Moving Ball

[ADB]

I have been thinking about this situation for a little while and just wanted to get the views from the experts.

I offered to mark a card for my regular playing partner who was playing the Weekly Stableford (I did not enter). On the 18th green I had putted out and was reaching down to get the flag when this guy stated he thought the ball moved on the green. As I hadn't been paying great attention (he had his back to me ready to putt) I couldn't tell whether he had addressed the ball / grounded the club or whether the ball had actually moved.

He was a bit unsure and seemed to think he had not addressed the ball properly. In the end, he replaced the ball, putted out and took no penalty.

I found he came 2nd and even if he had added the penalty stroke would have still been second but it bugged me that if he thought it had happened, he should take the penalty. Also, as I wasn't playing in the comp, what power did I have to overrule him, even if I didn't see the incident?

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Lump]

I have been thinking about this situation for a little while and just wanted to get the views from the experts.

I offered to mark a card for my regular playing partner who was playing the Weekly Stableford (I did not enter). On the 18th green I had putted out and was reaching down to get the flag when this guy stated he thought the ball moved on the green. As I hadn't been paying great attention (he had his back to me ready to putt) I couldn't tell whether he had addressed the ball / grounded the club or whether the ball had actually moved.

He was a bit unsure and seemed to think he had not addressed the ball properly. In the end, he replaced the ball, putted out and took no penalty.

I found he came 2nd and even if he had added the penalty stroke would have still been second but it bugged me that if he thought it had happened, he should take the penalty. Also, as I wasn't playing in the comp, what power did I have to overrule him, even if I didn't see the incident?

Hope this makes sense.

No penalty even if he has addressed the ball, as long as he is certian he didn't cause the ball to move.

 

[pbrown7582]

dont think you can enforce a penalty you are not certain about, IMO the best you could do would be to advise your playing partner the rule you think has been breached and leave it to him to call it as he sees fit.
He is the only one who actually knows what happen?

 

[Colin L]

If I have got this right, you saw nothing so you can't offer any information about what happened to help him make up his mind as to whether his ball moved. He is on his own then. He could try this series of questions:
Did the ball move? If no, get on with putting, that's an end of the matter.

If yes, it moved, then ask
Had I addressed the ball before it moved?
If no, ask
was there any way in which I caused it to move?
If no, play the ball as it lies with no penalty
If yes, take a 1 stroke penalty and replace the ball

If you had addressed the ball and it then moved, ask
was there any clear cause for the ball's movement (e.g. a strong gust of wind)?
If yes, play the ball as it lies with no penalty.
If no, it's a 1 stroke penalty and replace the ball

The one thing that puzzles me in the situation you describe is where you say "

He was a bit unsure and seemed to think he had not addressed the ball properly. In the end, he replaced the ball, putted out and took no penalty​

." ​

As I picture it, his ball is on the green, he goes to address it or has actually addressed it and then he wonders if it moved. I wonder why he then lifted his ball at that point. But no matter as long as he replaced in the right place according to decision about the ball moving or not.​

(Sorry about the strange formatting - the system doesn't seem to like copying and pasting.)

 

[Foxholer]

Always pays to consider alternatives to immediately applying a penalty.

In this case, there was actually a breach, but it was caused by replacing the ball - it should have been played as it was.

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status/Ball-Moving-after-Address.aspx

In such situations,where you have doubt over a ruling or procedure, you are entitled to play 2 balls - one covering each of the options - and get a ruling, as to which one was correct, later.

As far as the 'ball moved after address' incident, as long as the player did not exert an influence on the ball, then no penalty. However, if he did influence it, then penalty and the ball must be replaced (though there is an exception here). Also best to just indicate that there was a penalty and find out whether 1 or 2 strokes (in this case 1) later too.

 

[Colin L]

.

In this case, there was actually a breach, but it was caused by replacing the ball - it should have been played as it was.

Our posts have crossed in the ether. We may be reading the event differently but as I reckoned above, assuming the player had marked the ball when lifting it and replaces it according to his decision as to what happened, there is no breach. In the circumstances described he apparently has decided it didn't move and so would replace it correctly on the marker. Had he decided it moved before address and not by him, or after address but by, say, a big gust of wind, he would replace on the same spot because that is where the ball had moved to. Had he decided he did cause the ball to move, he would have to replace where the ball had been before it moved and if he replaced it on the marker he would be playing from a wrong place. 2 stroke penalty or loss of hole.

What was the point of lifting it anyway? Puzzling!

 

[ADB]

Thanks for the replies and apologies if the scenario was not clear. I think this has just shown mine and my playing partners ineptitude with understanding the rules!

To clarify the scenario:
1) The ball was on the green about 4 foot from the hole.
2) The chap went to play the ball and before he struck the shot it moved.
3) The grey area for us was whether he had addressed the ball and what caused the ball to move (from memory it was not a particularly windy day).
4) Our naivity with the rules assumed the ball should be replaced whether it moved by itself (i.e a gust of wind) or due to the actions of the player addressing the ball - which is what we did.

Therefore, I think the mistake was to replace the ball rather than playing it as it lies, from which a penalty should have been awarded.

Excuse the ignorance

 

[Colin L]

Now I see it. I thought the uncertainty was whether the ball had moved or not. So what was the decision about whether he had addressed the ball or not?

 

[ADB]

Apparently, he had taken a stance but wasn't sure whether he had grounded the club behind the ball before it moved.

 

[CMAC]

just to clarify for my own head, if he addressed or not but didnt cause the movement, and it was wind or the blade of grass bending, but the ball moves a few feet down a slope say, it is then played from that spot under no penalty?

What if it trickled down the slope into the hole?
What if it trickled down the slope, off the green and into a pond?

thanks

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for clarifying. I got the idea that the doubt was whether the ball had moved and that he must have decided it hadn't so was a bit misled by how he came to be replacing it. Sorry for that and ignore the consequent ramblings. So the ball definitely had moved, as Foxholer obviously picked up, so the player's doubt was whether he had addressed it. His taking his stance is no longer a factor in addressing the ball, by the way, the only issue being whether he grounded his club immediately behind or in front of the ball. If you didn't notice, he just has to decide for himself.

So the outcome depends on what he decides happened

a) had he addressed the ball, and there was nothing to suggest that something else had clearly caused it to move, he incurs a one stroke penalty and was correct to replace the ball;

b) if he had not addressed the ball and decided that he had done nothing to cause it to move, he should have played it as it lay without penalty; if he then he moved his ball mistakenly thinking he had to replace it, he incurs a 1 stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 18-1a(i) but because he is required to replace the ball (back to where it was in the first place!!) but didn't, that becomes a 2 stroke penalty for a general breach of 18-1.

Either way he could not escape a penalty. As a result, he recorded a score lower than actually taken. In stroke play that would result in disqualification. In Stableford, it would also mean disqualification unless the lower net score was not going to give him any points anyway (i.e. if the lower net score was a double bogey it would't matter that it should have been a triple or quadruple one.)

Phew! Hope I've got there this time.

 

[ADB]

Thanks for clarifying. I got the idea that the doubt was whether the ball had moved and that he must have decided it hadn't so was a bit misled by how he came to be replacing it. Sorry for that and ignore the consequent ramblings. So the ball definitely had moved, as Foxholer obviously picked up, so the player's doubt was whether he had addressed it. His taking his stance is no longer a factor in addressing the ball, by the way, the only issue being whether he grounded his club immediately behind or in front of the ball. If you didn't notice, he just has to decide for himself.

So the outcome depends on what he decides happened

a) had he addressed the ball, and there was nothing to suggest that something else had clearly caused it to move, he incurs a one stroke penalty and was correct to replace the ball;

b) if he had not addressed the ball and decided that he had done nothing to cause it to move, he should have played it as it lay without penalty; if he then he moved his ball mistakenly thinking he had to replace it, he incurs a 1 stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 18-1a(i) but because he is required to replace the ball (back to where it was in the first place!!) but didn't, that becomes a 2 stroke penalty for a general breach of 18-1.

Either way he could not escape a penalty. As a result, he recorded a score lower than actually taken. In stroke play that would result in disqualification. In Stableford, it would also mean disqualification unless the lower net score was not going to give him any points anyway (i.e. if the lower net score was a double bogey it would't matter that it should have been a triple or quadruple one.)

Phew! Hope I've got there this time.

Spot on, many thanks for your time and patience Colin!

Other contributions were interesting aswell - this section is very informative :thup:

 

[MashieNiblick]

Been following this thread and my thinking was exactly as set out by Colin (although looks like there is a typo as the relevant Rule is I think 18-2 rather than 18-1).

Depending on whether the ball was addressed it was a penalty either way under either 18-2a or 18-2b and therefore (potentially) a DQ for signing for a wrong score.

Looks like the guy was trying to be honest by indicating the ball had moved then, without checking, did what he thought was the right thing and ends up making things worse by confusing 2 different situations.

There does seem to be a misunderstanding by some players that if your ball moves after you have lifted and replaced it on the green then it should be moved back. That's not necessarily the case as indicated by Rule 20-3d which includes the following

"If a ball when placed comes to rest on the spot on which it is placed, and it subsequently moves, there is no penalty and the ball must be played as it lies, unless the provisions of any other Rule apply."

To answer DV's question see Decision 20-3d/1 Placed Ball Rolls into Hole

"Q. A replaces his ball on the putting green three feet from the hole. As he is about to address the ball, it rolls into the hole. Should the ball be replaced or is A deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke?

A. The answer depends on whether the ball, when replaced, came to rest on the spot on which it was placed before it started rolling. If it did, A is deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke. If not, A is required to replace the ball (Rule 20-3d). However, if the ball had been overhanging the hole when it was lifted, the provisions of Rule 16-2 would override those of Rule 20-3d."

 

[Colin L]

Been following this thread and my thinking was exactly as set out by Colin (although looks like there is a typo as the relevant Rule is I think 18-2 rather than 18-1).

Yep a typo. Thanks for noticing - it is 18-2a(i). 18-1 is a ball moved by an outside agency. And while we are at it, I should have said a 2 stroke penalty for a general breach of Rule 18 not 18-1

I have had severe words with my proof-reader:temper: