Separate or Related Acts - Episode 46

GRQOTW 45

ANSWER

Whilst the boundary of the GUR is straight down from the defined line or invisible line between the stakes, it also states that anything rooted in the GUR area is part of the GUR.

So in this case Fraser is entitled to free relief, and IF it was a No Play Zone, he must take free relief due to the interference. He would be breaching Rule 16.1f if he didn’t.

However, although tree roots maybe rooted in the area, as the boundary goes straight down from ground level, should these roots go under the line, they are effectively cut off from being part of the GUR.

I have had a couple of interesting questions come up lately, including from Steve Whiting, which was one of those premonition situations again.

Steve asked about a player who played onto an adjacent fairway, then played a wrong ball, and had to return to the area to find his own ball, with the 3 min search time already elapsed, this player believed that someone from another group had taken his ball. This was proved to be correct, but as the information was found out after the 3 minute search time, his ball should have been deemed lost. Unfortunately the story goes that the decision was made that the player could proceed under Rule 9.6, but still incurred the two stroke penalty in stroke play for hitting the wrong ball.

Steve asked this question prior to the Bryson Dechambeau disappearing ball incident. The big difference there is that the Committee knew/were virtually certain that the ball had been picked up by a spectator before the 3 minutes was up. So a huge difference, and I would say the player that Steve is speaking of, got away with one there.

Another incident that popped up in front of me was the difference between separate acts and related acts, and this is certainly one that gets my head spinning.

The situation was whether determining the yardage of your shot by using a distance measuring device that also has a slope function, playing your shot, and then going through the process again before another shot was a separate or related act.

It is an act that is similar, and on the same hole, but because of the intervening act - the stroke, then it is seen as a separate act, and the player incurs the general penalty for the first act, and then disqualification for the second.

A note there, there aren’t many occasions where you can get disqualified from a match, but that would be one of them.

Just quickly back to separate and related acts, what breaks up a related act is one of three actions:

I could make a whole episode on related acts vs separate acts, so maybe we delve into it a bit deeper soon.

Lastly, I wanted to speak about Rule 18.2/18.3 and 14.4/6

I’ve had the same question asked of me in recent weeks about dropping a ball into play and then the original ball being found, which ball is in play:

As soon as you dropped your ball (in the fairway/rough/penalty area/bunker) under Rule 18.2/14.6, that was the ball in play. So subsequently finding the original ball does not entitle you to continue with the original ball.

Between play of holes 9 and 10, Ross took Big P’s putter and hit 3 putts on the practice putting green whilst waiting for the fairway on the 10th to clear so they could tee off.

Does Ross incur any penalties for this action?