Decisions on Rule 1

1-1/1 Two Balls in Play Simultaneously at Different Holes

Q. Two players on the 8th hole play their approach shots to the 8th green. They agree to tee off at the 9th hole and then putt out on the 8th green. This is to avoid having to walk back up a hill to the 9th tee and to save time. What is the ruling?

A. In match play, the players are disqualified under Rule 1-3 for excluding the operation of Rule 2-1 by failing to play the stipulated round.

In stroke play, the competitors are disqualified under Rule 3-2 for failing to hole out on the 8th hole before making a stroke from the 9th tee.

1-1/2 Player Unaware He Has Holed Out Puts Another Ball into Play

Q. A player, unable to find his ball, puts another ball into play. He then discovers that his original ball is in the hole. What is the ruling?

A. The score with the original ball counts. The play of the hole was completed when the player holed that ball.

1-1/3 Player Discovers Original Ball in Hole After Searching Five Minutes and Then Continuing Play with Provisional Ball

Q. At a par-3 hole, a player, believing his original ball may be lost, plays a provisional ball. He searches five minutes for the original ball and then plays the provisional ball onto the green. At that point, the original ball is found in the hole. What is the ruling?

A. The player’s score is 1. The play of the hole was completed when the player holed the original ball (Rule 1-1).

1-1/4 Player Discovers Own Ball Is in Hole After Playing Wrong Ball

Q. A player played to a blind green and putted what he thought was his ball. He then discovered that his own ball was in the hole and that the ball he had putted was a wrong ball. What is the ruling?

A. Since the play of the hole was completed when the original ball was holed (Rule 1-1), the player was not in breach of Rule 15-3 for subsequently playing a wrong ball. (Revised)

Player with Lost Ball Concedes Hole; Ball Then Found in Hole — See 2-4/11.

Player Discovers Own Ball in Hole After Playing Wrong Ball; Opponent Claims Hole and Claim Not Disputed — See 2-5/5.

1-2/0.5 Serious Breach of Rule 1-2

Q. Should the standard for determining whether a serious breach of Rule 1-2 has occurred be the same in match play and stroke play?

A. In deciding whether a player has committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee should consider all aspects of the incident. Given the different impact on players in match play and stroke play, it is possible for the same act to constitute a serious breach of Rule 1-2 in stroke play but not in match play. In many cases in match play (e.g., a player who intentionally stops his ball from entering a water hazard), a penalty of loss of hole is sufficient while in stroke play the player should be disqualified for a serious breach. In some cases (e.g., the purposeful act referred to in the first paragraph of the answer in Decision 17-3/2), a penalty of disqualification in match play is appropriate. (New)

1-2/1 Line of Putt Altered Purposely by Opponent or Fellow-Competitor by Stepping on It

Q. An opponent or a fellow-competitor purposely steps on the player’s line of putt with the intention either of improving the line (e.g., by pressing down a raised tuft of grass) or of damaging it (e.g., by making spike marks). What is the ruling?

A. In either case, the opponent or the fellow-competitor was in breach of Rule 1-2. The penalty is loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play, unless the Committee decides to impose a penalty of disqualification — see the penalty statement under Rule 1-2.

In stroke play if the line of putt has been damaged, the player, in equity (Rule 1-4), may restore the line of putt to its previous condition. A player is entitled to the lie and line of putt he had when his ball came to rest. The line of putt may be restored by anyone. (Revised)

Competitor Sanctions Repair of Spike Damage on His Line of Putt by Fellow-Competitor — See 13-2/36.

Loose Impediments Brushed Along Line of Putt Rather Than to Side — See 16-1a/10.

Line of Putt Damaged Accidentally by Opponent, Fellow-Competitor or Their Caddies— See 16-1a/13.

Ball Lifted on Putting Green Placed Ahead of Ball-Marker and Then Moved Back to Original Position — See 16-1a/17.

Ball Mark in Position to Assist Opponent Repaired by Player — See 16-1c/2.

Placing Object Marking Position of Ball in Front of Ball — See 20-1/19.

1-2/1.5 Competitor Alters Line of Play of Fellow-Competitor

Q. In stroke play, A’s ball is under a partially detached tree branch from which he believes he is entitled to relief without penalty. A calls for a ruling. B, A’s fellow-competitor, argues A’s case to a member of the Committee and, during the conversation, lifts the branch and improves or worsens A’s line of play. What is the ruling?

A. As B’s actions were not made with the intention of improving or worsening A’s line of play, he is not in breach of Rule 1-2. The branch may be replaced, but A is not required to do so.

1-2/2 Shielding Line of Putt from Wind

Q. May a player lay his golf bag parallel to the line of putt to shield the line from the wind?

A. No. Such procedure would be a breach of Rule 1-2.

[1-2/3 Reserved]

1-2/3.5 Player Repairs Hole After Holing Out But Before Opponent, Fellow-Competitor or Partner Holes Out

Q. After holing out, a player observes that the edge of the hole is ragged. He pats the ragged edge with his hand and smoothes it. Does the player incur a penalty under Rule 1-2 if his opponent, fellow-competitor or partner has not holed out?

A. If the player smoothed the edge of the hole as a courtesy to following players, which seems likely, there is no penalty under Rule 1-2. However, he incurs a penalty under Rule 1-2 if he smoothed the edge of the hole for the express purpose of influencing the movement of the opponent’s, fellow-competitor’s or partner’s ball.

Since the player had holed out, he is not subject to penalty under Rule 16-1a.

If a four-ball competition was involved and the player’s partner had not completed the hole, the partner is subject to penalty under Rule 16-1a — See Definition of “Partner.”

1-2/3.8 Player Jumps Close to Hole to Cause Ball to Drop; Ball Does Not Move

Q. A ball at rest overhangs the lip of the hole. The player jumps close to the hole in the hope of jarring the ground and causing the ball to fall into the hole. The ball does not move. What is the ruling?

A. There is no penalty. Rule 1-2 does not apply to a situation where the player takes an action that does not result in a change in the position of a ball at rest. If the ball had moved, see Decision 1-2/4.

1-2/4 Player Jumps Close to Hole to Cause Ball to Drop; Ball Moves

Q. A ball overhangs the lip of the hole. The player jumps close to the hole in the hope of jarring the earth and causing the ball to fall into the hole, which it does. Is this permissible?

A. No.

If the ball was still moving when the player jumped, the player took action to influence the movement of the ball in breach of Rule 1-2. In match play, he lost the hole. In stroke play, he incurred a penalty of two strokes, and the ball was holed.

If the ball was at rest when the player jumped, it should be assumed that the player caused the ball to move, and he incurred a penalty of one stroke in both match and stroke play under Rule 18-2a and was required to replace the ball.

If it is not possible to determine whether the ball was still moving, it should be presumed to be moving unless it was deemed to be at rest under Rule 16-2.

1-2/4.5 Player Leaves Putt Short and Instinctively Throws Putter at Ball

Q. A player putts and the ball comes to rest just short of the hole. The player then instinctively throws his putter toward the ball, but misses. Should the player incur a penalty for a breach of Rule 1-2 which prohibits taking action to influence the position of a ball?

A. No. See Decision 14/6 which deals with a similar case.

If the putter had moved the ball, the player would have incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a, and would be required to replace the ball.

1-2/5 Player Putts with One Hand and Catches Ball in Hole with Other Hand

Q. A player whose ball is on the lip of the hole putts with one hand and catches the ball with his other hand after the ball is below the level of the lip of the hole. What is the ruling?

A. The player purposely stopped his moving ball.

In match play, he lost the hole — Rule 1-2.

In stroke play, he incurred a penalty of two strokes and was required to place his ball on the lip of the hole and hole out — Rule 1-2. If he did not do so, he was disqualified under Rule 3-2 for failing to hole out.

In order for a ball to be holed (see Definition of “Holed”), it must be at rest within the circumference of the hole.

1-2/5.5 Player Purposely Stops or Deflects Ball; Where Next Stroke Must Be Played From

Q. A player’s ball lies through the green. After playing a pitch shot up a slope, the player sees his ball start to roll back towards him. He places his club in front of the ball and stops it. The ball would have rolled only a few yards more and remained through the green. What is the ruling?

A. Since the player purposely stopped the ball, he is in breach of Rule 1-2. As the breach was not serious, he would lose the hole in match play or incur a two-stroke penalty in stroke play. In stroke play, he must play the ball from the point where he stopped it with his club.

If the player had purposely deflected the ball but not stopped it, in match play, he would lose the hole. In stroke play, if a serious breach has not occurred, he would incur a two-stroke penalty and must then play the ball from its new position. In stroke play, if a serious breach has occurred, the player is disqualified.

Ball Popped Up Swung at in Disgust — See 14/6.

Ball Overhanging Hole Knocked Away by Opponent Before Player Determines Status — See 16-2/2.

Casting Shadow on Ball Overhanging Hole — See 16-2/3.

Ball Moved by Another Agency After Being Addressed — See 18-2b/11.

Ball Moves Prior to Address and Is Accidentally Stopped by Player’s Club; Player Removes Club and Ball Rolls Away — See 19-2/1.5.

1-2/6 Player Removes Loose Impediment Affecting Lie of Opponent or Fellow-Competitor in Hazard

Q. As a gesture of sportsmanship, a player removes a loose impediment from a hazard, thus improving the lie in the hazard of the ball of his opponent or fellow-competitor. What is the ruling?

A. Under Rule 1-2, the player loses the hole in match play or incurs a penalty of two strokes in stroke play. The opponent or fellow-competitor is not required to replace the loose impediment.

1-2/7 Player Purposely Deflects Partner’s Ball in Motion on Putting Green

Q. In four-ball match play, A and B are playing C and D. All four balls lie on the putting green in five strokes. A lies four feet from the hole and B lies 30 feet from the hole. Player A is standing near and behind the hole with respect to B’s line of putt while B putts. B’s ball goes past the hole and is rolling towards where A is standing. Without waiting for B’s ball to come to rest, A knocks B’s ball back to B. What is the ruling?

A. A and B abandoned B’s right to complete the hole when A returned B’s ball to him after his failure to hole his putt. Such a casual action by A is not contemplated by Rule 1-2 and, in such circumstances, is not a breach of Rule 1-2 or any other Rule. Although Side A-B abandoned B’s right to complete the hole, A may continue to represent the side without penalty.

Waiving Turn to Putt in Four-Ball Match — See 30-3b/2.

Player Waives Turn to Play; Circumstances Under Which He May Complete Hole — See 31-4/1.

1-2/8 Player Presses Down Turf as Ball Is Rolling Towards Area

Q. A player’s ball lies through the green at the bottom of a slope. The player makes a stroke and sees that his ball is rolling back down the slope towards the spot from which he just played. Before the ball reaches that spot, the player presses down a raised piece of turf in that area with the intent of ensuring that his ball will not come to rest against the raised piece of turf or in the divot hole. Is the player in breach of Rule 1-2?

A. Yes, as he took an action with the intention to influence the movement of the ball.

If the player had not realized his ball was returning to the area, there would be no breach. (New)

Other Decisions Relating to Rule 1-2:

Ball Lifted from Putting Green; Ball Replaced While Another Ball in Motion Subsequently Deflects Moving Ball — See 16-1b/3.

Caddie Holds Back Tree Branch to Prevent Branch from Deflecting Dropped Ball — See 20-2a/5.

Caddie Stops Dropped Ball Before It Comes to Rest; When Penalty Incurred — See 20-2c/4.

1-3/1 Players Agree Not to Tee Off in Prescribed Order to Save Time

Q. In match play, A wins the 4th hole. On his way to the 5th tee, he returns to retrieve a club left at the 4th green and suggests that his opponent B play first to save time, which B does. Are the players in breach of Rule 1-3?

A. In order to waive a Rule, players must be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, the answer depends on whether the players knew that the Rules do not allow them the option as to who plays first from the tee.

If the players were ignorant of the Rules, there is no penalty.

If the players were aware of the Rules and agreed not to follow them, they are in breach of Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of Rule 10-1a. However, in these circumstances, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty under Rule 33-7. If the players subsequently agreed to exclude the operation of Rule 10-1a, they should be disqualified. (Revised)

Competitors in Stroke Play Agree to Play Out of Turn But Not for Purpose of Giving One of Them an Advantage — See 10-2c/2.

1-3/2 Agreement to Concede Short Putts

Q. In a match, the two players agree in advance to concede all putts within a specified length. Is this contrary to Rule 1-3?

A. Yes. The players agreed to exclude the operation of Rule 1-1 and should be disqualified under Rule 1-3. Under Rule 2-4, the only stroke which may be conceded is the “next stroke” and it cannot be conceded in advance.

1-3/3 Player and Opponent or Fellow-Competitor Agree to Repair Spike Marks on One Another’s Line of Putt

Q. A player and his opponent or fellow-competitor agree that they will repair spike marks on one another’s line of putt. Is this a breach of Rule 1-3?

A. Yes. Both would be subject to disqualification for agreeing to waive Rule 16-1a (Touching Line of Putt).

1-3/4 Failure of Players to Apply Known Penalty

Q. In a match, a player discovers at the 2nd hole that he has 15 clubs in his bag contrary to Rule 4-4a, but his opponent refuses to apply the penalty. The extra club is declared out of play and the match continues. The Committee disqualifies both players. Is this correct?

A. Yes. Since the players agreed to waive the penalty, they should be disqualified under Rule 1-3.

1-3/5 Players Unaware Penalty Incurred

Q. In a match, A incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 12-2 for lifting his ball for identification without announcing his intention to B, his opponent. A did not penalize himself and B did not make a claim because neither A nor B was aware a penalty had been incurred. Should the Committee disqualify A and B under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive a penalty?

A. No. Since the players were not aware a penalty had been incurred, there could have been no agreement between them to waive the penalty.

Players Unable to Resolve Rules Problem Agree to Consider Hole Halved — See 2-1/1.

Player’s Obligation Regarding Lodging Claim — See 2-5/1.

Player and Opponent Agree on Incorrect Procedure; Whether Valid Claim May Be Made After Procedure Followed — See 2-5/8.5.

1-3/6 Marker Attests Wrong Score Knowingly and Competitor Aware Score Wrong

Q. In stroke play, B failed to hole out at a hole. A few holes later he realized he had erred. A, B’s marker and fellow-competitor, was aware both that B had infringed the Rules and that B knew this, but nevertheless he signed B’s card. B was disqualified under Rule 3-2 (Failure to Hole Out). Should A, who knowingly overlooked the breach, be penalized?

A. A should have been disqualified for a breach of Rule 1-3.

Marker Attests Wrong Score Knowingly But Competitor Unaware Score Wrong — See 6-6a/5.

Competitor Seeks Help from Fellow-Competitor to Avoid Penalty — See 33-7/7.

1-3/7 Agreement That Side Losing After 18 Holes of 36-Hole Match Will Concede Match

Q. Prior to a 36-hole match, the players agree that they will play only 18 holes and whoever is behind at that point will concede the match. Is this permissible?

A. No. Both players should be disqualified under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of a condition of the competition (Rule 33-1).

Wrong Form of Play Used to Decide Which Side Concedes Match — See 2-4/21.

Wrong Form of Play Used in Match-Play Event — See 6-1/1.

Match Decided by Wrong Form of Play by Agreement — See 33-1/4.

Other Decisions Relating to Rule 1-3:

Players Agree to Consider Hole Halved During Play of Hole — See 2-1/1.5.

Two Holes Purposely Omitted in Match — See 2-1/4.

Discontinued Match Replayed Instead of Being Resumed from Where Play Stopped — See 2-1/6.

Handicap Stroke Given at Incorrect Hole in Error — See 6-2a/2.

Competitor Requests That Ball in Position to Assist Him Not Be Lifted — See 22/6.

Competitor Refuses to Lift Ball Assisting Play — See 22/7.

Player Who Has Reached Third Round of Match Play Disqualified for Agreeing to Waive Rules in First-Round Match — See 34-1a/1.

1-4/1 Player Distracted by Ball Dropped by Another Player Mis-Hits Ball

Q. As A was making his backswing, B accidentally dropped a ball, which rolled within six inches of A’s ball. The appearance of the dropped ball startled A, causing him to top his shot. In equity, should A be permitted to replay his stroke?

A. No. Distractions are a common occurrence which players must accept.

1-4/2 Ball Adhering to Face of Club After Stroke

Q. A player plays a stroke from wet sand or soil and the ball adheres to the face of the club. What is the ruling?

A. In equity (Rule 1-4), the ball should be dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where the club was when the ball stuck to it. But see also Decision 14-4/1.

1-4/3 Flagstick Stuck into Green Some Distance from Hole by Practical Joker

Q. A practical joker removes the flagstick from the hole and sticks it into the putting green some distance from the hole. The players approaching the green are unaware of this action and they play towards the flagstick and not the hole. Do the players have the option to replay?

A. No. In equity (Rule 1-4), the players must accept the resultant advantage or disadvantage.

1-4/4 In Anger Player Strikes Ball Played by Player in Following Group

Q. A is nearly struck by a ball played by a player in the following group. In anger, A hits the ball back towards the group. Has A played a practice stroke or a wrong ball?

A. No. However, in equity (Rule 1-4), A should incur the general penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play.

1-4/5 Removal of Obstruction in Hazard Would Move Loose Impediment

Q. In a hazard, a player’s ball lies against a movable obstruction. A loose impediment lies on top of the obstruction in such a position that the player cannot remove the obstruction without also moving the loose impediment. The player is entitled to move the movable obstruction under Rule 24-1 but is not entitled to move the loose impediment under Rule 23. What is the procedure?

A. The player may remove the obstruction as authorized by Rule 24-1. As the loose impediment will be moved in the process, in equity (Rule 1-4), the player incurs no penalty and must place the loose impediment as near as possible to the spot where it originally lay. If the player fails to place the loose impediment as required, in equity (Rule 1-4), and in view of the purpose of Rule 13-4, he would lose the hole in match play or incur a penalty of two strokes in stroke play.

[1-4/6 Reserved]

1-4/7 Ball Lost in Either Water Hazard or Casual Water Overflowing Hazard

Q. A ball is lost. It is either in a water hazard or in casual water overflowing the hazard. What is the proper procedure?

A. In equity (Rule 1-4), the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule.

1-4/8 Nearest Point of Relief from Cart Path Is in Casual Water; Nearest Point of Relief from Casual Water Is Back on Cart Path

Q. A player’s ball lies on a paved cart path from which he wishes to take relief under Rule 24-2b(i). It appears that the nearest point of relief will be in a large area of casual water which adjoins the cart path and the nearest point of relief from the casual water under Rule 25-1b(i) would be back on the cart path. What are the player’s options?

A. The player may proceed in accordance with Rule 24-2 and then, if applicable, Rule 25-1. He is not entitled to take relief from both the immovable obstruction and the casual water in a single procedure, unless after proceeding under these Rules, the player is essentially back where he started and it is evident that such a procedure is necessary to obtain relief from both conditions.

Therefore, the player should proceed as follows:

1. He may lift and drop the ball in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i) in the casual water.

2. He may play the ball as it lies or take relief from the casual water, in which case he would lift and drop the ball in accordance with Rule 25-1b(i).

3. If the ball when dropped comes to rest in such a position that there is interference by the cart path, he may play the ball as it lies or proceed in accordance with Rule 24-2b(i). If the nearest point of relief is in the casual water, as an additional option, the player may, in equity (Rule 1-4), obtain relief without penalty as follows: Using the new position of the ball on the cart path, the nearest point of relief from both the cart path and the casual water shall be determined which is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player shall lift the ball and drop it within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief, on a part of the course which avoids interference by the cart path and the casual water and is not in a hazard or on a putting green.

If the dropped ball rolls into a position where there is interference by either the cart path or the casual water, Rule 20-2c applies.

The same principle would apply if there was interference from any two conditions, e.g., casual water, a hole made by a burrowing animal, an immovable obstruction, from which relief without penalty was available and taking relief from one condition resulted in interference from the second condition.

1-4/8.5 Nearest Point of Relief from Cart Path Is in Casual Water, Nearest Point of Relief from Casual Water Is Back on Cart Path; Impracticable for Player to Drop Ball Into Area of Casual Water

Q. In the circumstances described in Decision 1-4/8, if the nature of the area of casual water were such that it was impracticable or impossible for the player to drop the ball, when taking relief from the cart path, into the area of casual water, how may the player proceed?

A. If it is impracticable for the player to proceed under one of the two Rules, he may, in equity (Rule 1-4), obtain relief without penalty as follows: Using the position of the ball on the cart path, the nearest point of relief from both the cart path and the casual water that is not in a hazard or on a putting green must be determined. The player must lift the ball and drop it within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief, on a part of the course that avoids interference by the cart path and the casual water and is not in a hazard or on a putting green.

It would be considered impracticable for the player to drop the ball in the area of casual water if the casual water were so deep that unreasonable effort would be required to retrieve a ball lying in this area of casual water – see Decision 25-1/1.

Other examples of conditions into which it would be considered impracticable for the player to drop the ball would include:

• in or under an immovable obstruction such that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to drop the ball (e.g., inside a locked building or beneath a rain-shelter that is raised off the ground).

• within a large hole made by a greenkeeper or similar area of ground under repair from which the player could not reasonably be expected to play a ball.

(New)

1-4/9 Bird’s Nest Interfering with Stroke

Q. A player’s ball comes to rest in a bird’s nest or so close to the nest that he could not make a stroke without damaging it. Does the player have any options in addition to playing the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceeding under Rule 26 or 28?

A. Yes. It is unreasonable to expect the player to play from such a situation and unfair to require the player to incur a penalty stroke under Rule 26 (Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).

In equity (Rule 1-4), as an additional option the player may, without penalty, drop a ball on the nearest spot not nearer the hole that would allow him to make his stroke without damaging the nest.

If the ball lay in a hazard, it should be dropped, if possible, in the same hazard and, if not, in a similar nearby hazard, but in either case not nearer the hole. If it is not possible for the player to drop the ball in a hazard, he may drop it, under penalty of one stroke, outside the hazard, keeping the point where the original ball lay between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped.

If it is clearly unreasonable for the player to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than the bird’s nest or if interference from the bird’s nest would occur only through the use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing, or direction of play, then he may not take relief as prescribed above, but he is not precluded from proceeding under Rule 26 or 28 if applicable. (Revised)

1-4/10 Dangerous Situation; Rattlesnake or Bees Interfere with Play

Q. A player’s ball comes to rest in a situation dangerous to the player, e.g., near a live rattlesnake or a bees’ nest. Does the player have any options in addition to playing the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceeding under Rule 26 or 28?

A. Yes. It is unreasonable to expect the player to play from such a dangerous situation and unfair to require the player to incur a penalty under Rule 26 (Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).

In equity (Rule 1-4), as an additional option the player may, without penalty, drop a ball on the nearest spot not nearer the hole that is not dangerous.

If it is clearly unreasonable for the player to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than the dangerous situation or if the situation would be dangerous only through the use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing, or direction of play, he may not take relief as prescribed above, but he is not precluded from proceeding under Rule 26 or 28 if applicable. (Revised)

Danger from Fire Ants — See 33-8/22.

1-4/11 Meaning of “Dangerous Situation”

Q. According to Decision 1-4/10, a ball lying near a live rattlesnake or bees’ nest is a “dangerous situation” and relief should be granted in equity.

If a player’s ball comes to rest in or near an area of plants such as poison ivy, cacti or stinging nettles, should the provisions of Decision 1-4/10 apply?

A. No. The player must either play the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceed under Rule 26 (Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).

Decision 1-4/10 contemplates a situation which is unrelated to conditions normally encountered on the course. Unpleasant lies are a common occurrence which players must accept.

1-4/12 Player Breaches Rules More Than Once Prior to Stroke; Whether Multiple Penalties Applied

Prior to making a stroke, there may be circumstances where a player breaches a Rule more than once, or breaches different Rules and it would seem that a penalty should be applied to each separate breach. However, in the majority of cases and based on equity (Rule 1-4), it would not be appropriate to apply multiple penalties.

For the purpose of applying the principles in this Decision, Rules 4-3a, 4-3b, 4-3c, 13-4a, 13-4b, 13-4c, 14-2a, 14-2b, 17-3a, 17-3b, 17-3c, 18-2a and 18-2b should be considered as separate Rules.

Below are the specific principles to be applied when determining whether multiple penalties are appropriate when more than one breach has occurred prior to a player making a stroke:

1. Single Act Results in One Rule Being Breached More Than Once — Single Penalty Applied
Example: In stroke play, a competitor’s ball on the putting green strikes a fellow-competitor’s ball in breach of Rule 19-5 and then strikes another fellow-competitor’s ball, also in breach of Rule 19-5. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty (see Decision 19-5/3).

2. Single Act Results in Two Rules Being Breached — Single Penalty Applied
Example: In stroke play, a competitor is considering putting his ball from a bunker and rakes a footprint in the bunker on his line of play. Both Rule 13-2 and Rule 13-4a have been breached. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty.

3. Multiple Occurrences of the Same or Similar Acts Result in One Rule Being Breached More Than Once — Single Penalty Applied
Example 1: In stroke play, a competitor takes several practice swings in a hazard, touching the ground each time. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty (see Decision 13-4/3).

Example 2: In stroke play, a player removes sand on his line of play through the green and presses down a replaced divot which is also on his line of play. The ruling would be a single two-stroke penalty.

4. Different Acts Result in Two Rules Being Breached, but Breach of Second Rule Is a Direct Consequence of the Initial Breach — Single Penalty Applied
Example: In stroke play, a competitor’s ball moves prior to address and while it is in motion it is accidentally stopped by the competitor’s club in breach of Rule 19-2. The competitor then moves the club and, therefore, moves his ball, normally a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a. This would result in a single one-stroke penalty under Rule 19-2 (see Decision 19-2/1.5). If the ball is not replaced before the competitor makes his next stroke, the failure to replace the ball is considered a separate act and he incurs an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 18-2a.

5. Different Acts Result in Two Rules Being Breached — Multiple Penalties Applied
Example: In stroke play, a competitor (1) touches the ground in a hazard with his club while taking practice swings in a hazard and (2) improves his line of play by bending a shrub with his hand. The ruling would be a two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4 (touching the ground in a hazard with his club) and a further penalty of two strokes under Rule 13-2 (improving his line of play by moving something growing), giving a total penalty of four strokes (see Decision 13-4/28).

6. Different Acts Result in One Rule Being Breached More Than Once — Multiple Penalties Applied
Example: In stroke play, a competitor (1) purposely steps on another player’s line of putt with the intention of improving the line, and then (2) purposely stops his own ball in motion after it began moving without apparent cause before address. The ruling would be two separate penalties, each of two strokes, for breaches of Rule 1-2, giving a total penalty of four strokes.

The following chart summarizes the principles of this Decision:

(Revised)

1-4/13 Player Advised of Breach of Rule; Player Breaches Same Rule Prior to Stroke

Q. In stroke play, a competitor, whose ball lies in a bunker, makes a practice swing and touches the ground in the bunker with his club. His fellow-competitor advises him that his action may be a breach of the Rules. The competitor disagrees and makes several more practice swings prior to making his stroke, touching the sand each time. What is the penalty?

A. As the competitor was correctly advised that touching the ground in the bunker with his club during a practice swing was a breach of the Rules (Rule 13-4b), the third principle in Decision 1-4/12 is not applicable. Therefore, the competitor is penalized four strokes — two strokes for the initial breach and two strokes for all subsequent breaches when the additional practice swings were made.

1-4/14 Player Breaches Same Rule Before and After Stroke

Q. In stroke play, a competitor whose ball lies in a bunker makes a practice swing, touching the ground in the bunker with his club in breach of Rule 13-4. He makes the stroke, but the ball remains in the bunker. Before his next stroke, he makes another practice swing, again touching the ground in the bunker. What is the penalty?

A. The competitor incurs two separate penalties, each of two strokes, for breaches of Rule 13-4, giving a total penalty of four strokes. The third principle in Decision 1-4/12 does not apply in this case as the player made a stroke between the two breaches.

1-4/15 Player Breaches Two Rules with Different Penalties; More Severe Penalty Applied

Q. In stroke play, a competitor is searching for his ball under a tree. He accidentally moves his ball with his foot in breach of Rule 18-2a and, at the same time, breaks a branch, improving the area of his intended swing in breach of Rule 13-2. What is the ruling?

A. The competitor has breached two Rules as a result of a single act. In accordance with the second principle in Decision 1-4/12, the competitor only incurs a single penalty. However, in this case, the Rules that have been breached by the competitor give different penalties (i.e., Rule 18-2a carries a one-stroke penalty and Rule 13-2 carries a two-stroke penalty). In such circumstances, in equity (Rule 1-4), the more severe of the two penalties must be applied and, therefore, the competitor is penalized two strokes under Rule 13-2.

If the same circumstances arose in match play, the player would lose the hole for the breach of Rule 13-2.

Other Decisions Relating to Rule 1-4: See “Equity” in the Index