What would be the ruling here?

[Jimm]

http://i.imgur.com/gqBovyj.gifv

Click on the link and have a look at the GIF.

[rpangman]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

OMG! What a mess for a ruling. 4 strokes maybe?

[Shadow]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

OMG! What a mess for a ruling. 4 strokes maybe?

Why four?

[JGT4]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

OMG! What a mess for a ruling. 4 strokes maybe?

Try one. Ball at rest (it had stopped moving) accidentally moved by player's equipment - one stroke and replace the ball. The subsequent deflection of the ball by his shoulder is irrelevant.

[3 off the tee]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

Some etiquette violations here too....better clean up those belly marks around the hole. Wonder how his playing partner felt about that...?

[ColinL]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

This one has been around for some time. At the time and at the moment it would, as said, be one penalty stroke and the ball must be replaced.

Interestingly, from January 1st, if the new local rule is in place, there would be no penalty. The ball would still be replaced.

[rpangman]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

Why four?

I saw this on another site. 1 stroke putting, one stroke hitting putter again and 2 strokes for hitting player.

[ColinL]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

I saw this on another site. 1 stroke putting, one stroke hitting putter again and 2 strokes for hitting player.

Only one penalty stroke for the ball being hit by the player's putter. No additional penalty for it then hitting him.

See Decision 1-4/12 Example 1

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-01,d1-4-12

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

This one has been around for some time. At the time and at the moment it would, as said, be one penalty stroke and the ball must be replaced.

Interestingly, from January 1st, if the new local rule is in place, there would be no penalty. The ball would still be replaced.

Make a reminder in your calendar and bring this back out in early January and we'll see if anyone gets it right then!

We've got a short attention span around here....

[mpare]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

Why wouldn't there be two penalties imposed here? The breaches resulted from two separate acts, which though connected temporally were distinct from one another. The first action was tossing the putter in the air and failing to catch it as a result of which it landed on the ball. The other action was stumbling forward in the attempt to catch it and falling on the green where the ball struck him. I guess my issue is distinguishing when multiple potential penalties will be considered as having resulted from one act or two separate acts. I have read the clarification in the rules on that question, but how it should be applied in this case isn't obvious to me.

Only one penalty stroke for the ball being hit by the player's putter. No additional penalty for it then hitting him.

See Decision 1-4/12 Example 1
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-...ion-01,d1-4-12

[JGT4]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

Why wouldn't there be two penalties imposed here? The breaches resulted from two separate acts, which though connected temporally were distinct from one another. The first action was tossing the putter in the air and failing to catch it as a result of which it landed on the ball. The other action was stumbling forward in the attempt to catch it and falling on the green where the ball struck him. I guess my issue is distinguishing when multiple potential penalties will be considered as having resulted from one act or two separate acts. I have read the clarification in the rules on that question, but how it should be applied in this case isn't obvious to me.

I.M.O. the answer to your question can be found in the final paragraph of 1-4/12, the first bullet point:

in making the judgement whether two acts are related or unrelated, the Committee should consider, among other things, the similarity of the acts, how close to one another they are in terms of time and location and whether there were any intervening events;

[mpare]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

You're right. In light of those factors, this should be a one penalty case. Thanks.

I.M.O. the answer to your question can be found in the final paragraph of 1-4/12, the first bullet point:

in making the judgement whether two acts are related or unrelated, the Committee should consider, among other things, the similarity of the acts, how close to one another they are in terms of time and location and whether there were any intervening events;

[Shadow]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

You're right. In light of those factors, this should be a one penalty case. Thanks.

Examples: In 1-4/12 and 13, there is a significant interval in time between the two rules infractions to warrant the two penalties. However, similar to 1-4/15, a player could be leaning on a branch when it breaks, and then fall trying to maintain his balance, but in doing so moves his ball, only one of the penalties would apply.

[JGT4]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

You're right. In light of those factors, this should be a one penalty case. Thanks.

You also have to decide in this case whether one rule has been breached twice or two rules have been breached.

I.M.O. only one rule has been breached, 18-2, and only when the ball at rest was moved. The subsequent part of the scenario does not involve a ball at rest, it is a ball in motion, but not a ball in motion after a stroke, so no breach of 19-2.

[LobWedge]

Re: What would be the ruling here?

Interestingly, if the new Local Rule had been in effect, there would be no penalty...