3-3/2 Second Ball Played Despite Adverse Ruling
Q: In stroke play, a competitor believes he is entitled to relief under a Rule, but a member of the Committee disagrees. In spite of the ruling by the Committee member, the competitor invokes Rule 3-3 and opts to score with the second ball. He plays his original ball as it lies and the second ball under the Rule he believes is applicable.
May a competitor invoke Rule 3-3 in such circumstances?
A: The answer depends upon whether or not the Committee has given authority to make final decisions to its individual members.
If the Committee member concerned has not been given authority to make final decisions, the competitor is entitled to invoke Rule 3-3.
If, on the other hand, the Committee member has been given authority to make final decisions, he may, despite his own view that the competitor is not entitled to relief, permit the competitor to invoke Rule 3-3. However, if the Committee member exercises his authority and gives the competitor a final decision that he is not entitled to the relief he claims, there is then no justification for the competitor invoking Rule 3-3, and he will incur a penalty of two strokes for undue delay (Rule 6-7) if he, nevertheless, goes ahead and invokes Rule 3-3. The score with his original ball, including this two-stroke penalty, must count.