Am I entitled to the original lie?

[jim8flog]

IIRC, the previous drop was over your shoulder, not over your head. Further, here's what it says in the 1968 Rule book, "A ball to be dropped under the Rues or Local Rules shall be dropped by the player himself. He shall face the hole, stand erect, and drop the ball behind him over his shoulder." "Head" is not mentioned, other than facing the hole.

If tried to drop a ball over my shoulder (behind me) directly it would strike my body hence my comment about needing to be a contortionist for it to be shoulder height (the requirement in the later revised rule) (remember it was still the rule ((as far as my memory serves)) that if it struck your body it must be re dropped).

 

[rulie]

If tried to drop a ball over my shoulder (behind me) directly it would strike my body hence my comment about needing to be a contortionist for it to be shoulder height (the requirement in the later revised rule) (remember it was still the rule ((as far as my memory serves)) that if it struck your body it must be re dropped).

Dropping it over your left shoulder using your right hand isn't that difficult. The 1968 Rule book says that if the dropped ball touches the player, there is no penalty and the ball is to be played as it lies.

 

[Canfordhacker]

...Relief other than in the teeing area or on the putting green is almost always by dropping a ball ... whether there is a penalty attached or not. It's a random matter and you might on another occasion get a better lie than your original one. That being said, I can see an argument for getting the same lie for a replay when a stroke is cancelled but suspect that it is better to have the same procedure for all instances of relief.

But there is a precedent for recreating a lie in a bunker - when two balls lie next to each other. We trust people with that one, why could that not be used for a cancelled stroke taken from a bunker? Don't get me wrong, I know rules is rules. It's the inequity of this one that puzzles me.

 

[Imurg]

But there is a precedent for recreating a lie in a bunker - when two balls lie next to each other. We trust people with that one, why could that not be used for a cancelled stroke taken from a bunker? Don't get me wrong, I know rules is rules. It's the inequity of this one that puzzles me.

I'm with you
Surely if the stroke is cancelled and you have to replay it you should be entitled to have the same lie wherever you play from.. otherwise you're not really cancelling and replaying the shot, you're playing another shot without penalty...

 

[Colin L]

I'm with you
Surely if the stroke is cancelled and you have to replay it you should be entitled to have the same lie wherever you play from.. otherwise you're not really cancelling and replaying the shot, you're playing another shot without penalty...

In other forms of relief like from GUR or an immovable obstruction , there is a standard procedure involving identifying a reference point and from that the relief area within which you can drop a ball. You do not get to choose a lie similar to the one where your ball came to rest. You might get a better one; you might get a worse one. Why should this particular relief be any different?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

But there is a precedent for recreating a lie in a bunker - when two balls lie next to each other. We trust people with that one, why could that not be used for a cancelled stroke taken from a bunker? Don't get me wrong, I know rules is rules. It's the inequity of this one that puzzles me.

One difficulty here is that if you rake the bunker and drop it into the raked sand it is guaranteed to plug. You have the ability to drop and "miss" the previously disturbed area which is probably a better option.

 

[Imurg]

In other forms of relief like from GUR or an immovable obstruction , there is a standard procedure involving identifying a reference point and from that the relief area within which you can drop a ball. You do not get to choose a lie similar to the one where your ball came to rest. You might get a better one; you might get a worse one. Why should this particular relief be any different?

Because you're replaying the shot. The 1st shot is cancelled, it, in effect, never happened.
If your ball isn't in the same lie then, strictly speaking, you're not replaying the shot.
You're playing a different shot.
I appreciate the rule on this but it doesn't seem fair that you could either get a better or worse lie when having to replay a cancelled shot.
You should have to place in as similar a lie as possible to recreate the ball position of the cancelled stroke.
Just my opinion

 

[Colin L]

Because you're replaying the shot. The 1st shot is cancelled, it, in effect, never happened.
If your ball isn't in the same lie then, strictly speaking, you're not replaying the shot.
You're playing a different shot.
I appreciate the rule on this but it doesn't seem fair that you could either get a better or worse lie when having to replay a cancelled shot.
You should have to place in as similar a lie as possible to recreate the ball position of the cancelled stroke.
Just my opinion

If you are taking relief you are cancelling the outcome of your previous shot. The only difference with a cancelled shot is not counting the stroke. I can understand how you feel about the drop in a bunker but the risk of plugging is the same with other forms of relief. I guess it comes down to my being easy about the fairness of it as it is while you’re not. I certainly prefer the consistency of having one procedure for multiple situations.

 

[Imurg]

I suppose my view is that you're not taking relief....
The rule tells you to replay the shot not take 1 or 2 club lengths etc etc..
If the ball is not in the same place, as near as possible, or in the same lie, as near as possible, then you're not replaying
You're playing a different shot.
That's the crux of my argument.

 

[Colin L]

If you placed your ball in exactly the same place, the chances are you wouldn't get the same lie because you've just hacked a chunk of turf out of the ground playing the cancelled shot, but never mind. If you place as near as possible, you're not in your terms playing the same shot. The rule for a ball lost or out of bounds covers, in effect, exactly the same situation as for a ball hitting a power line except that the stroke counts. But I guess you would be wanting to replace your ball for stroke and distance as well?

Anyway, even if the discussion hasn't been exhausted, I am. An interesting one, thanks.