falls in, it is holed. However, if the ball moves away from the hole when the flagstick is removed, the player is required to place it on the lip of the hole without penalty. This is clearly a case of a ball that was partially in the hole being placed further from the hole.

You’re looking for some logic, Lou, so let’s find it. We should start with the definition of “holed.” “A ball is ‘holed’ when it is at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of it is below the level of the lip of the hole.” The ball must be in the hole and below the lip. A ball that dives into the hole and embeds in the side of the hole with all of it below the surface meets the definition of “holed.” The player cannot be held responsible if the cup liner has been sunk too low or if there is no liner in the hole keeping the ball from embedding in the side when conditions are extremely wet, so the requirement that it be within the circumference of the hole is waived. The player’s ball entered the hole first, before embedding, and finished completely below the lip; it is “holed.”

A ball that embeds in the side of a hole and is not below the level of the lip has smashed into the back of the hole. It has not truly entered the hole. Part of it is sitting on top of the green, albeit plugged. This ball has not met the definition of “holed,” since it is not completely below the surface and is partially on top of the green.

So, if a ball cannot be considered “holed” if it did not enter the hole and finish below the lip, what are the rules’ makers supposed to establish as a procedure for a ball embedded in the side but partially above ground? The only possible and logical solution is to place the ball on the lip of the hole, and the player can then tap it in. A player can never be awarded a holed ball – it must have entered the hole as the result of a stroke. While placing a ball “on the spot” is an option elsewhere on the golf course, it can never be an option to place a ball in the hole. Decision 16/3 is not a “manufactured anomaly to other Rules,” as you suggest, but a reasonable and fair relief procedure for a ball that has not met the definition of “holed.”

Now let’s address your examples. In your first situation, the ball embeds in the green next to the cup with part of it within the circumference of the hole. This ball is not considered “holed.” Decision 16/2 is talking about a ball that has entered the hole and embedded in the side. Picture the ball diving into the hole and, with no cup liner to stop it (or a cup liner that has been sunk too deep), plugging in the side. In your example the ball embedded in the green; it did not dive into the hole and embed in the side.

In your second situation, part of the ball is above the surface of the green, and has therefore not met the definition of “holed.”

Sometimes rules have to be made in accordance with what the rulebook calls “equity.” Think about it for a minute. What is the fairest relief for a ball partially within the hole that has not met the requirements for being considered “holed?” I think the answer you will come up with is the same that the rules’ authorities adopted, which is that the ball should be placed on the lip of the hole.

Linda
Copyright © 2010 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.