Ball overhanging hole

[MikeH]

Probably my strongest pet hate. Consider Dec 16-2/0.5 and compare to Dec20-3d/1.
So my opponent and I tee off on a par3. My ball is overhanging the hole and his is 3' away. We both mark and lift/clean. He replaces his ball which after being at rest rolls into the hole - he scores an ace? I replace my ball on the lip which after 5 seconds falls into the hole and I score a 2.
I'm sure this is probably in place to prevent a player whose ball overhangs the hole from lifting, cleaning and replacing in such a manner that it most likely will fall into the hole.
My suggestion would be to change the other situation and re-write the last paragraph of 20-3d.

If a ball when placed comes to rest on the spot on which it is placed, and it subsequently moves, there is no penalty and the ball must be played as it lies, unless the ball has rolled into the hole in which case the ball must be replaced or the provisions of any other Rule apply.

I considered applying the same 1 stroke penalty as with 16-2 and then thought na! he could still 2 putt and I win the hole.

[DavidHayes]

So, if I place my ball 60' away from the hole and it rolls to 1" from the hole I can play it as it lies (and I have a great record on making 1" putts) but if it rolls all the way into the hole then I have to replace it?

[MikeH]

(07-31-2013 11:47 PM)DavidHayes Wrote:  So, if I place my ball 60' away from the hole and it rolls to 1" from the hole I can play it as it lies (and I have a great record on making 1" putts) but if it rolls all the way into the hole then I have to replace it?

Hmmm, didn't consider that one, perhaps not the best suggestion. Then maybe we simply do away with the penalty as in 16-2/0.5 scenario but still apply the penalty if a player exceeds the 10 seconds....but would that complicate it even more?

[John Morrissett]

Mike -

The answer to Decision 16-2/0.5 is a stretch, and I can understand the concern with the different results you mention. I also appreciate the desirability of the published answer.

This issue is a good example of the discussions inherent with this project. The answer to Decision 16-2/0.5 is frustrating in that (a) it provides for different results in seemingly similar situations and (b) it addresses a rare situation (albeit a situation that warrants its own Rule). During this project David and I became less and less concerned with the results of extreme situations. The question in this case is whether the result in 16-2/0.5 is so important that it justifies the complexity (different treatments) that you mention.

Also, please note that David and I don't have THAT much free time on our hands as to have drafted complete Decisions for the two codes. If we were to tackle that ambitious project, it would be interesting to see the results.

Best regards,
John