Hello my friends,

is the following interpretation of RoG 20-5 correct?

"While playing from the teeing ground (as defined by the rules) the player
is entitled to tee up _every_ stroke which he has to repeat."

There is no doubt when (1) I deem the tee shot unplayable or
when it's in a water hazard or OOB or when I need a provisional ball: 
I may tee up the repeat ball.

Now take this different situation:

With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on the
teeing ground. Then I hit my second stroke into one of the lies according
to (1) and want/have to play a third shot (plus one penalty stroke) from
the teeing ground. 

May I tee up this repeat shot?
 
Curious regards,

Paul

On 8 Nov, 06:45, Paul Schmitz-Josten  wrote:
> Hello my friends,
>
> is the following interpretation of RoG 20-5 correct?
>
> "While playing from the teeing ground (as defined by the rules) the player
> is entitled to tee up _every_ stroke which he has to repeat."
>
> There is no doubt when (1) I deem the tee shot unplayable or
> when it's in a water hazard or OOB or when I need a provisional ball:
> I may tee up the repeat ball.
>
> Now take this different situation:
>
> With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on the
> teeing ground. Then I hit my second stroke into one of the lies according
> to (1) and want/have to play a third shot (plus one penalty stroke) from
> the teeing ground.
>
> May I tee up this repeat shot?
>
> Curious regards,
>
> Paul

Paul,

You state that your second shot was played from "on the teeing
ground". Rule 20-5, which you cite, says specifically that if the
stroke is to be replayed from within (read 'on') the teeing ground
then it may be played anywhere within that area and may be teed.

So the answer is "Yes".

JPW

"JPW"  wrote in message 
news:1194521388.336061.204960@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Nov, 06:45, Paul Schmitz-Josten  wrote:
>> Hello my friends,
>>
>> With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on the
>> teeing ground. Then I hit my second stroke into one of the lies according
>> to (1) and want/have to play a third shot (plus one penalty stroke) from
>> the teeing ground.
>>
>> May I tee up this repeat shot?
>
> You state that your second shot was played from "on the teeing
> ground". Rule 20-5, which you cite, says specifically that if the
> stroke is to be replayed from within (read 'on') the teeing ground
> then it may be played anywhere within that area and may be teed.
>
> So the answer is "Yes".

Which just doesn't feel right, does it? If his second shot wasn't
allowed to be teed, then it seems "wrong" to allow him to tee up
his next shot. I would never have thought about teeing it up if I'd
already played my second shot off the ground.

But, as you say, this certainly seems to conform to the Rules.

I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago which opened my
eyes to the fact that nowhere in the Rules does it explicitly state
when you may tee up your ball. Perhaps this needs to be stated
explicitly in such a way that it eliminates what appears to me to
be an anomaly.

Maybe need a definition of something called a "tee shot" (taking
into account that this need not be teed up!), and an
amendment to 20-5 to say that you can only tee it up if your
previous stroke was a "tee shot".
--
Garry Smith        garry@caleyjag.demon.co.uk

"Garry Smith"  writes:

> "JPW"  wrote in message 
> news:1194521388.336061.204960@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On 8 Nov, 06:45, Paul Schmitz-Josten  wrote:
> >> Hello my friends,
> >>
> >> With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on the
> >> teeing ground. Then I hit my second stroke into one of the lies according
> >> to (1) and want/have to play a third shot (plus one penalty stroke) from
> >> the teeing ground.
> >>
> >> May I tee up this repeat shot?
> >
> > You state that your second shot was played from "on the teeing
> > ground". Rule 20-5, which you cite, says specifically that if the
> > stroke is to be replayed from within (read 'on') the teeing ground
> > then it may be played anywhere within that area and may be teed.
> >
> > So the answer is "Yes".
> 
> Which just doesn't feel right, does it? If his second shot wasn't
> allowed to be teed, then it seems "wrong" to allow him to tee up
> his next shot. I would never have thought about teeing it up if I'd
> already played my second shot off the ground.
> 
> But, as you say, this certainly seems to conform to the Rules.

If the teeing of the ball for the 4th stroke bothers you,
how do you feel about this player being permitted to press
down an irregularity of surface immediately behind the ball
before playing his 2nd stroke?

> I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago which opened my
> eyes to the fact that nowhere in the Rules does it explicitly state
> when you may tee up your ball. Perhaps this needs to be stated
> explicitly in such a way that it eliminates what appears to me to
> be an anomaly.
> 
> Maybe need a definition of something called a "tee shot" (taking
> into account that this need not be teed up!), and an
> amendment to 20-5 to say that you can only tee it up if your
> previous stroke was a "tee shot".

Assuming the rules makers agreed with you, would it really be
worth muddying-up the rules (further, some would say) in
order to address such an unlikely occurence?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Garry Smith"  wrote in
news:5pgduqFqt8k2U1@mid.individual.net: 

> "JPW"  wrote in message 
> news:1194521388.336061.204960@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> On 8 Nov, 06:45, Paul Schmitz-Josten  wrote:
>>> Hello my friends,
>>>
>>> With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on
>>> the teeing ground. Then I hit my second stroke into one of the lies
>>> according to (1) and want/have to play a third shot (plus one penalty
>>> stroke) from the teeing ground.
>>>
>>> May I tee up this repeat shot?
>>
>> You state that your second shot was played from "on the teeing
>> ground". Rule 20-5, which you cite, says specifically that if the
>> stroke is to be replayed from within (read 'on') the teeing ground
>> then it may be played anywhere within that area and may be teed.
>>
>> So the answer is "Yes".
> 
> Which just doesn't feel right, does it? If his second shot wasn't
> allowed to be teed, then it seems "wrong" to allow him to tee up
> his next shot. I would never have thought about teeing it up if I'd
> already played my second shot off the ground.
> 
> But, as you say, this certainly seems to conform to the Rules.
> 
> I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago which opened my
> eyes to the fact that nowhere in the Rules does it explicitly state
> when you may tee up your ball. Perhaps this needs to be stated
> explicitly in such a way that it eliminates what appears to me to
> be an anomaly.
> 
> Maybe need a definition of something called a "tee shot" (taking
> into account that this need not be teed up!), and an
> amendment to 20-5 to say that you can only tee it up if your
> previous stroke was a "tee shot".
> --
> Garry Smith        garry@caleyjag.demon.co.uk 
> 
> 
> 

Here is 20-5 in the 2008 rules book.
20-5. Making Next Stroke from Where Previous Stroke Made
When a player elects or is required to make his next stroke from
where a previous stroke was made, he must proceed as follows:
(a) On the Teeing Ground:The ball to be played must be played from
within the teeing ground. It may be played from anywhere within
the teeing ground and may be teed.
(b) Through the Green:The ball to be played must be dropped and
when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the
green.
(c) In a Hazard:The ball to be played must be dropped and when
dropped must first strike a part of the course in the hazard.
(d) On the Putting Green:The ball to be played must be placed on the
putting green.

Chalky

On 8 Nov, 12:32, "Garry Smith"  wrote:
> "JPW"  wrote in message
>
> news:1194521388.336061.204960@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 8 Nov, 06:45, Paul Schmitz-Josten  wrote:
> >> Hello my friends,
>
> >> With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on the
> >> teeing ground. Then I hit my second stroke into one of the lies according
> >> to (1) and want/have to play a third shot (plus one penalty stroke) from
> >> the teeing ground.
>
> >> May I tee up this repeat shot?
>
> > You state that your second shot was played from "on the teeing
> > ground". Rule 20-5, which you cite, says specifically that if the
> > stroke is to be replayed from within (read 'on') the teeing ground
> > then it may be played anywhere within that area and may be teed.
>
> > So the answer is "Yes".
>
> Which just doesn't feel right, does it? If his second shot wasn't
> allowed to be teed, then it seems "wrong" to allow him to tee up
> his next shot. I would never have thought about teeing it up if I'd
> already played my second shot off the ground.
>
> But, as you say, this certainly seems to conform to the Rules.
>
> I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago which opened my
> eyes to the fact that nowhere in the Rules does it explicitly state
> when you may tee up your ball. Perhaps this needs to be stated
> explicitly in such a way that it eliminates what appears to me to
> be an anomaly.
>
> Maybe need a definition of something called a "tee shot" (taking
> into account that this need not be teed up!), and an
> amendment to 20-5 to say that you can only tee it up if your
> previous stroke was a "tee shot".
> --
> Garry Smith        ga...@caleyjag.demon.co.uk

Garry,

Have a read of Rule 11-1, the second asterisked item.

I think that may clear it for you. Remember that the player has an
option of playing the ball from the ground, on a tee or from a mound
of sand or the like, when the relevant rule states that the ball MAY
be teed.

JPW

"Leon Chamae"  wrote in message 
news:bazve8czyqr.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>
> If the teeing of the ball for the 4th stroke bothers you,
> how do you feel about this player being permitted to press
> down an irregularity of surface immediately behind the ball
> before playing his 2nd stroke?

I feel OK about that, because the custom is that a teeing ground
is a well-prepared, flat area. Though I'm not sure if it would ever
occur to me to do it.

>> Maybe need a definition of something called a "tee shot" (taking
>> into account that this need not be teed up!), and an
>> amendment to 20-5 to say that you can only tee it up if your
>> previous stroke was a "tee shot".
>
> Assuming the rules makers agreed with you, would it really be
> worth muddying-up the rules (further, some would say) in
> order to address such an unlikely occurence?

Fair point.  I can also appreciate that anyone playing at least 4
off the tee needs all the help that they can get!
--
Garry Smith        garry@caleyjag.demon.co.uk

Garry Smith in :

(Paul)
>>> May I tee up this repeat shot?
(JPW)
<citing RoG 20-5)
>> So the answer is "Yes".

That's what I read. Thank you, JPW.

>Which just doesn't feel right, does it?

That's what I felt, too.

> If his second shot wasn't
>allowed to be teed, then it seems "wrong" to allow him to tee up
>his next shot. I would never have thought about teeing it up if I'd
>already played my second shot off the ground.
>
>But, as you say, this certainly seems to conform to the Rules.

Exactly.

Alas, as someone stated, it occurs so infrequently that the RoG may not
have taken it into consideration. Plus, I agree that you need any possible
help when your score is three while still being on the teeing ground.

Ciao,

Paul

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Garry Smith in :
> 
> (Paul)
>>>> May I tee up this repeat shot?
> (JPW)
> <citing RoG 20-5)
>>> So the answer is "Yes".
> 
> That's what I read. Thank you, JPW.
> 
>> Which just doesn't feel right, does it?
> 
> That's what I felt, too.
> 
>> If his second shot wasn't
>> allowed to be teed, then it seems "wrong" to allow him to tee up
>> his next shot. I would never have thought about teeing it up if I'd
>> already played my second shot off the ground.
>>
>> But, as you say, this certainly seems to conform to the Rules.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Alas, as someone stated, it occurs so infrequently that the RoG may not
> have taken it into consideration. Plus, I agree that you need any possible
> help when your score is three while still being on the teeing ground.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Paul

  A simpler way of looking at it Paul, if any ball you are about to play 
from the teeing ground is not yet a 'ball in play' you may tee it up if 
you wish.

david

david s-a in :

>  A simpler way of looking at it Paul, if any ball you are about to play 
>from the teeing ground is not yet a 'ball in play' you may tee it up if 
>you wish.

That sounds nice and easy, but wouldn't it be too broad because it covers
Bill's "knocked away" ball from <news:13j5o6hiv8uded2@corp.supernews.com>,
too? This one is not a "repeated" ball!

Ciao,

Paul

Garry Smith wrote:

> 
> Fair point.  I can also appreciate that anyone playing at least 4
> off the tee needs all the help that they can get!
> --

LOL  :-)

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> david s-a in :
> 
>>  A simpler way of looking at it Paul, if any ball you are about to play 
>>from the teeing ground is not yet a 'ball in play' you may tee it up if 
>> you wish.
> 
> That sounds nice and easy, but wouldn't it be too broad because it covers
> Bill's "knocked away" ball from <news:13j5o6hiv8uded2@corp.supernews.com>,
> too? This one is not a "repeated" ball!
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Paul


Paul,

The responses to this thread disturb me, and appear to miss the point 
that a 'teeing ground' is simply a defined area from which a hole is 
'started', and once a hole is 'started' there is, in effect, no longer a 
'teeing ground' for that ball and the area known as the 'teeing ground' 
from which the ball was originally put into play is now regarded as 
'through the green'. In your original post the ball had been put into 
play when your tee shot merely pushed the ball off the tee (ie. the hole 
had been 'started')......thus your second shot at that ball was played 
from a part of the course that was now technically 'through the green'. 
For that SECOND shot to be repeated under a 'stroke and distance' 
situation Rule 20-5b specifically states that ".. _through the green_ 
and in a hazard..' the ball must be DROPPED. In other words, you cannot 
tee up that particular 'repeat ball'!

Decision 25-2/8 supports this point of view but unfortunately Decisions 
20-5/1 and 13-2/3 appear to contradict it. I guess one has to view the 
fact that if the ball has not moved (from off the tee) or is immediately 
'lost' from off the tee then the hole has not yet 'started', and the 
teeing ground thus remains as such...and explains those Decisions. This 
will remain an arguable point as to the difference, if any, between a 
hole being 'started', and a ball being 'in play'.

As to the point about the ball being 'knocked away', that ball is 'in 
play' and 'through the green', the opposing player has breached Rule 
18-3 suffering a 1-stroke penalty (2-strokes if not replaced).

Furthermore, if he had played his own ball without replacing the one he 
knocked away' he will have proceeded improperly as far as Rule 22-2 is 
concerned and under Matchplay rules he must lose the hole! In stroke 
play he will have denied the owners rights under that rule (ie to play 
his ball first) and will thus incur the general penalty of 2-strokes as 
well...incurring a total four penalty strokes for his petulance!

cheers
david

david s-a  writes:

> Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> > david s-a in :
> >
> >>  A simpler way of looking at it Paul, if any ball you are about to
> >> play from the teeing ground is not yet a 'ball in play' you may tee
> >> it up if you wish.
> > That sounds nice and easy, but wouldn't it be too broad because it
> > covers
> > Bill's "knocked away" ball from <news:13j5o6hiv8uded2@corp.supernews.com>,
> > too? This one is not a "repeated" ball!
> > Ciao,
> > Paul
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> The responses to this thread disturb me, and appear to miss the point
> that a 'teeing ground' is simply a defined area from which a hole is
> 'started', and once a hole is 'started' there is, in effect, no longer
> a 'teeing ground' for that ball and the area known as the 'teeing
> ground' from which the ball was originally put into play is now
> regarded as 'through the green'. In your original post the ball had
> been put into play when your tee shot merely pushed the ball off the
> tee (ie. the hole had been 'started')......thus your second shot at
> that ball was played from a part of the course that was now
> technically 'through the green'. For that SECOND shot to be repeated
> under a 'stroke and distance' situation Rule 20-5b specifically states
> that ".. _through the green_ and in a hazard..' the ball must be
> DROPPED. In other words, you cannot tee up that particular 'repeat
> ball'!
> 
> Decision 25-2/8 supports this point of view but unfortunately
> Decisions 20-5/1 and 13-2/3 appear to contradict it. I guess one has
> to view the fact that if the ball has not moved (from off the tee) or
> is immediately 'lost' from off the tee then the hole has not yet
> 'started', and the teeing ground thus remains as such...and explains
> those Decisions. This will remain an arguable point as to the
> difference, if any, between a hole being 'started', and a ball being
> 'in play'.

The teeing ground is always the teeing ground (that status does not
expire during the play of the hole).  Decision 25-2/8 merely handles
the situations where a relief Rule does not include section dealing
with relief for a ball on the teeing ground.

> As to the point about the ball being 'knocked away', that ball is 'in
> play' and 'through the green', the opposing player has breached Rule
> 18-3 suffering a 1-stroke penalty (2-strokes if not replaced).

Is that a typo?  It reads like you are suggesting that the opponent's
penalty would increase to two strokes if the ball is not replaced.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

david s-a in :

>Paul,
>
>The responses to this thread disturb me, and appear to miss the point 
>that a 'teeing ground' is simply a defined area from which a hole is 
>'started', and once a hole is 'started' there is, in effect, no longer a 
>'teeing ground' for that ball and the area known as the 'teeing ground' 
>from which the ball was originally put into play is now regarded as 
>'through the green'.

I disagree in accordance with Leon: The RoG definition "teeing ground" is
not limited to the "tee shot": The tee markers remain there as well as the
area two club lengths back. The only difference between the first shot and
the next ones is that you may move the tee markers temporarily.

(BTW, I deduct from 11-2 that I may even remove a tee marker before making
my third stroke from a tee...)

>In your original post the ball had been put into 
>play when your tee shot merely pushed the ball off the tee (ie. the hole 
>had been 'started')......thus your second shot at that ball was played 
>from a part of the course that was now technically 'through the green'. 
>For that SECOND shot to be repeated under a 'stroke and distance' 
>situation Rule 20-5b specifically states that ".. _through the green_ 
>and in a hazard..' the ball must be DROPPED. In other words, you cannot 
>tee up that particular 'repeat ball'!
>
>Decision 25-2/8 supports this point of view

I disagree. Said decision only "in equity" extends the wording of 25-2
(which is limited to "closely mown areas through the green") to a similar
situation on the teeing ground. Thus, it acknowledges the difference
between these two areas.

>but unfortunately Decisions 
>20-5/1 and 13-2/3 appear to contradict it. 

Shame on me: 20-5/1 covers my question to 80 % and I didn't notice it:
After an air shot, the ball on the tee is "ball in play" just like my "ball
pushed from tee", the only difference being that it's position is "still on
the tee", just by coincidence.

>I guess one has to view the 
>fact that if the ball has not moved (from off the tee) or is immediately 
>'lost' from off the tee then the hole has not yet 'started', and the 
>teeing ground thus remains as such...and explains those Decisions. This 
>will remain an arguable point as to the difference, if any, between a 
>hole being 'started', and a ball being 'in play'.

I cannot follow your thoughts: The hole has been started when the first
stroke has been made (RoG 1-1). It only ends when the ball is holed out.
A ball OOB will create a situation where a ball is not in play and has to
be brought into play but not a situation "not yet started though a stroke
has been made" (unless you have evidence from the rules...)

Plus, the ball isn't "lost" neccessarily. I may deem it unplayable while
having a full view on it. (which I did once when one of my poorest tee
shots left me close to the teeing ground in deep grass with a narrow
passage between OOB and a water hazard. I suspected that I might need more
than two strokes to a reasonable distance which I hoped to cover with a
second driver stroke from a tee).

In this case, your argument of "lost" and "not yet started" is futile...

Ciao,

Paul

Leon Chamae wrote:

<snipped a whole heap>
> 
> The teeing ground is always the teeing ground (that status does not
> expire during the play of the hole).  Decision 25-2/8 merely handles
> the situations where a relief Rule does not include section dealing
> with relief for a ball on the teeing ground.

This may be a fact, but that Decision and equity ruling deals with a 
specific instance of a situation 'not contemplated by the rules'. A 
'ball in play' on the teeing ground is a similar situation...and it 
should be noted that the precedence in the cited ruling provides a 
procedure that treats the teeing ground as 'through the green'.....so 
consistency demands the same treatment here.

> 
>> As to the point about the ball being 'knocked away', that ball is 'in
>> play' and 'through the green', the opposing player has breached Rule
>> 18-3 suffering a 1-stroke penalty (2-strokes if not replaced).
> 
> Is that a typo?  It reads like you are suggesting that the opponent's
> penalty would increase to two strokes if the ball is not replaced.
> 

In strokeplay it will increase to two strokes. Read 'Penalty for breach 
of Rule'...."If a player who is required to replace a ball fails to do 
so, he incurs the general penalty for a breach of Rule 18". You're 
right, as an 'opponent' (ie Matchplay) the penalty is increased to 'Loss 
of Hole', not 'two strokes' as I mentioned.

  However, the point is moot. My 'typo' was in including a breach of 
Rule 18-3 into the scenario in the first place. On reflection the player 
should have simply proceeded according to Rule 22-2 (Ball interfering 
with play); Rule 18 has nothing to do with it! He failed to proceed 
according to that rule so the penalty can only be the general penalty 
applicable to that rule alone (either two strokes or 'loss of hole', 
depending on the nature of the game).

Sorry about that.

cheers
david

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
<much snipped>


> Shame on me: 20-5/1 covers my question to 80 % and I didn't notice it:
> After an air shot, the ball on the tee is "ball in play" just like my "ball
> pushed from tee", the only difference being that it's position is "still on
> the tee", just by coincidence.
> 

No coincidence here Paul. Rule 27-1 REQUIRES you to proceed in 
accordance with Rule 20-5 which is quite specific about procedure and 
limits (or lack of them) when on the teeing ground!

> 
> In this case, your argument of "lost" and "not yet started" is futile...


I think you are probably right! I was trying to reconcile the fact that 
one can actually incur 'strokes' by way of penalties even though the 
hole is not yet 'started' (eg playing first stroke from outside the 
teeing ground)....my mind got a little muddled after that!

david

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Hello my friends,
> 
> is the following interpretation of RoG 20-5 correct?
> 
> "While playing from the teeing ground (as defined by the rules) the player
> is entitled to tee up _every_ stroke which he has to repeat."
> 

> With the tee shot I only push the ball from the tee, leaving it on the
> teeing ground. 
> May I tee up this repeat shot?
>  
> Curious regards,
> 
> Paul

Number 1 RoG - if you are that useless either quit worrying about the 
rules and learn to hit the ball properly or just quit. If you find the 
rules more interesting than hitting the ball  then quit  and take a law 
degree.

david s-a  writes:

> Leon Chamae wrote:
> 
> <snipped a whole heap>
> > The teeing ground is always the teeing ground (that status does not
> > expire during the play of the hole).  Decision 25-2/8 merely handles
> > the situations where a relief Rule does not include section dealing
> > with relief for a ball on the teeing ground.
> 
> This may be a fact, but that Decision and equity ruling deals with a
> specific instance of a situation 'not contemplated by the rules'. A
> 'ball in play' on the teeing ground is a similar situation...and it
> should be noted that the precedence in the cited ruling provides a
> procedure that treats the teeing ground as 'through the green'.....so
> consistency demands the same treatment here.

No, it doesn't.  The teeing ground does not lose its status as
the teeing ground after the first stroke.

> 
> >
> >> As to the point about the ball being 'knocked away', that ball is 'in
> >> play' and 'through the green', the opposing player has breached Rule
> >> 18-3 suffering a 1-stroke penalty (2-strokes if not replaced).
> > Is that a typo?  It reads like you are suggesting that the opponent's
> > penalty would increase to two strokes if the ball is not replaced.
> >
> 
> In strokeplay it will increase to two strokes. Read 'Penalty for
> breach of Rule'...."If a player who is required to replace a ball
> fails to do so, he incurs the general penalty for a breach of Rule
> 18". You're right, as an 'opponent' (ie Matchplay) the penalty is
> increased to 'Loss of Hole', not 'two strokes' as I mentioned.

You seemed (to me) to be saying that the penalty for the player (opponent)
that moved the ball would be increased if the ball was not replaced.
That, of course, is not the case.

>   However, the point is moot. My 'typo' was in including a breach of
> Rule 18-3 into the scenario in the first place. On reflection the
> player should have simply proceeded according to Rule 22-2 (Ball
> interfering with play); Rule 18 has nothing to do with it! He failed
> to proceed according to that rule so the penalty can only be the
> general penalty applicable to that rule alone (either two strokes or
> 'loss of hole', depending on the nature of the game).
> 
> Sorry about that.

No need for an apology, I know that you know the Rules better
than that.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Leon Chamae wrote:

>> This may be a fact, but that Decision and equity ruling deals with a
>> specific instance of a situation 'not contemplated by the rules'. A
>> 'ball in play' on the teeing ground is a similar situation...and it
>> should be noted that the precedence in the cited ruling provides a
>> procedure that treats the teeing ground as 'through the green'.....so
>> consistency demands the same treatment here.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The teeing ground does not lose its status as
> the teeing ground after the first stroke.
> 

I know it doesn't...but if you have another look at my original comment 
on this I said "in effect...'Teeing Ground"...regarded as 'through the 
green'...". That is the 'effect' of that Decision.

>> In strokeplay it will increase to two strokes. Read 'Penalty for
>> breach of Rule'...."If a player who is required to replace a ball
>> fails to do so, he incurs the general penalty for a breach of Rule
>> 18". You're right, as an 'opponent' (ie Matchplay) the penalty is
>> increased to 'Loss of Hole', not 'two strokes' as I mentioned.
> 
> You seemed (to me) to be saying that the penalty for the player (opponent)
> that moved the ball would be increased if the ball was not replaced.

OIC! If we are talking about Rule 18 I think you are suggesting that the 
onus is on the player (owner of the ball) to replace it....although Rule 
20-3a clearly provides for it to be replaced by the person who moved it. 
I have to disagree with you on the increase in penalty. OK...the penalty 
     _on the opponent_  is not 'increased'.....it is  _'replaced'_  by 
the 'general penalty', which is 'in effect' an increase...except in 
Matchplay where it is 'loss of hole'... I'd still call that an 
'increase' in penalty!

> That, of course, is not the case.

If I haven't covered it by now I am puzzled by this objection.

cheers
david

david s-a  writes:

> Leon Chamae wrote:
> 
> >> This may be a fact, but that Decision and equity ruling deals with a
> >> specific instance of a situation 'not contemplated by the rules'. A
> >> 'ball in play' on the teeing ground is a similar situation...and it
> >> should be noted that the precedence in the cited ruling provides a
> >> procedure that treats the teeing ground as 'through the green'.....so
> >> consistency demands the same treatment here.
> > No, it doesn't.  The teeing ground does not lose its status as
> > the teeing ground after the first stroke.
> >
> 
> I know it doesn't...but if you have another look at my original
> comment on this I said "in effect...'Teeing Ground"...regarded as
> 'through the green'...". That is the 'effect' of that Decision.

That 'effect' does not extend to teeing the ball under when
proceeding under Rule 20-5.  

> >> In strokeplay it will increase to two strokes. Read 'Penalty for
> >> breach of Rule'...."If a player who is required to replace a ball
> >> fails to do so, he incurs the general penalty for a breach of Rule
> >> 18". You're right, as an 'opponent' (ie Matchplay) the penalty is
> >> increased to 'Loss of Hole', not 'two strokes' as I mentioned.
> > You seemed (to me) to be saying that the penalty for the player
> > (opponent)
> > that moved the ball would be increased if the ball was not replaced.
> 
> OIC! If we are talking about Rule 18 I think you are suggesting that
> the onus is on the player (owner of the ball) to replace
> it....although Rule 20-3a clearly provides for it to be replaced by
> the person who moved it. I have to disagree with you on the increase
> in penalty. OK...the penalty    _on the opponent_  is not
> 'increased'.....it is  _'replaced'_  by the 'general penalty', which
> is 'in effect' an increase...except in Matchplay where it is 'loss of
> hole'... I'd still call that an 'increase' in penalty!
> 
> > That, of course, is not the case.
> 
> If I haven't covered it by now I am puzzled by this objection.

You've explained it quite well - now I know that what I thought
was a "typo" or other communication error is, instead, a 
sign that you misunderstand how the Rules of Golf apply.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

mike short in <gy6Zi.60754$7_4.9064@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>Number 1 RoG - if you are that useless either quit worrying about the 
>rules and learn to hit the ball properly or just quit. If you find the 
>rules more interesting than hitting the ball  then quit  and take a law 
>degree.

If you are annoyed by my presence or by rules discussions 
then killfile me or block the threads in your news reader. Please!

Paul

Leon Chamae wrote:

> That 'effect' does not extend to teeing the ball under when
> proceeding under Rule 20-5.  
> 

I still have a problem with this in the context in  which we are 
discussing it. The application of Rule 20-5 in Decision 20-5/1 and in 
the similar scenario where the ball in play moved off the tee after a 
stroke but remained within the teeing ground and is then hit OOB seems 
to be an unintended consequence of the Rules, and as others have 
commented just doesn't feel right. If it weren't for that Decision I 
would still say it is a situation 'not contemplated by the rules'!

R&A representatives are visiting here this month (or is next month?) to 
conduct a Seminar for we 'Rules types' concerning the 2008 Rules. If I 
get an opportunity I'll run this past them for an explanation.

cheers
david

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> mike short in <gy6Zi.60754$7_4.9064@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> 
>> Number 1 RoG - if you are that useless either quit worrying about the 
>> rules and learn to hit the ball properly or just quit. If you find the 
>> rules more interesting than hitting the ball  then quit  and take a law 
>> degree.
> 
> If you are annoyed by my presence or by rules discussions 
> then killfile me or block the threads in your news reader. Please!
> 
> Paul

  I  am neither annoyed by your presence nor by rule discussions. I was 
merely 'taking the piss'. Its an old english form of humour rarely 
understood in continental Europe and often leading to people being 
annoyed by my presence here. I personally do dislike computer techno 
talk about killfiles and blocking threads on newsreaders , but I have no 
problem just skimming over it and moving on, but will leave it to ou to 
block or killfile me . bye bye

mike short in <Q_MZi.61291$7_4.39244@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>  I  am neither annoyed by your presence nor by rule discussions. I was 
>merely 'taking the piss'. Its an old english form of humour rarely 
>understood in continental Europe and often leading to people being 
>annoyed by my presence here.

It's understood. Sometimes I'm spoiling old english humor forms 
by ignorance - I'm sorry for that.

So, since all those "if" conditions do not apply, the resulting
propositions will not come into effect. Thus, there is no obstruction IMHO
to be friends furtheron.

Ciao,

Paul

david s-a in :

>Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:

>> Shame on me: 20-5/1 covers my question to 80 % and I didn't notice it:
>> After an air shot, the ball on the tee is "ball in play" just like my "ball
>> pushed from tee", the only difference being that it's position is "still on
>> the tee", just by coincidence.
>> 
>
>No coincidence here Paul. Rule 27-1 REQUIRES you to proceed in 
>accordance with Rule 20-5 which is quite specific about procedure and 
>limits (or lack of them) when on the teeing ground!

I appreciate your different point of view, but I don't see the connection: 
I described a ball in play on the teeing ground, 
you describe an OOB situation (which is only the next step in my example).

>> In this case, your argument of "lost" and "not yet started" is futile...
>
>
>I think you are probably right! I was trying to reconcile the fact that 
>one can actually incur 'strokes' by way of penalties even though the 
>hole is not yet 'started' (eg playing first stroke from outside the 
>teeing ground)....my mind got a little muddled after that!

OIC...

These theoretical discussions may be confusing, I agree!

Ciao,

Paul

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> mike short in <Q_MZi.61291$7_4.39244@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> 
>>  I  am neither annoyed by your presence nor by rule discussions. I was 
>> merely 'taking the piss'. Its an old english form of humour rarely 
>> understood in continental Europe and often leading to people being 
>> annoyed by my presence here.
> 
> It's understood. Sometimes I'm spoiling old english humor forms 
> by ignorance - I'm sorry for that.
> 
> So, since all those "if" conditions do not apply, the resulting
> propositions will not come into effect. Thus, there is no obstruction IMHO
> to be friends furtheron.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Paul
cheers Paul I think we understand each other now.

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:

> OIC...
> 
> These theoretical discussions may be confusing, I agree!
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Paul

Paul

This whole issue surrounding Decision 20-5/1 has me somewhat concerned
as the rationale is lost on me. Sure, it is an 'effect' of the Rules, 
but surely an anomaly! It seems odd that under the circumstances 
described, and in any 'stroke and distance' repeat (including your 
'unplayable ball' relief) from within the teeing ground, the tee-markers 
have become 'movable obstructions' (Decision 11-2/1)....and the teeing 
area is possibly no longer properly defined if they are moved. This 
could lead to a complication....for example Decision 11-2/2 (b) suggests 
that if the player arbitrarily moved them because he thought they were 
unfairly positioned, and he did not put them back before he actually 
made his stroke, then he is disqualified! If he moved them simply 
because the Rules allow him to if they interfere with his stance etc he 
should should put them back anyway. If he forgets from where he moved 
them then the Committee has to get involved...and there is potential for 
the round to be declared null and void! All a bit silly really!

I am invited, with other State Accredited Rules Officials, to a meeting 
with both the R&A's Director of Rules and Equipment Standards (David 
Rickman) and with the Chairman, R&A Rules of Golf Committee (Alan 
Holmes) on November 24, and if I get the opportunity I shall put this 
matter to them during the Q&A session.

cheers
david

david s-a in :

>This whole issue surrounding Decision 20-5/1 has me somewhat concerned
>as the rationale is lost on me.

You are right. As someone said: You don't want to come into such a 
situation.

<snip>

(tee markers moved)
>If he forgets from where he moved 
>them then the Committee has to get involved...and there is potential for 
>the round to be declared null and void! All a bit silly really!

You are right again, and I'd rather avoid to move the tee markers whenever
avoidable than move them just because it's permitted.

Furtheron, this was not the subject of my OP (not claiming more rationale
from that).

>I am invited, with other State Accredited Rules Officials, to a meeting 
>with both the R&A's Director of Rules and Equipment Standards (David 
>Rickman) and with the Chairman, R&A Rules of Golf Committee (Alan 
>Holmes) on November 24, and if I get the opportunity I shall put this 
>matter to them during the Q&A session.

That might be too much honour for a nitpicking question, but go ahead if
you want to!

Ciao,

Paul

On 14 Nov, 07:01, david s-a  wrote:
> Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> > OIC...
>
> > These theoretical discussions may be confusing, I agree!
>
> > Ciao,
>
> > Paul
>
> Paul
>
> This whole issue surrounding Decision 20-5/1 has me somewhat concerned
> as the rationale is lost on me. Sure, it is an 'effect' of the Rules,
> but surely an anomaly! It seems odd that under the circumstances
> described, and in any 'stroke and distance' repeat (including your
> 'unplayable ball' relief) from within the teeing ground, the tee-markers
> have become 'movable obstructions' (Decision 11-2/1)....and the teeing
> area is possibly no longer properly defined if they are moved. This
> could lead to a complication....for example Decision 11-2/2 (b) suggests
> that if the player arbitrarily moved them because he thought they were
> unfairly positioned, and he did not put them back before he actually
> made his stroke, then he is disqualified! If he moved them simply
> because the Rules allow him to if they interfere with his stance etc he
> should should put them back anyway. If he forgets from where he moved
> them then the Committee has to get involved...and there is potential for
> the round to be declared null and void! All a bit silly really!
>
> I am invited, with other State Accredited Rules Officials, to a meeting
> with both the R&A's Director of Rules and Equipment Standards (David
> Rickman) and with the Chairman, R&A Rules of Golf Committee (Alan
> Holmes) on November 24, and if I get the opportunity I shall put this
> matter to them during the Q&A session.
>


Mention the LS and watch the blood drain from DR's face...

johnty wrote:

>>
> 
> 
> Mention the LS and watch the blood drain from DR's face...
> 
> 
Wilco Johnty!

There is at least one other LS 'member' who will almost
certainly be there...so LS is bound to get a run!

:-)

cheers
david

mike short wrote:
> Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
>> mike short in <gy6Zi.60754$7_4.9064@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>
>>> Number 1 RoG - if you are that useless either quit worrying about the 
>>> rules and learn to hit the ball properly or just quit. If you find 
>>> the rules more interesting than hitting the ball  then quit  and take 
>>> a law degree.
>>
>> If you are annoyed by my presence or by rules discussions then 
>> killfile me or block the threads in your news reader. Please!
>>
>> Paul
> 
>  I  am neither annoyed by your presence nor by rule discussions. I was 
> merely 'taking the piss'. Its an old english form of humour rarely 
> understood in continental Europe and often leading to people being 
> annoyed by my presence here. I personally do dislike computer techno 
> talk about killfiles and blocking threads on newsreaders , but I have no 
> problem just skimming over it and moving on, but will leave it to ou to 
> block or killfile me . bye bye

... whilst maintaining the old english trait of being a bit sensitive 
when it come to receiving it ;-)

--
Durram