Another query during matchplay!

[rosecott]

The phrase used in the rules is "piled for removal" which suggests a fairly substantial amount which realistically could not be confused with a small amount of grass clippings - I think I'll mark your card.

 

[duncan mackie]

I should have anticipated that question! If the lie of a ball to be replaced has been altered, you find the nearest similar lie within a club length. (Rule 20-3b).

In this case, the ball has probably been pressed into the ground by the weight of the player with no way of restoring it to its previous vertical place.

more importantly, the actual lie is irrelevant here as it's unknown. if it was known the player wouldn't have trodden on it! (accepting the 1:1,000,000,000 situation where the player sees the ball a microsecond before stepping on it and has such cognition that they can know the lie as was)

 

[6inchcup]

The phrase used in the rules is "piled for removal" which suggests a fairly substantial amount which realistically could not be confused with a small amount of grass clippings - I think I'll mark your card.

it was worth a try!!!!!

 

[Foxholer]

Oops, correct, not the opponent.

That'll be a one shot penalty, then.

Only if the ball actually moved. I know someone who argued, successfully, that his ball that he was searching for and stood on, didnt move! I'm dubious myself, but....!

And I know of a course that has a couple of Tree Ant nests. There are signs giving compulsory relief from the area nearby.

 

[Colin L]

more importantly, the actual lie is irrelevant here as it's unknown. if it was known the player wouldn't have trodden on it! (accepting the 1:1,000,000,000 situation where the player sees the ball a microsecond before stepping on it and has such cognition that they can know the lie as was)

Interesting point, Duncan, but would we not be talking about broad similarities which would still be discernible? Like length and thickness of grass - ie you don't use a convenient open patch of short grass when the original lie was clearly deep in the long stuff?
Decision 18-2a/21.3 contemplates a situation where the player knows the original lie.

Regarding arguing that a ball trodden on had not moved, I thought there was Decision which made it clear that you had to take it that in those circumstances it must have moved vertically. Can't find it though, so maybe I'm making it up.