1. A and B are fellow-competitors and their balls both lie on the green. B, who is closer to the hole, putts and whilst his ball is in motion A putts. The balls collide.
What is your ruling and reasoning?

2. A and B are fellow-competitors and their balls both lie on the green. A, who is further from the hole, putts and whilst his ball is in motion B putts. The balls collide.
What is your ruling and reasoning?

3. A and B are partners and their balls both lie on the green. B, who is closer to the hole, putts and whilst his ball is in motion A putts. The balls collide.
What is your ruling and reasoning?

Hi DC,
In the absence of any replies to date, I will start.

1. Player A incurs no penalty for striking B's ball in motion on the putting green, as it was his turn to play. R16-1f / R19-5b.

Player B incurs no penalty for playing out of turn, which is permitted in stroke play, R10-2c.
The balls are played from where they come to rest.

2.Player B incurs a 2 stroke penalty for breach of R16-1f, and must play his ball from where it comes to rest,R19-5b.
Player A, whose ball in motion was deflected, in this case by an Outside Agency,(B's ball),on the putting green, must cancel his stroke , and must replace his ball and the stroke replayed without penalty.

3. R30-3c and R31-5,state, " balls belonging to the same side may be played in the order the side considers best".
With that in mind, Player A,is in breach of R16-1f, in match play loses the hole,(the penalty only applying to player A for that hole)),in stroke play
is penalised 2 strokes.

There is no outside agency issue here, because A's ball is part of B's side, and as such, player B is required to play his ball from where it came to rest, and is not permitted to cancel the stroke and replay it.
Regards, Ron.

I knew I could count on you Ron. Twelve lookers before the first reply! Come on chaps!

Ron

1. I agree no penalties (R16-1f) but I think both balls should be replaced (19-5b Exception).
2. I agree 2SP to B but I think both balls should be replaced (19-5b Exception).

They were supposed to be the warm up questions but since you and I disagree perhaps they were not!

3. I agree with you. A is further from the hole and so ordinarily it would be his turn to play first. However, B, his partner plays first. In doing so I think that this effectively defines the order of play and so it is A who has breached R16-1f. Outside agency not applicable in this scenario; both A and B play their balls as they lie in strokeplay.


To add to this how about the following?
i) A putts and the wind moves fellow-competitor’s (B’s) ball, which lay on the putting green prior to A’s stroke and the two balls in motion collide.
ii) A putts and the wind moves fellow-competitor’s (B’s) ball, which lay on the putting green prior to A’s stroke. B’s ball stops and is then hit by A’s ball.

Again rulings and reasons?

HI DC,
Agree. On reflection they are EACH an OA to each other, R19-1b applies to both players. The 2 stroke penalty incurred by by B in scenario 2, however, still remains.

Now for more disagreement. (possibly).

(i) A incurs a 2 stroke penalty, R16-1f, and must cancel and replay his stroke.
B must replace his ball,(without penalty), where the collision occurred.

(ii) A incurs a 2 stroke penalty,R16-1f, and must cancel and replay his stroke.
B must replace his ball on the spot where it came to rest after being moved by the wind.

Regards, Ron.

Ron

Yes I disagree! Only one person putted and so 16-1f need not be considered. I think these are unusual situations (I admit I just invented them so I hope you are enjoying thinking about them – I know I am).

i) A’s putt is deflected by a moving OA and therefore 19-1b applies – cancel and replace – no penalty. B’s ball should be played as it lies (first sentence of 19-1).
ii) This is a trickier one IMO and may need to be ruled under 1-4. A has putted and then his ball hits a ball at rest. This is ordinarily a 2SP since both balls lay on the putting green prior to A’s stroke. In this case this seems unfair because B’s ball has changed location. I suggest that the ruling should be A plays his ball as it lies and as you say Ron, B replaces at the spot his ball came to rest after the wind moved his ball.

What do you think?


And finally for now how about the following?

iii) A and B both lie on the putting green. The wind moves A’s ball and it collides with B’s ball at rest.
iv) A and B both lie on the putting green. The wind moves both A’s ball and B’s ball and they collide.

Rulings in both strokeplay and match play?

HI DC,
Proving to be quite a thought provoking exercise.
I am enjoying it, including the correction discussions.

Agree with you on R19-1.
However, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the application of R1-4 in the second scenario.

THe rules are very clear on the penalty for striking a ball on the putting green, and wind is not an OA.

I agree it's bad luck on the player.In D19-5/2, a player is penalised for striking a ball on the PG, not even belonging to anyone in his group.

There are times when a player must take the rough with the smooth. On this ocassion it's rough.

In (iii) and (iv),I think R19-1 applies.

Appreciate your comments. Regards, Ron.

Ron

Thanks for playing!

ii) I see what you are saying here. The rule does say that it is 2SP but I just think is harsh under the circumstances. That’s why I ruled it under 1-4. It needs a new Decision here to answer this one properly IMO.

iii) In strokeplay I think B’s ball is replaced and A’s ball is played as it lies. Matchplay is harder to rule because the balls are not OAs with respect to each other and the wind is not an OA. However, in this case, perhaps we can learn from D.18-1/7. My ruling would be the same as for strokeplay.

iv) In strokeplay and matchplay I think both balls should be played from where they come to rest.


Any comments?

Cheers
DC

HI DC,

WE actually seem to be in agreement.

I feel, if there is no MP penalty stated, it would be reasonable to assume the penalty applies in both MP and SP.
R19-5a, says in part," In MP there is no penalty".

In R19-5b, there is no such qualification. So, IMO reasonable to assume it applies in both MP and SP.

Regards, Ron.