Would this be considered in the cup?

[Benz]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

If it is carefully removed or repaired the ball falls in or does that not count and it's just black & white with 16/2 ie player repairs divot and hole, place ball on the lip and putt out?

IMO, the ball has not been holed.

If this embedded lie is treated like any other, then the ball must be placed no closer to the hole. If the ball does not come to rest before falling into the hole, then the ball has not been placed correctly and must be re-placed until it does.

[Pimento Cheese]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

I'm sure there was a thread about this exact photo a while back, but I can't find it. At any rate, as I recall, the photo is one that has been circulated and discussed on other golf sites and there was either a fair bit of speculation, if not outright confirmation, that the photo was in fact faked, so we're dealing more with "what if" situations rather than an actual situation. The "what if," I believe, would depend on whether the hole was damaged prior to the shot or if it was damaged by the shot.

[Jeffc]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

http://www.barryrhodes.com/2015/12/december-miscellany.html

[rulie]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

One of the key points, already made by others, is that the plastic liner above the cup makes the hole non-conforming because it reduces the size of the hole to less than the required 4 1/4 inches.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

It seems this may have been a fake setup, but that's irrelevant - not every discussion on the RoG needs to be accompanied by a real photo of a real situation.

In reading the comments on the Barry Rhoades link, it would seem that this plastic collar is used by greenskeepers to protect the hole when working on a green. It is intended to be removed when the work is done and not remain during play - BUT - mistakes do happen, so this is a possible scenario.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-...l#!decision-16

Carlton you can look this stuff up too.

I'm still not sure which of those directly applies in this case. Is the temporary collar an outside agency? An obstruction? Or what?

Does this make the cup GUR - sort of like a green which has 2 holes to provide a way of playing 18 holes on a 9-hole course?

http://www.barryrhodes.com/2015/12/d...iscellany.html

The best answer which seems consistent with worlb's post is that
"the ball may be played as it lies, or removed, the damage repaired(by the committee, in this case), and the ball is placed on the lip of the hole. The decisions for this do not specify that you place the ball in the same relation to the hole as it is in its embedded state"

So the hole gets repaired (the player may do this in the absence of a committee) and the ball placed on the lip. I assume that the collar should be removed as part of the maintenance.

One of the key points, already made by others, is that the plastic liner above the cup makes the hole non-conforming because it reduces the size of the hole to less than the required 4 1/4 inches.

Agreed.

So.... how does that affect a ruling?

1. What would happen in a pro tournament (which has a committee available).
2. How should weekenders proceed if faced with this?
   
3. What do we do when the course has a non-conforming hole?
   
4. What effect if any does this have on a tourney where several groups have already completed play on this non-conforming hole?
5. Does the collar get removed when noticed - which creates a different condition for subsequent players?

I confess to still being unsure.

[aaagc]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

One of the key points, already made by others, is that the plastic liner above the cup makes the hole non-conforming because it reduces the size of the hole to less than the required 4 1/4 inches.

The "hole" must be 4 1⁄4 inches (108 mm) in diameter and at least 4 inches (101.6 mm) deep. If a lining is used, it must be sunk at least 1 inch (25.4 mm) below the putting green surface, unless the nature of the soil makes it impracticable to do so; its outer diameter must not exceed 4 1⁄4 inches (108 mm).

[Jeffc]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

The "hole" must be 4 1⁄4 inches (108 mm) in diameter and at least 4 inches (101.6 mm) deep. If a lining is used, it must be sunk at least 1 inch (25.4 mm) below the putting green surface, unless the nature of the soil makes it impracticable to do so; its outer diameter must not exceed 4 1⁄4 inches (108 mm).

so it wasn't sunk which I guess makes it non-conforming. now what?

[OKHC]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-...l#!decision-16

See 16/4.

You guys can look this stuff up too.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-...l#!decision-16

See 16/4.

You guys can look this stuff up too.

What if it's not a hole liner, as in this case?

[wlorcb]

Re: Would this be considered in the cup?

It seems this may have been a fake setup, but that's irrelevant - not every discussion on the RoG needs to be accompanied by a real photo of a real situation.

In reading the comments on the Barry Rhoades link, it would seem that this plastic collar is used by greenskeepers to protect the hole when working on a green. It is intended to be removed when the work is done and not remain during play - BUT - mistakes do happen, so this is a possible scenario.



I'm still not sure which of those directly applies in this case. Is the temporary collar an outside agency? An obstruction? Or what?

Does this make the cup GUR - sort of like a green which has 2 holes to provide a way of playing 18 holes on a 9-hole course?



The best answer which seems consistent with worlb's post is that
"the ball may be played as it lies, or removed, the damage repaired(by the committee, in this case), and the ball is placed on the lip of the hole. The decisions for this do not specify that you place the ball in the same relation to the hole as it is in its embedded state"

So the hole gets repaired (the player may do this in the absence of a committee) and the ball placed on the lip. I assume that the collar should be removed as part of the maintenance.



Agreed.

So.... how does that affect a ruling?

1. What would happen in a pro tournament (which has a committee available).
2. How should weekenders proceed if faced with this?
3. What do we do when the course has a non-conforming hole?
4. What effect if any does this have on a tourney where several groups have already completed play on this non-conforming hole?
5. Does the collar get removed when noticed - which creates a different condition for subsequent players?

I confess to still being unsure.

It is hard to tell if this white collar is merely used for greenskeeping purposes or not. I have played where all the holes had a similar collar.

Those ones had very thin edges, unlike the photo in question, and while it may make the hole fractionally smaller, I can reduce the argument that if you play with hole that have been painted, those holes are also fractionally smaller. I can also surmise that the cutting tool, even after its very first use, is now also cutting a hole that is fractionally smaller.

I think it still boils down to whether all of the ball is below the surface of the hole. It is still embedded in the side of the actual, nominally 4.25 hole.
If the liner was not there, the ball probably either embeds where it is or enters the cup.

And at another glance at the photo, I actually think that part of the ball is above the surface of the green, so call the committee.