Category: Rules of Golf

Ladies:

Four main differences between Stroke play and Match Play are below. I thought these would be helpful to you all even if you don’t play in Team play this year..

• In stroke play the general penalty for a breach of the Rules is two strokes, in match play it is loss of hole. However, any breach of the Rules that incurs a one stroke penalty in stroke play is also a one stroke penalty in match play.

• Whereas in stroke play the player must finish every hole by holing out, in match play a player may concede a stroke to his opponent so that he can pick-up without holing out. A player may also concede the hole, or the match. Once given a concession can’t be declined, or withdrawn under any circumstances. So, if you concede a short putt to your opponent, but he putts anyway and misses, it doesn’t matter because he is still considered to have holed out with the putt for the purposes of the match. Rule 2-4.

• If you are unsure of a Rule, or a procedure, in match play the Rules don’t permit you to play a second ball under 3-3, as they do in stroke play. What you have to do, is try and resolve the issue with your opponent. If you can’t agree, a claim has to be made before teeing-off at the next hole. You must notify your opponent that you’re making a claim, agree the facts of the situation and make it clear that you’ll be asking for a Committee ruling. Rule 2-5.

• In both stroke play and match play when balls are to be played from the teeing ground the person with the honor plays first, and anywhere else on the course the ball farthest from the hole is played first. However, there is no penalty in stroke play for playing in the wrong order, unless players have agreed to do so to give one of them an advantage, in which case they’re both disqualified.

It is different in match play. If a player makes a stroke when his opponent should have played first, there is still no penalty, but the opponent may immediately require the player to cancel that stroke and play again, in the correct order, as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played. In other words, if you think your opponent played a bad shot when he played out of turn you say nothing, but if he played a good shot you can ask him to replace his ball where it was and play again, after you, in the hope that his next shot won’t be as good.

Hope this helps you,
Hilary

Ladies:

It is difficult to understand just why you can’t hit a provisional ball when using Rule 26, Water hazard. I will be trying to help you with this in TWO e mails. This first one addresses the part about “Virtual certainty” which is what you MUST HAVE to take relief under Rule 26, if you don’t you MUST declare your ball LOST.

Sadly there is no easy way for me to do this for you, so below for you to read is the wording that the USGA has put into the Decisions book this year. They know how hard a concept it is and this is the reason for this amendment to the 2012 Decisions book.

I am more than willing to talk to you about this but this is a good start on your road to understanding this most difficult concept for Rule 26. I will e mail you with yet another way to understand the reasoning next week

HERE BELOW IS WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE DECISIONS BOOK TO HELP GOLFERS UNDERSTAND. THERE ARE SOME GREAT EXAMPLES TOO if you have the stamina to get that far. Good luck!

26-1/1

Meaning of “Known or Virtually Certain”

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be “known or virtually certain” that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of “knowledge or virtual certainty” that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
When a player’s ball cannot be found, “knowledge” may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or groupmay actually observe the ball disappear into the waterhazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide “knowledge” that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.
In the absence of “knowledge” that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be “virtual certainty” that the player’s ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike “knowledge,” “virtual certainty” implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, “virtual certainty” also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.
In determining whether “virtual certainty” exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

26-1/1.3

When is it Necessary to Go Forward to Establish “Virtual Certainty”?

Q. Rule 26-1 requires there to be “knowledge or virtual certainty” before proceeding under the provisions of the Rule. In the absence of “knowledge” that a ball is in a water hazard, is it possible to establish the existence of “virtual certainty” without going forward to assess the physical conditions around the water hazard?
A. In the majority of cases, in order for it to be reasonably concluded that the ball does not lie anywhere outside the water hazard, it is necessary to go forward to assess the physical conditions around the hazard. However, there are situations where there will be sufficient evidence that the ball is in the hazard to establish “virtual certainty” without anyone having to go forward to review the physical conditions around the hazard.
In the following examples, the conclusion that it is “virtually certain” that the ball is in the water hazard would be justified without anyone going forward to the water hazard so that the player would be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Rule 26-1.
·It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards a water hazard, which has closely mown grass extending right up to its margin. The ball is observed to fall out of sight as it approaches the water hazard but is not seen actually to enter it. From a distance, it can be seen that there is no golf ball lying on the closely mown grass outside the hazard and, from both prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is known that the contour of the ground surrounding the hazard causes balls to enter the hazard. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from a distance that the ball must be in the water hazard.
·It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards an island putting green. The margin of the water hazard coincides with the apron of the putting green. Both from prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is understood that any ball that comes to rest on the apron or the putting green will be visible from where the stroke was made. In this instance, the ball is observed to land on the putting green and roll out of sight. It is therefore concluded that the ball has carried over the green and into the water hazard. The player drops a ball in a dropping zone in front of the hazard, which has been provided by the Committee as an additional option to those under Rule 26-1, and plays to the green. When he arrives at the putting green, he discovers his original ball on the back apron of the green lying on a sunken sprinkler head. Nonetheless, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from where the ball was last played that the ball must be in the water hazard.
In the following example, it cannot be established that there is “virtual certainty” that the ball is in the water hazard without going forward to assess the area surrounding the hazard.
·It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards a water hazard, which has closely mown grass extending right up to its margin. The ball is observed travelling in the direction of the water hazard and it is known from prior experience that, with normal turf conditions, the ball would undoubtedly go into the water hazard. However, on this day, the fairways are wet and therefore it is possible that the ball could have embedded in the fairway and thus might not be in the water hazard. (New)