Found embedded ball by treading on it - any penalties??

[delc]

So as I read the replies...

1. The ball is buried but still in play, but deep enough to get 'free' relief.
2. Ball is stepped on, so is moved by golfer causing a one shot penalty.
3. Ball must now be 'marked' and replaced but as it was deeply buried it probably had to be moved to identify it but moving it then destroys the original lie so it cannot be placed back as original so must be moved, is this 'free' or a further penalty, as its unplayable?

Hopefully when the first ball headed towards the rough a second Tee shot was taken - perhaps nominated as a provisional.

The ball embedded in its own pitch mark through the green could be lifted, cleaned and dropped as close as possible to its original position NNTH, under our Local Winter Rules. I did not take a provisional ball, because you would normally expect to find the original ball in the area I hit it into. Semi-rough just off the green.

 

[rulie]

The ball embedded in its own pitch mark through the green could be lifted, cleaned and dropped as close as possible to its original position NNTH, under our Local Winter Rules. I did not take a provisional ball, because you would normally expect to find the original ball in the area I hit it into. Semi-rough just off the green.

Your ball is the same as a ball lying on a paved road (an immovable obstruction). It is in play. If you cause it to move, other than in the direct act of picking it up to take relief, it is a breach of Rule 18-2a. One stroke penalty and replace the ball, or proceed to the authorized relief procedure and include the one penalty stroke.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yes, the ball is in play when it is in GUR.
Definition of ball in play (in part) -
"A ball is in play as soon as the player has made a stroke on the teeing ground. It remains in play until it is holed, except when it is lost, out of bounds or lifted..."

In your pile of stones situation, you would not be penalized provided it was clear your intentions were not to play your ball, but it's still in play until you lift it.

what's the difference between not meaning to move my ball and not meaning to stand on it?

And if my ball is in GUR where dropping out of the GUR is compulsory, I factually couldn't be intending to play my ball when i went to look for it and stood on it.

 

[rulie]

what's the difference between not meaning to move my ball and not meaning to stand on it?

And if my ball is in GUR where dropping out of the GUR is compulsory, I factually couldn't be intending to play my ball when i went to look for it and stood on it.

Accidentally moving your ball in play is covered in Rule 18-2a. "Not meaning to move it" sounds like accidentally moving your ball in play in both cases.

Even though your ball in play is in an area where play is prohibited, it's still your ball in play. You could still play it, although you would then be in breach of the Local Rule prohibiting play.

 

[Colin L]

At our par three 6th hole I hit my tee shot into the semi-rough just to the right of the green. We didn't expect to have any trouble finding it, but when we walked up there it was nowhere to be seen. After a few minutes of searching I found it by treading on it. It had embedded itself right into the rather soft ground! We have the Local Winter Rule that allows relief from from an embedded ball through the green. As I was entitled to a free drop anyway, should I have been penalised for treading on it? Only a friendly game by the way, but what would be the case in a formal competition?

I thought it worth re-quoting Del’s original description of what happened before commenting. The first thing that hits me is his all-too easy assumption that the ball was embedded in its own pitchmark before he trod on it. He didn't see the ball until it had been stood on: how could he know that it was already embedded in terms of Rule 25-2? In the absence of any evidence, I wouldn’t accept it as having been embedded and would treat it as a straightforward 18-2 penalty. That’s on the basis that if he didn't know it was, he can’t assume it was. The original lie has been altered and so the ball must be placed in the nearest similar lie. The one benefit that ruling gives is that the original lie has to be taken as having been on top of the ground which allows the ball to placed on the surface next to the indentation.

Now, what if Del somehow persuades me that the ball was in fact embedded before he stood on it. Then, certainly he is penalised under Rule 18-2 as has been said. Again he must replace his ball, but his original (embedded) lie has been altered by the ball being pushed further into the ground and so he must place it in the nearest similar lie i.e in a pitchmark within a club length. In the likely absence of any such pitchmark, the nearest similar lie is the original, altered one. With the ball either in a nearby pitchmark or back in the original although altered one, I’d say he can now proceed to take relief from his embedded ball.

On the matter of a ball in GUR, in addition to the player who clearly shows his intention to take relief from GUR not being penalised if he moves his ball, I would add that if a ball is lying in GUR from which play is prohibited, he does not need to show that intention: he should not in my view be penalised .

 

[duncan mackie]

What would happen if Dels' ball was imbedded in an area marked as GUR?

Not sure if this is another of your 'know the answer, just stirring the pot questions' Bob - and if it is you have succeeded well from most of the responses to it!

Anyhow, the answer is nice and clear in the wording of 18-2 and searching for a ball in AGC (which includes GUR) is one of the exceptions under the rule so there would be no penalty. It's also a question of fact as to whether the ball is in AGC when touched so there's no K or VC as someone referenced.

Which rather conveniently brings us full circle to the original question being asked because the applicable LR is an extension of 25-2, and rule 25 covers AGC, Embedded balls and wrong putting greens - but there is no link between them so, as has already been explained more than once to Delc, his situation is a penalty not an exception.

 

[rulie]

I thought it worth re-quoting Del’s original description of what happened before commenting. The first thing that hits me is his all-too easy assumption that the ball was embedded in its own pitchmark before he trod on it. He didn't see the ball until it had been stood on: how could he know that it was already embedded in terms of Rule 25-2? In the absence of any evidence, I wouldn’t accept it as having been embedded and would treat it as a straightforward 18-2 penalty. That’s on the basis that if he didn't know it was, he can’t assume it was. The original lie has been altered and so the ball must be placed in the nearest similar lie. The one benefit that ruling gives is that the original lie has to be taken as having been on top of the ground which allows the ball to placed on the surface next to the indentation.

Now, what if Del somehow persuades me that the ball was in fact embedded before he stood on it. Then, certainly he is penalised under Rule 18-2 as has been said. Again he must replace his ball, but his original (embedded) lie has been altered by the ball being pushed further into the ground and so he must place it in the nearest similar lie i.e in a pitchmark within a club length. In the likely absence of any such pitchmark, the nearest similar lie is the original, altered one. With the ball either in a nearby pitchmark or back in the original although altered one, I’d say he can now proceed to take relief from his embedded ball.

On the matter of a ball in GUR, in addition to the player who clearly shows his intention to take relief from GUR not being penalised if he moves his ball, I would add that if a ball is lying in GUR from which play is prohibited, he does not need to show that intention: he should not in my view be penalised .

In the case at hand, where the player only found his ball by stepping on it, I'd suggest that the original lie is not known, so it would not be possible to place it in a "similar" lie.
And, in order to proceed under the embedded ball Rule, or the recommended local Rule to extend embedded ball to through the green, the ball must be embedded in its own pitch mark.

Somehow, we need to make a ruling on the original situation and let this player get on with his game.

 

[Ross61]

Accidentally moving your ball in play is covered in Rule 18-2a. "Not meaning to move it" sounds like accidentally moving your ball in play in both cases.

Even though your ball in play is in an area where play is prohibited, it's still your ball in play. You could still play it, although you would then be in breach of the Local Rule prohibiting play.

rule 18-2a exceptions are below

Under the Rules there is no penalty if a player accidentally causes his ball to move in the following circumstances:
In searching for a ball covered by sand, in the replacement of loose impediments moved in a hazard while finding or identifying a ball, in probing for a ball lying in water in a water hazard or in searching for a ball in an obstruction or an abnormal ground condition - Rule 12-1

 

[rulie]

rule 18-2a exceptions are below

Under the Rules there is no penalty if a player accidentally causes his ball to move in the following circumstances:
In searching for a ball covered by sand, in the replacement of loose impediments moved in a hazard while finding or identifying a ball, in probing for a ball lying in water in a water hazard or in searching for a ball in an obstruction or an abnormal ground condition - Rule 12-1

Understand the exceptions. In the original post, the player was not searching for his ball in an abnormal ground condition.

 

[Ross61]

Understand the exceptions. In the original post, the player was not searching for his ball in an abnormal ground condition.

I was replying to the secondary question if the ball had been in GUR, sorry I thought you were replying to the secondary question also.. Apologies for mis-understanding

 

[Colin L]

Somehow, we need to make a ruling on the original situation and let this player get on with his game.

I just did.

As to knowing the original lie. I would take it to be the same as ground immediately beside the indentation and have the ball placed there.

 

[rulefan]

This thread simply confirms that going off at a tangent is not a good idea. Confusion reigns.

 

[delc]

Just to clarify a couple of points. My ball was completely plugged in the first cut of semi-rough (which is why we had some difficulty in finding it), but not in an AGC (as per the definition of that), nor in GUR. They local Winter Rules state that I can take relief from a ball embedded in its own pitch mark through the green by lifting, cleaning and dropping as near as possible to its original position NNTH. I can only place on closely mown areas. To the best of my knowledge I did not move the ball laterally and don't think I pushed it down any further than it was, so its original position was known. I did mark this before taking relief.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Just to clarify a couple of points. My ball was completely plugged in the first cut of semi-rough (which is why we had some difficulty in finding it), but not in an AGC (as per the definition of that), nor in GUR. They local Winter Rules state that I can take relief from a ball embedded in its own pitch mark through the green by lifting, cleaning and dropping as near as possible to its original position NNTH. I can only place on closely mown areas. To the best of my knowledge I did not move the ball laterally and don't think I pushed it down any further than it was, so its original position was known. I did mark this before taking relief.

So you stood on a ball and you didn't move it ? How does that happen ?

What what you have said in this thread you get a one shot penalty - simple as that

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I thought it worth re-quoting Del’s original description of what happened before commenting. The first thing that hits me is his all-too easy assumption that the ball was embedded in its own pitchmark before he trod on it. He didn't see the ball until it had been stood on: how could he know that it was already embedded in terms of Rule 25-2? In the absence of any evidence, I wouldn’t accept it as having been embedded and would treat it as a straightforward 18-2 penalty. That’s on the basis that if he didn't know it was, he can’t assume it was. The original lie has been altered and so the ball must be placed in the nearest similar lie. The one benefit that ruling gives is that the original lie has to be taken as having been on top of the ground which allows the ball to placed on the surface next to the indentation.

Now, what if Del somehow persuades me that the ball was in fact embedded before he stood on it. Then, certainly he is penalised under Rule 18-2 as has been said. Again he must replace his ball, but his original (embedded) lie has been altered by the ball being pushed further into the ground and so he must place it in the nearest similar lie i.e in a pitchmark within a club length. In the likely absence of any such pitchmark, the nearest similar lie is the original, altered one. With the ball either in a nearby pitchmark or back in the original although altered one, I’d say he can now proceed to take relief from his embedded ball.

On the matter of a ball in GUR, in addition to the player who clearly shows his intention to take relief from GUR not being penalised if he moves his ball, I would add that if a ball is lying in GUR from which play is prohibited, he does not need to show that intention: he should not in my view be penalised .

This is my thinking on it.

 

[Colin L]

Just to clarify a couple of points. My ball was completely plugged in the first cut of semi-rough (which is why we had some difficulty in finding it), but not in an AGC (as per the definition of that), nor in GUR. They local Winter Rules state that I can take relief from a ball embedded in its own pitch mark through the green by lifting, cleaning and dropping as near as possible to its original position NNTH. I can only place on closely mown areas. To the best of my knowledge I did not move the ball laterally and don't think I pushed it down any further than it was, so its original position was known. I did mark this before taking relief.

You wouldn’t convince me that having difficulty in finding a ball is any evidence of its being embedded - I've had difficulty often enough in finding a ball in semi-rough that was not embedded. You didn’t see it; you didn’t know it was there until you stood on it; how are you going to convince me that an unseen ball was embedded before you put your foot on it? As to thinking that you didn’t push the ball down any further than it was, you have no idea because you didn't know where the ball was in the first place.It is generally considered that a ball that has been stood on must have moved and since the ground must have been soft enough for you to think that ball was embedded in the first place, there is no way you would persuade me otherwise.

You can’t work on suppositions and wishful thinking. You moved your ball in play; you cop a 1 stroke penalty and must replace the ball. The original lie is altered and so you place in the nearest similar one - immediately beside the indentation I reckon. You have no real evidence the ball was originally embedded so forget that bit of imaginative thinking.

 

[duncan mackie]

This is my thinking on it.

Yes, but you are incorrect in the context of this thread - as is Colin.

A ball being searched for that is in GUR (or any other AGC) is an exception to 18-2 and the issue of whether play is prohibited has no relevance.

A ball being lifted under a permitted rule is also an exception, so don't come into it at all.

 

[Colin L]

Yes, but you are incorrect in the context of this thread - as is Colin.

A ball being searched for that is in GUR (or any other AGC) is an exception to 18-2 and the issue of whether play is prohibited has no relevance.

A ball being lifted under a permitted rule is also an exception, so don't come into it at all.

i had in

 

[Colin L]

False start there!

As Rulefan said, thread tangents can cause confusion. I wasn’t thinking of the search context of Del’s question about his supposedly embedded ball when writing about the ball in GUR and was responding in terms just of a visible, found ball. In that context, an example of an 18-2 breach would be knocking your ball with your club when placing it behind the ball in order to decide whether to play it as it lies or take relief. Fumbling and dropping your ball while picking it up would not be a breach.

 

[backwoodsman]

You can’t work on suppositions and wishful thinking. You moved your ball in play; you cop a 1 stroke penalty and must replace the ball. The original lie is altered and so you place in the nearest similar one - immediately beside the indentation I reckon. You have no real evidence the ball was originally embedded so forget that bit of imaginative thinking.

As regards the OP, this ^^^^

In any case, just because one may have been entitled to free relief under a local rule, why would one suppose that one would not suffer a penalty for moving the ball. There are other free relief situations and it would not apply there; so why think it would in this case?