Should there be a penalty for playing a wrong ball?

[John Morrissett]

In Code Two David and I eliminated the penalty for playing a wrong ball. This was a penalty we had taken for granted without ever questioning its appropriateness as it just seemed right for there to be a penalty for a playing a wrong ball. However, as we attempted to question everything with the Rules for this project, one theme that emerged was for there not to be a penalty for an accidental action that does not benefit the player.

In that context, we had to wonder whether it does in fact make sense for there to be a penalty for playing a wrong ball. The player did not intend to play the wrong ball (if he did intent to play a wrong ball, he would be considered to have made a practice stroke) and did not benefit from the act (we do not consider any assistance with club selection or the wind to be significant).

One direct benefit of this change is that the occasionally complicated and often not understood procedure for lifting a ball for identification could be removed from the Rules. As there is no penalty for playing a wrong ball, there is no authority to lift a ball for identification (similar to the pre-2008 treatment of a ball in a hazard, when there was no penalty for playing a wrong ball from a hazard and there was therefore no authority to lift a ball for identification in a hazard).

What do you think of this change?

[bob_d_golfer]

(12-16-2013 03:37 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  In Code Two David and I eliminated the penalty for playing a wrong ball. This was a penalty we had taken for granted without ever questioning its appropriateness as it just seemed right for there to be a penalty for a playing a wrong ball. However, as we attempted to question everything with the Rules for this project, one theme that emerged was for there not to be a penalty for an accidental action that does not benefit the player.

In that context, we had to wonder whether it does in fact make sense for there to be a penalty for playing a wrong ball. The player did not intend to play the wrong ball (if he did intent to play a wrong ball, he would be considered to have made a practice stroke) and did not benefit from the act (we do not consider any assistance with club selection or the wind to be significant).

One direct benefit of this change is that the occasionally complicated and often not understood procedure for lifting a ball for identification could be removed from the Rules. As there is no penalty for playing a wrong ball, there is no authority to lift a ball for identification (similar to the pre-2008 treatment of a ball in a hazard, when there was no penalty for playing a wrong ball from a hazard and there was therefore no authority to lift a ball for identification in a hazard).

What do you think of this change?

This is a tricky one. I fear that this rule change could lead to slowing play because there are going to be more occasions where a player makes a shot with a ball that he has not identified. Having hit a wrong ball and arriving at the location where the ball had come to rest he would then have to return to replay his shot with the correct ball. This would be time consuming. I would feel more comfortable with the change if the player still had the option to mark and positively identify his ball.

[John Morrissett]

Bob -

That is a valid concern - pace of play. You are certainly correct that there would be more situations when a player would have to return to the area to search for the original ball. While that would be a negative, my thinking is that the positives (no more penalty for play of a wrong ball and the simplification of no more lifting a ball for identification) would more than offset the few times a player would need to return to resume search for his original ball.

I suppose the practical test would be how often does a player today lift a ball under Rule 12-2 and find out that it is not his ball? This is the situation that would lead to the temporary delays you mention, but my unscientific observation is that such events are quite rare. The worst-case scenario would be with practice balls (so perhaps more Committees would mark the practice area as out of bounds).

Best regards,
John