[Rich Goodale]

In a stroke play event today, three players (we'll call them Abbot, Bisplinghoff and Costello) came to the 175 yeard 6th Abbot had the hono(u)r and hit a nice shot to about 10 feet below the hole.  Bisplinghoof hit one through the green, but let's soon forget about him as he isn't really part of the story.  Costello then hit a good shot which Abbot saw hit his (Abbot's) ball but neither Costello nor Bisplinghoff were watching.  Abbot was sure that his ball had been propelled closer to the hole and a little left of where it had originally, so when he got to the green he told Costello that he thought that moving the ball backwards a yard or so and a few inches to the left would return it roughly to it's original position.  Costello agreed that this was OK by him, so Abbot did so and then marked the ball and cleaned it.  Bisplinghoff then chipped to 6 feet.  Costello lined up his 12-footer, which was about two yards to the Northwest of Abbot's, and then sunk it calmly for his 2.  When Abbot went to replace his ball behind his mark, things began to get interesting.....

...yes, you guessed it, Abbot was holding Costello's ball in his hand, which meant that Costello had hit a wrong ball (naemly Abbot's, which had been caromed off the the left.  How did this happen?  Well both were playing the same manufactuer's ball with the same number, but with different identifying marks.  As neither Costello nor Bisplinghoff had actually seen the deflection of Abbot's ball and he (Abbot) had, they deferred to his observation and judgement, and neither Costello (nor Abbot, as we shall soon see) were thinking that clearly (this was a Senior's event, after all....).

It was agreed that Costello had done a booboo, and would be required to retake the putt from its original spot, with a 2-stroke penalty added.  However, it was deemed to be Abbot's hono(u)r, since he ( he thought) had to replace his ball at the spot where Costello had just putted from.  He did and duly sank the putt, for yet another 2 from the same spot.  Costello, a bit rankled, as could be expected, then 2-putted from where Abbot had originally marked his (Costello's) ball.  Bisplinghoff then sunk a really nice downhiller, so the scores seemed to be: Abbot 2, Bisplinghoff 3, Costello 5.  However, a few stray synapses came to life in Abbot's head, and he realised that he should in fact have putted from the spot where he had originally placed his ball (which turned out to be Costello's) after adjusting for the estimated deflection.  Confused again, Abbot decided to play a "second" ball, from the same spot that Costello had just 2-putted, and 2-putted himself.  All three thought this was hunky-dory, and agreed to talk to the Committee before handing in our scores, which we duly did.

The Committe duly so ruled, rightly we thought, but only after a few pints in the Clubhouse, Abbot, Bisplinghoff and Costello realized that Costello had putted (second time around) from a wrong spot, as he did so from the place Abbot had moved his ball (when Abbot thought it was his) rather than the point a yard or so closer to the hole where it lay, legally and beautifully uphill, before Abbott had moved it.

Q1:  What are the proper scores for each of the 3 players, and why?
Q2:  Should Abbott, Bisplinghoff and Costello tee off for their second round together tomorrow at 9:40?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Tahnks in advance.....

Rich

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
I think Costello gets the two stroke penalty and there isn't any advantage gained by Abbott by putting from a wrong place, so the scores are as you stated.

[John_Cullum]

Did Costello mark and lift the wrong ball before making a stroke at it?

[Rich Goodale]

Don't think so, Jim.  You cannae putt from the wrong place without penalty.

[Rich Goodale]

Yes, John.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
So it would be Abbott- 4, Costello-5.

[JohnV]

When Costello putted Abbot's ball, he played a wrong ball.

He was required to take a 2 stroke penalty under Rule 15-3b and correct the error which he did by putting the correct ball from the correct place, which made a 5 (3 strokes and the penalty, the putt with the wrong ball didn't count.)

Abbot should not have replaced the ball where Costello putted, but should have replaced the ball from where it was before it was moved by Costello's ball.  When he putted from the place where his ball came to rest after it was moved by Costello's, he had played from a wrong place.  His ball was in play and the strokes counted so he holed that putt for an apparent 2.  But, he gets a two-stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place which makes a total of 4 (Rule 20-7c).  

Now, the question is was it a serious breach of playing from a wrong place.  If so, he must correct it.  Given that his ball was originally only a few yards from where he putted, it would not be a serious breach so he was not required to replay it.  There is no penalty for playing a second ball from that spot. See Decision 20-7c/1.

Fortunately he had holed out before correcting the error.  If he had not holed it, then lifted it and moved it to the correct place, he would have gotten two more strokes for moving his ball in play and all the putts would have counted. See Decision 20-7c/2

So, the scores are:

Bisplinghoff - 3
Abbot - 4
Costello - 5

[John_Cullum]

Bisplinghoff scored a 3, and he gets to play tomorrow.

Abbot played from a wrong place, it was not a serious breach of Rule 20. His first holed ball for 2 plus a 2 stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place counts. His second ball was properly played under rule 20-7, but did not count.

It could be determined that when Costello placed Abbot's ball on the green, Costello improperly substituted a ball AND played from a wrong place=6

[JohnV]

John,
You could be right.  If you read Decision 15-1/2.5, A (who would be Costello in this case), gets penalized for playing a wrong ball and must correct it.  But, the decision never states if A lifted the ball before holing it out.  Given some of the newer decisions which seem to imply that if you get a ball in your hand you had better make sure it is yours, you would be right.

The question is, if I lift a wrong ball and simply replace it (as opposed to taking an action such as dropping it), have I changed its status from a wrong ball to an improperly substituted ball?  I don't think we have a cpmplete answer for that now.

[Jim Sweeney]

I hate these mind bending rules puzzles, and do not have a rule book in front of me, but I'll take a shot.

Costello makes 6.

Costello holed his first putt from a wrong place, but not with a wrong ball.

Costello (unwittingly) had substituted a ball under a rule that does not permit substitution, thus it became the ball in play.

Once this ball was holed, his hole was over (unless he played from a place from which he gained a significant advantage, which was not the case since he was away.) Therefore the re-putt and any subsequent strokes were meaningless.

He played two strokes, and is penalized two strokes for playing from a wrong place, and an additional two strokes for the illegal substitution.

2+2+2=6.

Abbot scores 2. The facts indicate that Abbott lifted and moved Costello's ball, not his own. That is how Costello's ball got into his hand. Costello,therefore, had putted Abbott's ball for his (Abbott's) rightful position. Since Abbott also putted from there, he putted from the correct spot and holed the putt.

1+1=2.

Or I could be wrong.

[Rich Goodale]

Hey--you guys are good! and JohnV's answer is the same as the R&A guy nearby decided.  However......

....how about the fact that when Costello (after holing out with the wrong ball) put his ball on what seems to be an incorrect place (i.e. where Abbot had moved it, rather than where it belonged to be (i.e. closer to the hole)?

[JohnV]

Jim, I think you missed the fact that Abbott putted from where his ball came to rest after it was moved by Costello's ball rather than replacing it as required in Rule 18.

[JohnV]

Richard,

I missed that fact in the original post.  I guess he also putted from a wrong place so he should get 2 more.  No serious breach there either.

[Rich Goodale]

That's what I thought, John, although since the memory of that fact didn't kick in until after the cards were submitted, a DQ would be the punishment, no?  (Before you get feelings of responsibility, neither A, B or C are in the running for any prizes tomorrow).

Rich

PS--bonus points for identifiying Bisplinghoff.

R

[Bill_McBride]

Abbot and Costello, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEaKjRyPjVY

[Steve Wilson]

I couldn't have counted the strokes and penalties, but I can identify (don?) Bisplinghoff.  An American golfer whose name bedeviled Bernard Darwin.  Some times he could pronounce the name, some times he couldn't.  I can't remember what he compared it to, putting perhaps.  "Some days you have it, some days you don't."

I don't know what the bonus points are good for, but I'll happily accept them.

[John_Cullum]

Winner of the 1955 North South. Is he playing Super Senior events now?

[JohnV]

That's what I thought, John, although since the memory of that fact didn't kick in until after the cards were submitted, a DQ would be the punishment, no?  (Before you get feelings of responsibility, neither A, B or C are in the running for any prizes tomorrow).

Rich

PS--bonus points for identifiying Bisplinghoff.

R

No DQ, just two strokes for playing from a wrong place.  Since a committee ruled on it mistakenly before the cards were in, the penalty could be applied even after the card was turned in.

[John_Cullum]

Under John V's decision, you have to DQ the player for signing for an incorrect lower score. His playing from the wrong place was not disclosed to the committee, so the committee did not rule on that.

Under my decision, the player gets to play tomorrow.

Perhaps his marker should be DQ'd too for attesting a score he knew was wrong. And maybe the third competitor as well for not protecting the field (the Bob Murphy Rule)

[JohnV]

John,

Did he tell them and they didn't hear it, just like I missed it when I read it or did he not tell them?  My last answer was based on his telling them and they missed it.

I believe that decisions 34-3/7 and 34-3/8 cover these two types of situations.  If the player provided the correct facts and the Committee blew it, he can be penalized for what he did but not DQ'ed.  If he failed to provide all the facts, he would be subject to DQ.

[John_Cullum]

I read it as it occurring to them as they were getting drunk at the 19th hole

[Tim MacEachern]

Okay, I'll give this a try...

Abbot was sure that his ball had been propelled closer to the hole and a little left of where it had originally, so when he got to the green he told Costello that he thought that moving the ball backwards a yard or so and a few inches to the left would return it roughly to it's original position.  Costello agreed that this was OK by him, so Abbot did so and then marked the ball and cleaned it.

Costello did not authorize Abbot to mark his (Costello's) ball, so Abbot has incurred a two stroke penalty for moving his fellow-competitor's ball.  Where he replaced the ball is not significant at this point.

Costello lined up his 12-footer, which was about two yards to the Northwest of Abbot's, and then sunk it calmly for his 2.  

Costello has hit the wrong ball.  2 strokes.  It is his responsibility to identify the ball he's playing.

... Abbot was holding Costello's ball in his hand, which meant that Costello had hit a wrong ball (naemly Abbot's, which had been caromed off the the left.

At this point, the situation should have been clear.  Abbot has a two stroke penalty and should be able to replace his ball from where he estimates the ball was before Costello's ball hit it.  This would be the same place that he put his mark at earlier.  Costello has a two stroke penalty and should be able to replace his ball from where it was originally (estimated if necessary, since Abbot moved it).  Since the situation is clear, any error in rectifying it will result in additional penalties.

 How did this happen?  Well both were playing the same manufactuer's ball with the same number, but with different identifying marks.  As neither Costello nor Bisplinghoff had actually seen the deflection of Abbot's ball and he (Abbot) had, they deferred to his observation and judgement, and neither Costello (nor Abbot, as we shall soon see) were thinking that clearly (this was a Senior's event, after all....).

We must trust that Abbot has seen what he says he has seen.  Without other evidence, his word is golden.

It was agreed that Costello had done a booboo, and would be required to retake the putt from its original spot, with a 2-stroke penalty added.  

Right, assuming the original spot is the spot from which Abbot had picked it up.

However, it was deemed to be Abbot's hono(u)r, since he ( he thought) had to replace his ball at the spot where Costello had just putted from.  He did and duly sank the putt, for yet another 2 from the same spot.  

Assuming he maintains a claim that this ball was moved (that is, that *both* balls were moved in the collision), it should have been replaced at its original position.  Two more strokes.  Play from this wrong spot is probably not a "material breach" and not subject to disqualification.  Abbot thus scores a 6.

Costello, a bit rankled, as could be expected, then 2-putted from where Abbot had originally marked his (Costello's) ball.  

Costello has played from the wrong place.  He should have played from the spot where his ball originally came to rest, not where Abbot marked it.  Two more stokes for Costello, who scores a 7.

Bisplinghoff then sunk a really nice downhiller, so the scores seemed to be: Abbot 2, Bisplinghoff 3, Costello 5.  However, a few stray synapses came to life in Abbot's head, and he realised that he should in fact have putted from the spot where he had originally placed his ball (which turned out to be Costello's) after adjusting for the estimated deflection.  Confused again, Abbot decided to play a "second" ball, from the same spot that Costello had just 2-putted, and 2-putted himself.  All three thought this was hunky-dory, and agreed to talk to the Committee before handing in our scores, which we duly did.

Abbot has already holed out, so the second ball is of no import and no penalty.

[Tim MacEachern]

Yuck.  Looks like I got this wrong.  In stroke play, there is no penalty for Abbot to mark Costello's ball, even without permission.  So Abbot has a 4, Costello still a 7.

[Rich Goodale]

I think the consensus of 3, 4, 7 is right.  Costello probably could be DQ'ed, but as he shot 89, the FPF (Field Protection Factor) is low.

Steve (and probably John C. are right about Bisplinghoff.  I'm feeling very proud about typing his name correctly so many times.

[Peter Carroll]

Sorry, Who's on first?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()