Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
100 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
In Stroke Play, a player hits his tee shot 280 yards down the right side of the fairway into thick rough. He finds a ball he believes is his, declares it unplayable, drops within two club lengths and plays the ball to the green. He then discovers that the ball he has played is not his original ball. What is his penalty? |
He incurred a penalty of one stroke under rule 27-1 and an additional penalty of two strokes under rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place, for a total of three strokes. In addition, since he has gained a significant advantage by not having to replay his tee shot, he must correct the error before teeing off at the next hole or he is disqualified. |
|
|
A player finds a ball he believes is his original ball, deems it unplayable and drops it under Rule 28b or c. He then discovers that the ball is not his but is, in fact, a stray ball. What is the ruling?
|
When the player dropped the stray ball, it became a substituted ball. However, the player was not entitled to proceed under Rule 28b or c without finding the original ball. Since a stroke has not been made with the substituted ball, the player is entitled to correct his error under Rule 20-6 by abandoning the substituted ball and resuming search for the original ball. If the player's ball is lost, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
|
|
|
A player, believing that a ball lying very badly in a bunker is his ball, deems it unplayable, drops it in the bunker and plays it out. He then discovers that the ball he has played is not his original ball. Has he played a wrong ball? |
No. He has played from a wrong place. In match play, he incurs a penalty of loss of hole (Rule 20-7b). In stroke play, he incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 27-1 and an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place. If the breach was a serious one, he is subject to disqualification unless he corrected his error as provided in Rule 20-7c. |
|
|
A course has been going through a period of renovation necessitating the use of temporary putting greens from time to time.
A Local Rule states that a player whose ball lies on a temporary green may either pick up his ball, counting two putts, or putt out. Is such a Local Rule authorized? |
No. Rule 1-1 provides: "The Game of Golf consists in playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules." Any Local Rule under which a player would not be required to play the ball into the hole waives this basic Rule and is not authorized. |
|
|
A player concedes his opponent's next stroke and either picks up the opponent's ball and rolls it to the opponent or knocks it back to him with a club. The player did so only for the purpose of returning the opponent's ball to him, not to test the surface of the putting green. Was the player in breach of Rule 16-1d (Testing Surface)? |
No. Such casual action is not a breach of Rule 16-1d. |
|
|
A player who started a round with 13 clubs broke his putter in anger, i.e., other than in the normal course of play, during the first nine holes. He bought another putter in the pro shop after the first nine holes and used it for the remainder of the round. Rule 4-3a(iii) permits replacing a club only if it becomes unfit for play in the normal course of play. Was the player subject to penalty? |
No. Since he started with 13 clubs, he was entitled to add another club under Rule 4-4a. |
|
|
A player plays a stroke from within a water hazard but does not extricate the ball from the hazard. The player sees the ball land in deep water and it is clearly unreasonable for him to play a stroke at the ball from its new position. Before leaving the hazard, the player cleans mud off his clubhead by rinsing it in the water. Is the player in breach of Rule 13-4? |
No, provided that there is no doubt or it is reasonable to assume from the player's actions or statements that he will play his next stroke from outside the hazard. |
|
|
A player drops his ball in accordance with the Rules. The ball rolls and the player is uncertain whether it has come to rest more than two club-lengths from where it first struck a part of the course. The player measures to determine whether he must re-drop under Rule 20-2c(vi) and in doing so accidentally causes the ball to move. What is the ruling if (a) the ball had rolled more than two club-lengths or (b) the ball had not rolled more than two club-lengths? |
The player incurs no penalty for causing his ball to move in either case (see Rule 18-6). If the ball had rolled more than two club-lengths, it must be re-dropped. If the ball had not rolled more than two club-lengths, it must be replaced. |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor's ball lies in a water hazard. A movable stake defining the margin of the hazard interferes with the area of his intended swing. He makes his next stroke, avoiding the stake. It then occurs to him that he may have been entitled to remove the stake. The competitor informs his marker that he is invoking Rule 3-3 and elects to score with a second ball. He removes the stake and drops a second ball at the spot from which his original ball was played. He holes out with both balls. What is the ruling? |
The situation that caused the doubt arose when the competitor's ball lay in the water hazard and the stake interfered with his swing. Since the competitor took further action, i.e., played the original ball, after the situation that caused the doubt had arisen, the score with the original ball must count -- see the Note to Rule 3-3a.
However, the competitor incurs no penalty for having played the second ball. (Revised) |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor plays two balls (X and Y) under Rule 3-3. When he reports the facts to the Committee before returning his score card, the Committee determines that he must score with Ball Y. Subsequently, the Committee realizes it made an incorrect ruling and that the score with Ball X should have been the competitor's score for the hole. May the Committee correct this mistake? |
Such a mistake is an incorrect ruling and not an administrative error. Therefore Rule 34 applies and the answer depends on when the Committee learns of its incorrect ruling.
If the Committee learns of the incorrect ruling before the competition closes, it should correct the ruling without penalty to the competitor by changing his score for the hole in question to that with Ball X (Decision 34-3/1). If the Committee learns of the incorrect ruling after the competition has closed, the score with Ball Y must remain the competitor's score for the hole in question. Under Rule 34-3, such a ruling is final once the competition has closed. (New) |
|
|
A player, believing his tee shot might be lost or out of bounds, plays a provisional ball. His provisional ball is struck in the same direction as the original ball and, without any announcement, he plays another ball from the tee. This ball comes to rest on the fairway. What is the ruling? |
If the original ball is not lost or out of bounds, the player must continue play with that ball without penalty.
If the original ball is lost or out of bounds, the player must continue play with the third ball played from the tee as, when this ball was played without any announcement, it rendered the provisional ball lost, regardless of the provisional ball's location. The player would lie 5 with the third ball played from the tee. In both situations, the third ball bears a relationship only to the previous ball played, i.e., the provisional ball. |
|
|
In match play, A's ball was resting against the flagstick but it was not holed. A, believing he had holed out, lifted his ball without first marking its position. In doing so, A incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 20-1. Since A was not aware that he had incurred a penalty, he did not inform B. B, who had not witnessed A's actions, played his next stroke. A's actions were then brought to the attention of B and he picked up his ball, claiming that A's lifting of his ball entailed a penalty of loss of hole. A and B agreed to continue the match and refer B's claim to the Committee later. How should the Committee have ruled? |
The Committee should have ruled that B won the hole. B's claim was valid since he notified his opponent that he was making a claim or wanted a ruling (A and B agreed to refer B's claim to the Committee), and the facts that gave rise to the claim (A's lifting of the ball). Although the penalty for A's lifting of the ball without first marking its position is one stroke, he lost the hole for giving wrong information (Rule 9-2b) when he failed to inform B before he (B) played his next stroke that he (A) had incurred the penalty stroke.
(Decision 2-5/3) |
|
|
If a player's original ball may have come to rest in a water hazard, is he precluded from playing a provisional ball? |
No. Even though the original ball may be in a water hazard, the player is entitled to play a provisional ball if the original ball might also be lost outside the water hazard or out of bounds. In such a case, if the original ball is found in the water hazard, the provisional ball must be abandoned -- Rule 27-2c (Formerly 27-2c/1) |
|
|
An area of casual water preceded by high rough is in a hollow not visible from the tee. A ball driven into this area is not found. The ball may be in the casual water or it may be in the high rough. May the player treat the ball as being in the casual water? |
No. In such circumstances, it is neither known nor virtually certain that the ball is in casual water. The player may not proceed under Rule 25-1c. (Revised)
|
|
|
May a player brush dew or frost from his line of putt?
|
No. Rule 16-1a prohibits touching the line of putt except in removal of loose impediments, repair of ball marks, etc. Dew or frost is not a loose impediment -- see Definition of "Loose Impediments." Accordingly, such action would be a breach of Rule 16-1a. |
|
|
Players hits his ball into a lateral water hazard and decides to proceed under rule 26-1c. He drops the ball within two club-lengths of the point where his ball last crossed the margin of the hazard. The ball rolls into the hazard. He re-drops and again the ball rolls into the hazard. He places the ball as close as possible to where the second drop landed and it rolls away. He places it again and it still fails to come to rest.
Which of the following is correct for what the player must do next?
A. Player must re-drop within two club lengths of the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, no nearer the hole.
B. He must place the ball within two club lengths of where the second drop first struck a part of the course.
C. He must place the ball at the nearest spot where it can be placed at rest through the green.
D. He must place the ball at the nearest spot where it can be placed at rest that is not nearer the hole and is not in the hazard. |
The correct answer is D. C is not correct because through the green excludes the teeing ground and it's possible that the teeing ground may be where the ball has to be placed in this situation. |
|
|
Two players on the 8th hole play their approach shots to the 8th green. They agree to tee off at the 9th hole and then putt out on the 8th green. This is to avoid having to walk back up a hill to the 9th tee and to save time. What is the ruling? |
In match play, the players are disqualified under Rule 1-3 for excluding the operation of Rule 2-1 by failing to play the stipulated round, provided the players knew that this was a breach of the Rules. If they did not know that their action was a breach of the Rules, both holes stand as played.
In stroke play, the competitors are disqualified under Rule 3-2 for failing to hole out on the 8th hole before making a stroke from the 9th tee. (Revised) |
|
|
A player, unable to find his ball, puts another ball into play. He then discovers that his original ball is in the hole. What is the ruling? |
The score with the original ball counts. The play of the hole was completed when the player holed that ball. |
|
|
At a par-3 hole, a player, believing his original ball may be lost, plays a provisional ball. He searches five minutes for the original ball and then plays the provisional ball onto the green. At that point, the original ball is found in the hole. What is the players score? |
The player has a score of 1. The hole was completed with the original ball. |
|
|
On a par-3 hole, A player played to a blind green and putted what he thought was his ball. He then discovered that his own ball was in the hole and that the ball he had putted was a wrong ball. What is his score? |
The player scores 1. The hole was completed with his original ball and the player incurs no penalty for subsequently playing a wrong ball. |
|
|
An opponent or a fellow-competitor purposely steps on the player's line of putt and damages it by making spike marks. The player uses his putter to tap down the new spike marks and then putts his ball into the hole. How many penalty strokes has each player incurred?
|
The opponent or the fellow-competitor was in breach of Rule 1-2. The penalty is loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play, unless the Committee decides to impose a penalty of disqualification – see the penalty statement of Rule 1-2.
The player, in equity (Rule 1-4), may restore the line of putt to its previous condition. A player is entitled to the lie and line of putt he had when his ball came to rest. Therefore the player incurs no penalty. |
|
|
In stroke play, John's ball is under a partially detached tree branch from which he believes he is entitled to relief without penalty. John calls for a ruling. Brad, John's fellow-competitor, argues John's case to a referee and, during the conversation, lifts the branch and improves or worsens John's line of play. What is the ruling? |
As Brad did not alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting John's playing of the hole, Brad is not in breach of Rule 1-2. John incurs no penalty and may replace the branch, but he is not required to do so. |
|
|
May a player lay his golf bag parallel to the line of putt to shield the line from the wind? |
No. Such an action taken with the intent to influence the movement of the ball would be a breach of Rule 1-2, even if the golf bag were removed prior to the stroke being made. |
|
|
A player elects to take relief from an area of ground under repair through the green. He correctly determines his nearest point of relief and the one club-length area in which the ball must be dropped under Rule 25-1b(i). The player is aware that there is a small bush located outside the dropping area. Fearing that his ball could come to rest close to the bush when dropped, without a re-drop being required under Rule 20-2c, the player intentionally breaks off and removes part of the bush. What is the ruling? |
As the player has not improved the area in which a ball is to be dropped, (i.e., the area in which the ball must first strike a part of the course when dropped under Rule 25-1b(i)), Rule 13-2 does not apply. However, the player is in breach of Rule 1-2 for taking an action with the intent to affect the playing of the hole by altering the physical conditions, and must be penalized 2 strokes.
The same principles apply to a situation where a player's ball is at rest, but he fears that it might move. For example, if a player's ball is at rest on a steep slope through the green and he breaks an attached tree branch that might interfere with his swing if the ball were to roll ten feet down the slope, the player is in breach of Rule 1-2 for taking an action with the intent to affect the playing of the hole by altering the physical conditions. |
|
|
After holing out, a player observes that the edge of the hole is ragged. He pats the ragged edge with his hand and smoothes it. Does the player incur a penalty under Rule 1-2 if his opponent, fellow-competitor or partner has not holed out? |
If the player smoothed the edge of the hole solely for the purpose of caring for the course, he was not in breach of Rule 1-2. However, if the smoothing of the ragged edge was in any way intended to influence the movement of his opponent's, fellow-competitor's or partner's ball, or alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of the hole, he was in breach of Rule 1-2. It is recommended that a player should only smooth the ragged edge of a hole after all players in the group or match have completed play of the hole.
As the player had holed out, he is not subject to penalty under Rule 16-1a or Rule 13-2.
In a four-ball competition, if the player's partner had not completed play of the hole, the partner incurs the penalty for a breach of Rule 16-1a. Two strokes in stroke play. Loss of Hole in Match play. |
|
|
A player whose ball overhangs the lip of the hole jumps close to the hole in the hope of jarring the ground and causing the ball to fall into the hole. What is the penalty? |
If the ball was at rest and did not move, there is no penalty.
If the ball was at rest and the ball moved, the player incurs a penalty of 1 stroke in both match play and stroke play.
If the ball was still moving, the player is in breach of rule 1-2 and incurs the general penalty. |
|
|
A player's ball lies through the green. After playing a pitch shot up a slope, the player sees his ball start to roll back towards him. He places his club in front of the ball and stops it. The ball would have rolled only a few yards more and remained through the green. What is the ruling? |
Since the player purposely stopped the ball, he is in breach of Rule 1-2. As the breach was not serious, the player incurs a penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play. In stroke play, he must play the ball from the point where he stopped it with his club – see Note 2 to Rule 1-2. |
|
|
A player's ball lies through the green. After playing a pitch shot up a slope, the player sees his ball start to roll back towards him. He places his club in front of the ball and deflects it. The ball rolls a few yards away and remained through the green. What is the ruling? |
If the player purposely deflected the ball but not stopped it, in match play, he would lose the hole. In stroke play, if a serious breach has not occurred, he would incur a two-stroke penalty and must then play the ball from its new position – see Note 2 to Rule 1-2. In stroke play, if a serious breach has occurred, the player is disqualified.
Rule 19-2 is not applicable since it only covers situations when a player accidentally deflects or stops his ball. |
|
|
In four-ball match play, A and B are playing C and D. All four balls lie on the putting green in five strokes. A lies four feet from the hole and B lies 30 feet from the hole. Player A is standing near and behind the hole with respect to B's line of putt while B putts. B's ball goes past the hole and is rolling towards where A is standing. Without waiting for B's ball to come to rest, A knocks B's ball back to B. What is the ruling? |
A's intentional interference with the movement of B's ball is a breach of Rule 1-2. However, the penalty for that breach is incurred by B – the partner whose ball was in motion – and results in disqualification from the hole for B. A may continue to represent the side without penalty as the breach of Rule 1-2 did not assist him. |
|
|
A player's ball lies through the green at the bottom of a slope. The player makes a stroke and sees that his ball is rolling back down the slope towards the spot from which he just played. Before the ball reaches that spot, the player presses down a raised piece of turf in that area with the intent of ensuring that his ball will not come to rest against the raised piece of turf or in the divot hole. Is the player in breach of Rule 1-2? |
Yes, as he acted with the intent to influence the movement of his ball in play and with the intent to alter the physical conditions affecting playing of the hole. As the pressing down of the raised piece of turf was not for the sole purpose of caring for the course, Exception 2 to Rule 1-2 does not apply.
If the player had not realized his ball was returning to the area, there would be no breach of Rule 1-2. |
|
|
In replacing his ball but before putting it back into play, a player firmly presses the ball into the surface of the putting green in order to prevent it from being moved by the wind or gravity. What is the ruling? |
In altering the surface of the putting green, the player has breached Rule 1-2 by intentionally taking action to influence the movement of a ball in play and to alter physical conditions that affect the playing of the hole. In match play, the player loses the hole – Rule 1-2. In stroke play, the player incurs a penalty of two strokes and must play the ball as it lies – Rule 1-2. |
|
|
A player's ball lies near a cactus, and to play the ball, the player would have to stand with his legs touching the cactus. To protect himself from the cactus needles, the player wraps a towel around his legs before taking his stance. He then plays the ball. What is the ruling? |
Provided the player does not breach Rule 13-2 (i.e., he takes his stance fairly), there is no breach of the Rules. However, if the player were to place the towel on the cactus, the player would be in breach of Rule 1-2 for altering physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of the hole; as a result, he would lose the hole in match play or incur a penalty of two strokes in stroke play. |
|
|
While walking to the 1st green, A and B agree that for a ball that is out of bounds they will drop a ball at the spot where the ball went out of bounds under penalty of one stroke, even though they know the penalty is stroke and distance. Someone overhears this conversation and advises A and B that they may not make such an arrangement. Neither player has yet hit a ball out of bounds. What is the ruling? |
A and B are disqualified under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive Rule 27-1b. Even though A and B had not yet acted on the agreement, they were in breach of Rule 1-3 as soon as the agreement was reached during the stipulated round. In match play, if the players in a match agree to waive the Rules before their stipulated round, they are in breach of Rule 1-3 if either of them starts the stipulated round without having canceled the agreement. In stroke play, if competitors agree to waive the Rules before their stipulated round, each competitor is in breach of Rule 1-3 if one competitor who was part of the agreement starts his stipulated round without having canceled the agreement. |
|
|
In Match Play, the two players agree in advance to concede all putts within a specified length even though they know this is against the rules. What is the penalty? |
Rule 2-4 only allows the concession of "the next stroke." If the players were aware that they were excluding the operation of this rule, then the penalty is disqualification for both players. |
|
|
In a match, the two players agree in advance to concede all putts within a specified length. Is this agreement contrary to Rule 1-3? |
If the players were unaware that the Rules prevented them from agreeing to concede putts in this manner, there is no penalty under Rule 1-3. |
|
|
In a match, a player discovers at the 2nd hole that he has 15 clubs in his bag contrary to Rule 4-4a, but his opponent refuses to apply the penalty. The extra club is declared out of play and the match continues. The Committee disqualifies both players. Is this correct? |
Yes. Since the players agreed to waive the penalty, they should be disqualified under Rule 1-3. |
|
|
In a match, A incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 12-2 for lifting his ball for identification without announcing his intention to B, his opponent. A did not penalize himself and B did not make a claim because neither A nor B was aware a penalty had been incurred. Should the Committee disqualify A and B under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive a penalty? |
No. Since the players were not aware a penalty had been incurred, there could have been no agreement between them to waive the penalty. |
|
|
In stroke play, Bobby failed to hole out at a hole. A few holes later he realized he had erred. Adam, Bobby's marker and fellow-competitor, was aware that Bobby had infringed the Rules and that Bobby knew this, but nevertheless he signed Bobby's card. Bobby was disqualified under Rule 3-2 (Failure to Hole Out). Should Adam, who knowingly overlooked the breach, be penalized? |
Yes, Adam should be disqualified for a breach of rule 1-3. |
|
|
Prior to a 36-hole match, the players agree that they will play only 18 holes and whoever is behind at that point will concede the match, despite being aware that this is a breach of the conditions of competition. Is this permissible? |
No. Both players should be disqualified under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of a condition of the competition (Rule 33-1). If the players were not aware that their action was a breach of the conditions of competition, the concession would stand. (Revised) |
|
|
As Abigail was making her backswing, Brenda accidentally dropped a ball, which rolled within six inches of Abigail's ball. The appearance of the dropped ball startled Abigail, causing her to top her shot. In equity, should Abigail be permitted to replay her stroke? |
No. Distractions are a common occurrence which players must accept. |
|
|
A player plays a stroke from wet sand or soil and the ball adheres to the face of the club. What is the ruling? |
In equity (Rule 1-4), the ball should be dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where the club was when the ball stuck to it. (Revised Decision 1-4/2) |
|
|
A practical joker removes the flagstick from the hole and sticks it into the putting green some distance from the hole. The players approaching the green are unaware of this action and they play towards the flagstick and not the hole. Do the players have the option to replay? |
No. In equity (Rule 1-4), the players must accept the resultant advantage or disadvantage. |
|
|
Ryan is nearly struck by a ball played by a player in the following group. In anger, Ryan hits the ball back towards the group. Has Ryan played a practice stroke or a wrong ball? |
Neither. However, in equity (Rule 1-4), Ryan should incur the general penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play. |
|
|
In a hazard, a player's ball lies against a movable obstruction. A loose impediment lies on top of the obstruction in such a position that the player cannot remove the obstruction without also moving the loose impediment. The player is entitled to move the movable obstruction under Rule 24-1 but is not entitled to move the loose impediment under Rule 23. What is the procedure? |
The player may remove the obstruction as authorized by Rule 24-1. As the loose impediment will be moved in the process, in equity (Rule 1-4), the player incurs no penalty and must place the loose impediment as near as possible to the spot where it originally lay. If the player fails to place the loose impediment as required, in equity (Rule 1-4) and in view of the purpose of Rule 13-4, he would lose the hole in match play or incur a penalty of two strokes in stroke play. |
|
|
A ball is lost. It is either in a water hazard or in casual water overflowing the hazard. What is the proper procedure? |
In equity (Rule 1-4), the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule. |
|
|
A player's ball lies on a paved cart path from which he wishes to take relief under Rule 24-2b(i). It appears that the nearest point of relief will be in a large area of casual water which adjoins the cart path and the nearest point of relief from the casual water under Rule 25-1b(i) would be back on the cart path. What are the player's options? |
The player should proceed as follows: 1. He may lift and drop the ball in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i) in the casual water. 2. He may play the ball as it lies or take relief from the casual water, in which case he would lift and drop the ball in accordance with Rule 25-1b(i). 3. If the ball when dropped comes to rest in such a position that there is interference by the cart path, he may play the ball as it lies or proceed in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i). If the nearest point of relief is in the casual water, as an additional option, the player may, in equity (Rule 1-4) obtain relief without penalty as follows: Using the new position of the ball on the cart path, the nearest point of relief from both the cart path and the casual water shall be determined which is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player shall lift the ball and drop it within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief, on a part of the course which avoids interference by the cart path and the casual water and is not in a hazard or on a putting green. |
|
|
A player's ball through the green comes to rest in a bird's nest or so close to the nest that he could not make a stroke without damaging it. In equity (Rule 1-4), does the player have any options in addition to playing the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceeding under Rule 28? |
Yes. It is unreasonable to expect the player to play from such a situation and unfair to require the player to incur a penalty stroke under Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).
Since the ball lies through the green, the player may, without penalty, drop a ball within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest spot not nearer the hole that would allow him to make his stroke without damaging the nest and that is not in a hazard and not on a putting green. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green. |
|
|
In a lateral water hazard, a player's ball comes to rest in a situation dangerous to the player, e.g., near a live rattlesnake or a bees' nest. In equity (Rule 1-4), does the player have any options in addition to playing the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceeding under Rule 26? |
Yes. It is unreasonable to expect the player to play from such a dangerous situation and unfair to require the player to incur a penalty under Rule 26 (Water Hazards).
Since the ball is in a hazard, the player may drop a ball, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest spot not nearer the hole that is not dangerous. If possible, the ball must be dropped in the same hazard and, if not possible, in a similar nearby hazard, but in either case not nearer the hole. If it is not possible for the player to drop the ball in a hazard, he may drop it, under penalty of one stroke, outside the hazard, keeping the point where the original ball lay between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped. |
|
|
According to Decision 1-4/10, a ball lying near a live rattlesnake or a bees' nest is a "dangerous situation" and relief should be granted in equity. If a player's ball comes to rest in or near an area of plants such as poison ivy, cacti or stinging nettles, should the provisions of Decision 1-4/10 apply? |
No. The player must either play the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceed under Rule 26 (Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).
Decision 1-4/10 contemplates a situation which is unrelated to conditions normally encountered on the course. Unpleasant lies are a common occurrence which players must accept. |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor is considering putting his ball from a bunker and rakes a footprint in the bunker on his line of play. What is the penalty? |
Both Rule 13-2 and Rule 13-4a have been breached. However, since both rules wer breached in a single act, the ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty. |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor's ball moves prior to address and, while it is in motion, it is accidentally stopped by the competitor's club in breach of Rule 19-2 and comes to rest against it. The competitor then moves the club, as a result of which his ball moves – a breach of Rule 18-2a. How many penalty strokes does the competitor incur? |
Since these are considered related acts, the competitor would incur a single one-stroke penalty. However, if the ball is not replaced before the competitor makes his next stroke, the failure to replace the ball is an unrelated act and the competitor incurs an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 18-2a. |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor (1) touches the ground in a hazard with his club while taking practice swings in a hazard and (2) improves his line of play by bending a shrub with his hand. How many penalty strokes does the competitor incur? |
The ruling would be a two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4 (touching the ground in a hazard with his club) and a further penalty of two strokes under Rule 13-2 (for the unrelated act of improving his line of play by moving something growing), giving a total penalty of four strokes (see Decision 13-4/28). |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor, whose ball lies in a bunker, makes a practice swing and touches the ground in the bunker with his club. His fellow-competitor advises him that his action may be a breach of the Rules. The competitor disagrees and makes several more practice swings prior to making his stroke, touching the sand each time. What is the penalty? |
As the competitor was correctly advised that touching the ground in the bunker with his club during a practice swing was a breach of the Rules (Rule 13-4b), the third principle in Decision 1-4/12 is not applicable. Therefore, the competitor is penalized four strokes – two strokes for the initial breach and two strokes for all subsequent breaches when the additional practice swings were made. |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor whose ball lies in a bunker makes a practice swing, touching the ground in the bunker with his club in breach of Rule 13-4. He makes the stroke, but the ball remains in the bunker. Before his next stroke, he makes another practice swing, again touching the ground in the bunker. What is the penalty? |
The competitor incurs two separate penalties, each of two strokes, for breaches of Rule 13-4, giving a total penalty of four strokes. The third principle in Decision 1-4/12 does not apply in this case as the player made a stroke between the two breaches. |
|
|
In stroke play, a competitor is searching for his ball under a tree. He accidentally moves his ball with his foot in breach of Rule 18-2a and, at the same time, breaks a branch, improving the area of his intended swing in breach of Rule 13-2. What is the ruling? |
The competitor has breached two Rules as a result of a single act. In accordance with the second principle in Decision 1-4/12, the competitor only incurs a single penalty. However, in this case, the Rules that have been breached by the competitor give different penalties (i.e., Rule 18-2a carries a one stroke penalty and Rule 13-2 carries a two stroke penalty). In such circumstances, in equity (Rule 1-4), the more severe of the two penalties must be applied and, therefore, the competitor is penalized two strokes under Rule 13-2.
If the same circumstances arose in match play, the player would lose the hole for the breach of Rule 13-2. |
|
|
Prior to a singles match between George and Barney, George stated to Barney that a third player, Jeff, would be playing with them. Barney played the match under protest and lost. What ruling should the Committee give? |
A single is a match in which one plays against another. Since Barney made a timely claim, the Committee should have awarded the match to Barney. If Barney had not protested, i.e., had agreed that Jeff accompany the match, the result of the match would stand as played. |
|
|
In a match, Scott requests Stuart to lift Stuart's ball that is on Scott's line of play. Stuart refuses to do so. What is the ruling? |
In equity (Rule 1-4), Stuart loses the hole for failing to comply with Scott's request to lift his ball under Rule 22-2. |
|
|
In a match, Alex putted to within three inches of the hole and then knocked his ball away. Otis, the opponent, objected. He stated that he wanted Alex's ball left by the hole. Alex and Otis were uncertain how to resolve the matter, so they agreed to consider the hole halved. Should Alex and Otis be disqualified under Rule 1-3? |
No. There was no agreement to waive the Rules. Rather, the players were ignorant of the Rules. |
|
|
In a match, a player and his opponent play their second shots on a par 5 hole. Unexpectedly, neither ball can be found. Rather than proceeding under Rule 27-1, both players agree to a half. Is this permitted? |
Yes. An agreement to halve a hole being played is permissible. |
|
|
The players in a match inadvertently omitted playing a hole. The error was discovered after the match had been played to a conclusion. What is the ruling? |
The result should stand. |
|
|
Without the authority of the Committee, the players in a match agreed to omit two holes, i.e., agreed to settle the match over 16 holes. Is this permitted? |
No. The players are disqualified under Rule 1-3 for excluding the operation of Rule 2-1 by failing to play the stipulated round, provided the players knew that this was a breach of the Rules. If they did not know that their action was a breach of the Rules, the match stands as played. (Revised Decision 2-1/4) |
|
|
In a match, the players by mistake play three holes out of sequence. The error is discovered before the match concludes. What is the ruling? |
There is no penalty, and those three holes stand as played. If the players were to replay the three holes in the proper sequence, there would be no penalty, and the three holes would stand as replayed. |
|
|
A match which was all square after 16 holes was discontinued by agreement due to darkness. The match should have been resumed at the 17th hole. However, the players, thinking it was in accordance with the Rules, replayed the match starting at the 1st tee. The result was posted. At that point the Committee became aware of the improper procedure. What is the ruling? |
The result of the match as replayed should stand. The players were not subject to disqualification under Rule 1-3 because they were unaware that their procedure was contrary to the Rules. |
|
|
In a match, John and Stan left the 18th green under the impression that John had won. They later realized that in fact the match was all square. The matter was referred to the Committee. What is the ruling? |
Since there was no indication that wrong information had been given, the match stands as played, with John the winner. |
|
|
In a match between A and B, A is one up playing the last hole. B is on the green in three strokes but a long way from the hole. A plays his third stroke from the edge of the green and it comes to rest about one foot from the hole. B goes over and shakes hands with A. What is the final score of the match? |
The handshake between the players is deemed to represent an agreement to concede each player's next stroke. Accordingly, the 18th hole is halved and A wins 1 UP. |
|
|
In a match between A and B, A is one up playing the last hole. B is on the green in two strokes. A holes his third stroke and B shakes hands with A. What is the final score of the match? |
The handshake between the players is deemed to represent an agreement to concede each player's next stroke. Accordingly, the 18th hole is halved and A wins 1 UP. |
|
|
In a match between A and B, A is one up playing the last hole. A plays his second shot from the fairway on to the green. B's second shot misses the green and plugs in a bunker. B immediately walks over to A and shakes his hand. What is the final score of the match? |
The handshake between the players is deemed to represent an agreement to concede each player's next stroke. Accordingly, the 18th hole is halved and A wins 1 UP. |
|
|
In a match between A and B, A is one up playing the last hole. B is on the green in six strokes but a long way from the hole. A plays his third stroke from the edge of the green and it comes to rest about one foot from the hole. B goes over and shakes hands with A. |
The handshake between the players is deemed to represent an agreement to concede each player's next stroke. Accordingly, A wins the 18th hole and wins the match 2 UP. |
|
|
In a match between A and B, A is one up playing the last hole. A is on the green in two strokes. B plays his third stroke from the fairway onto the green and the ball comes to rest about one foot from the hole. B goes over and shakes hands with A. |
The handshake between the players is deemed to represent an agreement to concede each player's next stroke. Accordingly, A wins the 18th hole and wins the match 2 UP. |
|
|
A player conceded his opponent's next stroke and then, in attempting to knock the opponent's ball back to him, he inadvertently knocked the ball into the hole. The opponent, who had played three strokes prior to the concession, claimed a 3 for the hole. Was the claim valid? |
No. The player conceded the opponent a 4 for the hole and, at that point, the opponent had completed the hole. It is irrelevant that the player subsequently knocked the opponent's ball into the hole, whether he did so inadvertently or otherwise. |
|
|
A player's ball overhung the edge of the hole. After elapse of the time allowed in Rule 16-2, the opponent conceded the player's next stroke for a 5, after which the player's ball fell into the hole. What was the player's score for the hole? |
The player's score was 5. It is immaterial that the player's ball fell into the hole after the opponent had conceded the player's next stroke. If the opponent had not conceded the next stroke, the player's score would also be 5 because in those circumstances the player would be deemed to have holed out with his last stroke and he would incur a penalty stroke – Rule 16-2. |
|
|
In a match between Amy and Barbara, Barbara made a statement which Amy interpreted to mean that her (Amy's) next stroke was conceded. Accordingly, Amy lifted her ball. Barbara then said that she had not conceded Amy's next stroke. What is the ruling? |
If Barbara's statement could reasonably have led Amy to think her next stroke had been conceded, in equity (Rule 1-4), Amy should replace her ball as near as possible to where it lay, without penalty.
Otherwise, Amy would incur a penalty stroke for lifting her ball without marking its position – Rule 20-1 – and she must replace her ball as near as possible to where it lay. |
|
|
In a match between Jim and Curt, Curt's caddie purports to concede Jim's next stroke, whereupon Jim lifts his ball. What is the ruling? |
As a player's caddie does not have the authority to make a concession, the purported concession is invalid. As Jim had reasonably believed his next stroke had been conceded, in equity (Rule 1-4), Jim incurs no penalty and must replace the ball. Curt incurs no penalty; however, had Curt's caddie lifted Jim's ball, Curt would have incurred a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-3b. |
|
|
In match play, Arnold holes a putt and, thinking he has won the match, picks up Ben's ball. Ben then advises Arnold that he (Ben) had a putt to win the hole. Did Arnold concede Ben's next stroke when he picked up Ben's ball? |
No. Arnold incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 18-3b; Ben must replace his ball and now has two putts to win the hole. |
|
|
In a match, Jack, believing he has won a hole picks up the coin marking the position of his opponent Barry's ball. In fact Barry had a putt to halve the hole. Should the picking up of Barry's ball-marker be considered a concession of Barry's next stroke? |
No. In equity (Rule 1-4), Jack should be penalized one stroke. Therefore, under the second paragraph of Rule 2-2 the hole is automatically halved. |
|
|
In a Four-Ball match, Tom has a putt conceded by Don, one of his opponents. Tom goes ahead and putts out before his partner or Don's partner putt. Has Tom incurred a penalty? |
No, the rules do not prohibit Tom from putting out once a concession has been made. HOWEVER, if Tom's putt would have been of assistance to his partner, in equity (Rule 1-4), Tom's partner would be disqualified for the hole. |
|
|
In a match between Sally and Bridget, Sally putts and her ball comes to rest near the hole. Bridget concedes Sally's next stroke. Sally says: "No. I haven't holed out yet." Bridget says: "OK. Go ahead and putt." Sally putts and misses. In such circumstances, is the concession invalidated? |
No. When Bridget conceded Sally's next stroke, Sally had completed the hole. Concession of a stroke may not be declined or withdrawn – see Rule 2-4. |
|
|
In a match between Aaron and Bob, Aaron chips and his ball comes to rest about one foot from the hole. Bob concedes Aaron's next stroke. Aaron states that he wishes to lift his ball. However, Bob proceeds to play his next stroke before Aaron has an opportunity to lift his ball and Bob's ball strikes Aaron's ball. What is the ruling? |
Bob deprived Aaron of his right to lift his ball after his next stroke was conceded. In equity (Rule 1-4), Bob lost the hole, whether or not his ball struck Aaron's ball. |
|
|
In a match between Len and Bill, Len has made two strokes and the ball with which he made his second stroke out of the rough is on the green. Bill, having played five, concedes the hole to Len. As Len lifts his ball, he discovers that he has played a wrong ball to the green. What is the ruling? |
Len lost the hole as soon as he hit the wrong ball (Rule 15-3a) before Bill conceded it to him. Therefore, Bill's concession was irrelevant. |
|
|
In a match, Adam played his second shot towards the green but he could not find his ball. He conceded the hole to Larry, whose second shot was on the green. The following players then found Adam's ball in the hole. What is the ruling? |
Since a player may not concede a hole after conclusion of the hole (Rule 2-4) Adam holed out in two strokes and won the hole if he made a claim before Larry played from the next teeing ground (Rule 2-5). If Adam did not do so, he lost the hole. |
|
|
In a match between A and B, A putts out of turn. B incorrectly claims that A loses the hole for putting out of turn. A protests but concedes the hole. Later, A, having consulted the Rule book, lodges an official protest with the Committee. How should the Committee rule? |
Although B's claim was invalid – see Rule 10-1c – A lost the hole when he conceded it (Rule 2-4). |
|
|
Adam, unable to find his ball after a two-minute search, suggests to Ben, his opponent, that they move on to the next hole. Adam's ball is then found. Adam withdraws his suggestion to move on to the next hole and play is resumed. Before Adam plays his ball, Ben plays a stroke with a wrong ball. What is the ruling? |
Adam's suggestion amounted to a concession of the hole and Ben won the hole. Concession of a hole may not be withdrawn (Rule 2-4). Ben's actions after Adam's concession could not deprive him of a hole already won. |
|
|
In a match, Amy and Brenda were all square playing the last hole. Amy had a short putt for a 4. Brenda holed a putt for a 4. Amy, mistakenly believing that Brenda had holed out in three strokes, shook hands with Brenda, conceded the match and lifted her ball. At that point Brenda told Amy that she (Brenda) had scored a 4. What is the ruling? |
Amy conceded the match. Even if Amy had not conceded the match, she lost it when she lifted her ball without marking its position and thereby incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 20-1. |
|
|
In a match, Herman and Bill were all square playing the last hole. Herman incurred a penalty without knowing it, and accordingly did not advise Bill of the penalty. Bill was aware of what had happened but did not realize it was a breach of the Rules either.
Herman won the hole and the match, and the result was posted.
Subsequently, a spectator informed Bill that Herman had incurred a penalty at the 18th hole. Bill then claimed the hole and the match, and Herman conceded the match to Bill.
Who was the rightful winner? |
Herman won the match because a match can only be conceded prior to its conclusion (Rule 2-4).
Herman gave wrong information when he did not advise Bill that he had incurred a penalty and would have lost the hole had a claim been made in a timely manner – Rule 9-2b(i).
However, a belated claim by Bill was not valid for two reasons: (1) it was not based on facts previously unknown to Bill, and (2) the claim was made after the result of the match was announced – see Rule 2-5. |
|
|
In a match, Arnold and Dave are playing the last hole. Dave is 1 up. Arnold holes out for a 4. Dave putts from a wrong place and holes the putt for a 4. Arnold congratulates Dave and concedes the match.
Before leaving the putting green, Arnold asks Dave if he (Dave) had putted from a wrong place. Dave acknowledges that he did so. Arnold claims that Dave loses the hole under Rule 20-7b. Is the claim valid? |
Yes. Concession of a match is not binding if subsequently a valid claim is made in a timely manner. A's valid claim was made within the time limit in Rule 2-5. Dave lost the hole as soon as he putted from the wrong place. |
|
|
In match play, Abby holes a putt and, thinking she has won the match, shakes hands with Jenny and picks up Jenny's ball. The referee advises Jenny that she had a putt to win the hole and keep the match alive.
Has Jenny conceded the match by her acquiescence in Amy's action of shaking hands and picking up Jenny's ball? |
No. Jenny was entitled to replace her ball and hole out. Since Abby incurred a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-3b, Jenny now had two putts to win the hole. |
|
|
In match play, Annette defeats Lori and then concedes the match to Lori because she (Annette) cannot continue in the competition. Is this permissible? |
No. Annette won the match. A beaten player may not be reinstated in such circumstances. Annette should be posted as the winner and, since Annette cannot continue, Annette's opponent in the next round would win by default.
Under Rule 2-4, a side may concede a match at any time prior to conclusion of the match, but not thereafter. |
|
|
The final matches in a competition were to be played on a Saturday. Alex was to play Jim in one match. On Thursday, Alex defaulted to Jim, saying that he would be out of town on Saturday.
On Saturday, the course was unplayable and the matches were postponed until the following Saturday.
On Monday, Alex requested that he be reinstated. Should the Committee reinstate Alex? |
No. Alex conceded the match as provided for in Rule 2-4. In the circumstances, concession is irrevocable. |
|
|
In a foursome match, the players are unable to arrange a date to play their match within the prescribed time limit for the round. As a result, the players agree to play a singles match between one player from each side in order to decide which side would concede the match in accordance with Rule 2-4. Is this permissible? |
There is nothing in the Rules of Golf to prohibit players from agreeing to a method of determining which side will concede a match. However, in view of the intention of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules), if players agree to play a match other than in the form prescribed in the conditions of the competition in order to decide which side will concede, both sides should be disqualified under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of a condition of competition (Rule 33-1).
If the players agree to use some other method which does not involve playing a match to determine which side will concede, such as a putting competition, tossing a coin, etc., they are not considered to be in breach of Rule 1-3. |
|
|
Before or during a match, Keith and Paul agree to concede one or more holes to each other, thereby enabling them, in effect, to play a shorter match. If Keith and Paul know that such an arrangement is not permissible, are they subject to disqualification under Rule 1-3? |
Yes. Although Rule 2-4 allows a player to concede a hole before playing it, an agreement between players to concede holes to each other exceeds this authority as it undermines the principle in Rule 2-1 of playing a stipulated round. Therefore, such an agreement constitutes an agreement to waive the Rules. |
|
|
David and Ron are playing a Singles Match. David makes a putt by using a stance astride an extension of the line of his putt. Ron says "I don't think that is allowed." Has Ron made a valid claim? |
No. The statement "I don't think that is allowed." of itself does not constitute a valid claim, because the statement does not contain the notice of a claim or that he wants a ruling and the facts of the situation. |
|
|
Zeke and Jeff are playing a Singles Match. Jeff straddles the line of his putt and proceeds to putt into the hole using a croquet like stroke. Zeke says "That is not allowed. I am making a claim and want a ruling." Has Zeke made a valid claim. |
Yes, Zeke has properly notified Jeff that he wants a ruling and is making a claim. The committee should consider the claim. |
|
|
In match play, Adam's ball was resting against the flagstick but it was not holed. Adam, believing he had holed out, lifted his ball without first marking its position. In doing so, Adam incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 20-1. Since Adam was not aware that he had incurred a penalty, he did not inform Bob. Bob, who had not witnessed Adam's actions, made his next stroke. Adam's actions were then brought to the attention of Bob and he picked up his ball, claiming that Adam's lifting of his ball entailed a penalty of loss of hole. Adam and Bob agreed to continue the match and refer Bob's claim to the Committee later. How should the Committee have ruled? |
The Committee should have ruled that Bob won the hole. Bob's claim was valid since he notified his opponent that he was making a claim or wanted a ruling (Adam and Bob agreed to refer Bob's claim to the Committee), and the facts that gave rise to the claim (Adam's lifting of the ball). Although the penalty for Adam's lifting of the ball without first marking its position is one stroke, he lost the hole for giving wrong information (Rule 9-2b) when he failed to inform Bob before he (Bob) made his next stroke that he (Adam) had incurred the penalty stroke. |
|
|
In a match, Amy and Jane are all square playing the last hole. Amy plays a wrong ball in the rough and discovers the error before her next stroke. Amy and Jane go back to look for Amy's ball without any question being raised as to whether Amy had incurred a penalty. Amy's ball is found. Amy plays out the hole with her original ball and wins the hole and the match.
Several days later Jane claims the last hole and the match by virtue of the fact that Amy played a wrong ball.
Is the claim valid? |
No. Amy gave wrong information when she did not advise Jane that she (Amy) had incurred a penalty – Rule 9-2b(i). However, a belated claim by Jane was not valid for two reasons: (1) it was not based on facts previously unknown to Jane, and (2) the claim was made after the result of the match was announced – see Rule 2-5. |
|
|
In a match, Jay played a wrong ball to a green and then found his own ball in the hole. His own ball had been holed in three strokes, which was fewer strokes than Bill had taken. However, Bill claimed the hole on the grounds that Jay had played a wrong ball. Jay did not dispute the claim. Jay lost the match.
Later, Jay learned that, because he had completed the hole when his own ball was holed and before play of a wrong ball, the play of the wrong ball was irrelevant and he was the rightful winner of the hole in question. Jay then lodged a claim with the Committee. Was the claim valid? |
No. Since Jay did not dispute Bill's invalid claim before Bill played from the next teeing ground, Bill's claim stands and Bill won the hole in question (Rule 2-5). |
|
|
On completion of the 14th hole in a match between Dustin and Brad, Dustin wins by 5 and 4. The players continue the round. After the 16th hole, it is discovered by the players that Dustin has 15 clubs in his bag.
Before the result of the match has been officially announced, Brad reports the facts to the Committee and asks for a ruling. Is the claim valid? |
Yes. Although the players had left the putting green of the last hole of the match, Brad's claim is based on facts previously unknown to him and he is deemed to have been given wrong information by Dustin (Rule 9-2b(i)). The players must return to the 15th hole and resume the match. Dustin is penalized under Rule 4-4a and is three up with four holes to play. |
|
|
In a match between Allen and Ben, Allen is 1 up after the prescribed 18 holes. However, both Allen and Ben believe the match is all square. So they play extra holes and Ben wins at the 20th hole. The error is then discovered. What is the ruling? |
Since Allen did not make a claim before either player played from the tee at the 19th hole, the match must be considered all square at that point. Thus, Ben was the winner. |
|
|
In a match, Randy and Jim are all square going to the 18th hole. On completion of the 18th hole, Jim states that he has scored 7; Randy states that he (Randy) has scored 6. Randy and Jim go into the clubhouse under the impression that Randy has won the match. At that point Jim tells Randy that, on reflection, he (Jim) believes Randy scored 7 at the 18th hole. On recounting, Randy acknowledges that he had a 7.
By agreement, Randy and Jim resume the match; Randy wins it at the 20th hole and the result is posted.
That night, Jim discovers that, because Randy gave wrong information after completion of the 18th hole, under Rule 9-2b(iii) he (Jim) was rightfully the winner of the 18th hole and the match. Jim reports the matter to the Committee and claims the match. What is the ruling? |
The match stands as played, with Randy the winner.
Jim's claim was not made within the time limit in Rule 2-5. Jim's claim would have been valid if he had refused to play extra holes or had played the extra holes under protest. |
|
|
In an 18 hole match between Dan and Kevin, Kevin breaches a rule which should result in a loss of hole penalty. Both players know there was a breach, but are not sure of the ruling and decide to continue play and get a ruling from the committee later.
After 17 holes, Kevin is one up and as they approach the 18th tee, they ask a Marshal who is not a member of the committee, about the ruling and the Marshal incorrectly advises the players that Kevin did NOT incur a loss-of-hole penalty.
The players halve the 18th hole and believe Kevin has won, 1 up.
Subsequently, the incident was brought to the attention of the Committee. What should the Committee do? |
When Dan and Kevin accepted the Marshal's incorrect ruling, they, in effect, settled the doubt themselves and, after Dan and Kevin began playing the 18th hole, the Committee was no longer entitled to consider a claim. The match stands as played, with Kevin the winner. |
|
|
In a match, a player's ball comes to rest on an artificially-surfaced road. He is uncertain if the road is to be treated as an immovable obstruction or an integral part of the course. He asks his opponent and they agree that the player should treat the road as an immovable obstruction. The player drops the ball in accordance with the procedure under Rule 24-2b and plays it. Prior to playing from the next tee, the opponent discovers that he and the player were wrong as the Committee had introduced a Local Rule declaring the road to be an integral part of the course and, therefore, the player was not entitled to take relief under Rule 24-2b. The player should have incurred a loss of hole penalty under Rule 18 for lifting his ball without authority and failing to replace it. May the opponent claim the hole? |
No. The claim must not be considered by the Committee because the opponent and the player agreed that the player was entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b. When this agreement was reached, there was no longer a doubtful or disputed point and there was no basis under Rule 2-5 for making a claim. The players were not in breach of Rule 1-3 as they believed at the time they were proceeding properly. |
