?? ??? ?? ? ?? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ?? ? ???? ??? ???????

▼??▼

??? ????? Rule 25?? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ? ??? tornament? ?? ??????? ???, ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? Club Pro ??? ???? ? ? ????. ??? Unplayable? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? Pro shop?? ??? ???? ?????. Decisions 3-3/11??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????.

3-3/11 Competitor Drops One Ball in Accordance with Two Different Rules Instead of Playing Second Ball

Question: In stroke play, a competitor’s ball comes to rest through the green in a deep rut which has not been defined as ground under repair by the Committee. The ball is not playable due to the rut. The competitor believes that the Committee might declare the rutted area to be ground under repair. He announces to his marker or a fellow-competitor that he will drop the ball at a spot which conforms to the procedures prescribed in both Rule 25-1b(i) (Ground Under Repair) and Rule 28b (Ball Unplayable), seek a ruling from the Committee before returning his score card, and accept the penalty stroke in Rule 28 if the Committee does not declare the rutted area to be ground under repair. Is such a procedure permissible?

Answer: Yes. Although it would have been advisable for the competitor to proceed under Rule 3-3 in this situation, the Rules do not prohibit such a procedure - see also Decision 3-3/12.