Ball on slope moves at address

[splashtryagain]

I'm sure this will have been asked before but I can't find it. PP's ball came to rest on a slope. PP addressed the ball and, without his club touching the ball, it rolled 3 feet back down the slope. Is this a shot and replace ball situation or no shot and play from new position?

Or is it something else.....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If nature caused it to move then play from new position - no penalty; if player's action clearly caused the ball to move then replace on it's original spot, but in some circumstances penalties might applied.

I think there is a variation that is to do with ball moving to a different area of the course e.g. from fairway into a bunker or a penalty area...which I think is replace on spot. But others will confirm.

 

[rulie]

If it is determined that the player's actions caused the ball to move, it is a one stroke penalty and replace the ball on its original spot. If natural forces caused the ball to move, no penalty and play from the new spot.
The issue raised above about different areas of the course only applies after a ball has been put into play by dropping or placing following a relief (free or penalty) situation and then, after being at rest, rolls into a different area of the course. It's referred to as the Rickie Fowler rule.

 

[cliveb]

Related to this: what are the requirements to decide if the player caused the ball to move? Looking at rule 9.4 I don't see any wording along the lines of "virtually certain" or "95%". If there is any doubt about whether the ball moved because of the player's actions or natural forces, is the player penalised or does he get the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Swango1980]

Related to this: what are the requirements to decide if the player caused the ball to move? Looking at rule 9.4 I don't see any wording along the lines of "virtually certain" or "95%". If there is any doubt about whether the ball moved because of the player's actions or natural forces, is the player penalised or does he get the benefit of the doubt?

If it happened to me, I would play safe and take the penalty.

If I addressed the ball, and my club touched the ground, then there is a very high probability that my club touching the ground disturbed the grass around ball, and it moved.

I'd only look to not take the penalty if there was an extremely clear argument, such as my club never touched ground and there was a huge gust of wind. Of course, all this happening and the ball moving just as I happened to address ball would be a huge coincidence and so a very unlikely set of circumstances.

 

[rulefan]

Related to this: what are the requirements to decide if the player caused the ball to move? Looking at rule 9.4 I don't see any wording along the lines of "virtually certain" or "95%". If there is any doubt about whether the ball moved because of the player's actions or natural forces, is the player penalised or does he get the benefit of the doubt?

The Known or Virtually Certain standard applies. It's in the first sentence.
See the Definition.

 

[Steven Rules]

Adding to what rulefan has said.

Rule 9.2b(2) “Known or Virtually Certain” Standard for Deciding What Caused Ball to Move.

The player, the opponent or an outside influence is treated as having caused the ball to move only if it is known or virtually certain to be the cause.

If it is not known or virtually certain that at least one of these was the cause, the ball is treated as having been moved by natural forces.

In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonably delaying play.

 

[cliveb]

The Known or Virtually Certain standard applies. It's in the first sentence.
See the Definition.

Thanks. I missed that because I was only reading 9.4b

So in cases where it's not certain that the player caused the ball to move, they get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Neilds]

In these cases, who has the final say on ‘certain’? There is likely to be a difference of opinion between the player and his opponents.

 

[rulie]

In these cases, who has the final say on ‘certain’? There is likely to be a difference of opinion between the player and his opponents.

The referee or Committee in charge will examine the facts of the situation and make a decision. Players don't get a "yay or nay".
In match play, the player carries on with what he believes is right. If the opponent doesn't like that, the opponent can make a claim and ask for a later ruling. (Rule 20.1b)
In stroke play, the player can play two balls and ask for a later ruling. (Rule 20.1c)

 

[Neilds]

The referee or Committee in charge will examine the facts of the situation and make a decision. Players don't get a "yay or nay".
In match play, the player carries on with what he believes is right. If the opponent doesn't like that, the opponent can make a claim and ask for a later ruling. (Rule 20.1b)
In stroke play, the player can play two balls and ask for a later ruling. (Rule 20.1c)

That may be fine in a higher level competition with referees, but what about at club level? It will be a case of “I didn’t move it” v “yes you did”. How can the committee, who weren’t there, make a decision?

 

[rulie]

That may be fine in a higher level competition with referees, but what about at club level? It will be a case of “I didn’t move it” v “yes you did”. How can the committee, who weren’t there, make a decision?

By talking with the players, ascertaining facts, then making a ruling.

 

[splashtryagain]

Thanks for the replies
Now straight on the rule

 

[KenL]

If you didn’t cause the ball to move, replaced it and then make a stroke - would you have played from the wrong place?

 

[rulie]

If you didn’t cause the ball to move, replaced it and then make a stroke - would you have played from the wrong place?

Yes. General penalty applied.