Did the ball move

[chrisd]

A question asked of me from a participant in a strokeplay playoff

In a strokeplay with two players, one player whilst on the putting green, says that he touched the ball with his club but can't be sure whether the ball moved?

Neither players were looking at the ball at the time but the player knew that he had touched his ball. Any thoughts?

 

[Farneyman]

If he touched the ball then surely it counts as a stroke...I await correction ...

If it was me I would have to count it as a stroke, never happened to me, yet!

 

[Crow]

A stroke is a forward movement of the club with the intention of striking the ball, or something wordy to that effect.

It doesn't sound as though a stroke was being made so I think that if the club touches the ball and it doesn't move then there's no penalty. The question here is did the ball move?

As he knows he touched the ball but wasn't looking to see if it moved, the assumption would have to be that it did, therefore penalty and "replace" the ball, but where you'd replace it I don't know!

 

[Colin L]

It is certainly not a stroke. If the touching is accidental there is no penalty. The player has to decide whether the ball moved. It cannot be "assumed" that the ball moved just because he touched it. If the player did not see it move and no-one else saw it move, the only conclusion has to be that it did not move.

 

[FaldosJumper]

I think I'm correct when I say if the ball rocks forward but then comes back to rest in it's original position is OK too... but I'm sure I'll be corrected if not

 

[Colin L]

I think I'm correct when I say if the ball rocks forward but then comes back to rest in it's original position is OK too... but I'm sure I'll be corrected if not

No correction. :thup:

 

[CMAC]

It is certainly not a stroke. If the touching is accidental there is no penalty. The player has to decide whether the ball moved. It cannot be "assumed" that the ball moved just because he touched it. If the player did not see it move and no-one else saw it move, the only conclusion has to be that it did not move.

Just to be clear if its accidental and moves off its original spot there is a penalty.

 

[duncan mackie]

It cannot be "assumed" that the ball moved just because he touched it. If the player did not see it move and no-one else saw it move, the only conclusion has to be that it did not move.

I'm not sure that I would use this turn of phrase - you are walking in the rough and tread on your ball.....the above suggests that you would conclude it didn't move; I would suggest that the correct conclusion is that it did

In this particular case though, the player simply has to decide on the evidence he has available to him whether the ball has moved or hasn't moved.

In the case raised by Crow, that you know it moved but are unsure where from, you make your best estimate of where it was and replace it there - you are not in breach of the rules if you get it slightly wrong, but would be penalised if you didn't move it at all because you know that must be wrong!

 

[Foxholer]

It is certainly not a stroke. If the touching is accidental there is no penalty. The player has to decide whether the ball moved. It cannot be "assumed" that the ball moved just because he touched it. If the player did not see it move and no-one else saw it move, the only conclusion has to be that it did not move.

Doesn't the fact that nobody was watching rather affect that logic? Just because no-one saw it move doesn't mean it hasn't moved. You don't actually need to see a ball move to know that it has moved - when you notice it has changed position while clearing nearby LIs in 'jungle' for instance. I agree that 'assuming', one way or the other, isn't what should happen.

To me, the following questions would be be appropriate?

Does it appear to have moved? If yes, then Penalty.

Was it hit hard enough to move it? If yes, then Penalty.

If 'No' or 'I don't think so' or even ;I'm not sure', then the balance of probability would seem to be that it didn't move imo.

I'm not sure whether there is a convention on whether to rule more in favour of, or against, the player in this sort of (doubt) case though.

 

[Colin L]

I'm not sure that I would use this turn of phrase - you are walking in the rough and tread on your ball.....the above suggests that you would conclude it didn't move; I would suggest that the correct conclusion is that it did

Indeed, if you open the context out, but I was only talking of the OP's situation of touching the ball with a putter on the green.

 

[Colin L]

Doesn't the fact that nobody was watching rather affect that logic? Just because no-one saw it move doesn't mean it hasn't moved. You don't actually need to see a ball move to know that it has moved - when you notice it has changed position while clearing nearby LIs in 'jungle' for instance. I agree that 'assuming', one way or the other, isn't what should happen.

To me, the following questions would be be appropriate?

Does it appear to have moved? If yes, then Penalty.

Was it hit hard enough to move it? If yes, then Penalty.

If 'No' or 'I don't think so' or even ;I'm not sure', then the balance of probability would seem to be that it didn't move imo.

I'm not sure whether there is a convention on whether to rule more in favour of, or against, the player in this sort of (doubt) case though.

What I said is pretty straightforward, I think. The other players did not see the ball move; the other players cannot tell if the ball is in a different position; and the player himself is not aware of its being in a different position. The fact of touching the ball with his putter cannot be taken as evidence that the ball did in fact move.

I'm not sure of your questions. Whether a ball has moved or not has to be a matter of fact. "Appearing" to move doesn't seem clear enough and making a judgment about the strength of the touch or hit is unsound. The only question to ask is whether the ball is now in a different position from where it had been at rest.

 

[chrisd]

On the day, the two players involved couldn't decide if the ball was moved and no penalty was added. I would agree with that decision had I been there too.

 

[Foxholer]

What I said is pretty straightforward, I think. The other players did not see the ball move; the other players cannot tell if the ball is in a different position; and the player himself is not aware of its being in a different position. The fact of touching the ball with his putter cannot be taken as evidence that the ball did in fact move.

I'm not sure of your questions. Whether a ball has moved or not has to be a matter of fact. "Appearing" to move doesn't seem clear enough and making a judgment about the strength of the touch or hit is unsound. The only question to ask is whether the ball is now in a different position from where it had been at rest.

That would mean that if the answer is "I don't know" or equivalent (which would really be the purpose of getting a ruling), then it (in effect) hasn't moved.

Or - if no-one has seen that it has moved, then it hasn't?

 

[backwoodsman]

That would mean that if the answer is "I don't know" or equivalent (which would really be the purpose of getting a ruling), then it (in effect) hasn't moved.

Or - if no-one has seen that it has moved, then it hasn't?

What if Schroedinger's cat saw it move ???

 

[Crow]

My logic for saying that it has to be assumed that the ball has moved is based purely on the fact that the player knew that he'd touched the ball with his putter, to feel that you would need to "touch" the ball with some force, which would be enough to move the ball.

Try standing above a ball with putter in hand and seeing if you can touch the ball enough to feel it but not move the ball.

 

[Foxholer]

What if Schroedinger's cat saw it move ???

It would have died nearly 80 years ago - from starvation at least!

What if the player's name was Heisenberg?!

 

[rulefan]

My logic for saying that it has to be assumed that the ball has moved is based purely on the fact that the player knew that he'd touched the ball with his putter, to feel that you would need to "touch" the ball with some force, which would be enough to move the ball.

Try standing above a ball with putter in hand and seeing if you can touch the ball enough to feel it but not move the ball.

But it might oscillate with the same 'feel'.

 

[duncan mackie]

My logic for saying that it has to be assumed that the ball has moved is based purely on the fact that the player knew that he'd touched the ball with his putter, to feel that you would need to "touch" the ball with some force, which would be enough to move the ball.

Try standing above a ball with putter in hand and seeing if you can touch the ball enough to feel it but not move the ball.

you raise an excellent point - but need to extend it logically to see the problem.

if "to feel that you would need to "touch" the ball with some force, which would be enough to move the ball" is valid, then you would also expect to be able to see the result of this movement quite clearly.

based on personal experience, a player that says he thinks it's possible the ball moved is really saying 'it moved' - but that's why the RO will ask specific questions in a specific order in such situations.

so, I agree with your premise, but without being able to discuss it with the individual concerned the observations here remain valid.

 

[rulefan]

you raise an excellent point - but need to extend it logically to see the problem.

if "to feel that you would need to "touch" the ball with some force, which would be enough to move the ball" is valid, then you would also expect to be able to see the result of this movement quite clearly.

based on personal experience, a player that says he thinks it's possible the ball moved is really saying 'it moved' - but that's why the RO will ask specific questions in a specific order in such situations.

so, I agree with your premise, but without being able to discuss it with the individual concerned the observations here remain valid.

Do you mean 'move' in the general sense or as defined? Would an oscillation give the same impression to the player as a defined movement with say 3mm?

 

[Crow]

Do you mean 'move' in the general sense or as defined? Would an oscillation give the same impression to the player as a defined movement with say 3mm?

While I can see your argument about oscillation I think it would be unlikely for a ball to oscillate on a green, once moved it would stay moved, unless it was sitting in a pitch mark of course......

I agree with Duncan on this one, if the player thinks it may have moved then it's more than likely that it has, but in this case it has to come down to the player's call and what he honestly believes has happened.