Played with a rules 'expert'

[rulefan]

It hadn't been moved sideways, just pushed down a bit.

That would suggest the lie was altered so 20-3b applies

[h=4]b. Lie of Ball to be Placed or Replaced Altered[/h]If the original lie of a ball to be placed or replaced has been altered:
(i) except in a hazard, the ball must be placed in the nearest lie most similar to the original lie that is not more than one club-length from the original lie, not nearer the hole and not in a hazard;

You then say "... we did replace the ball as near as possible to what we estimated to be its original lie and position ..."

Sounds OK to me.

 

[delc]

You've just said it yourself. He had a 'pretty good idea'..... That's not being pedantic, it's following the rules as they're written.

So how often do you know the exact spot to replace or drop a ball? Remember the Tiger Woods drop in the Masters, when he would have got away with it, if he hadn't admitted at a press conference that he had deliberately dropped in a slightly different spot to leave himself a more favourable yardage! The difference was no more than about a yard, which the competition committee had originally ruled to.be acceptable.

 

[Foxholer]

So how often do you know the exact spot to replace or drop a ball?...

Who cares! There are Rules to follow about how to do it properly/without penalty!

... Remember the Tiger Woods drop in the Masters, when he would have got away with it, if he hadn't admitted at a press conference that he had deliberately dropped in a slightly different spot to leave himself a more favourable yardage!

I don't believe he would have, though it's possible that he may have! In that case, the 'exact' position was known - from his divot. His admission simply guaranteed that a penalty was due!

 

[Spuddy]

If your dropping but don't know the exact spot then you estimate where it is (20-2B). Replacing a moved ball is different and should only be done if you know the exact spot.

 

[delc]

If your dropping but don't know the exact spot then you estimate where it is (20-2B). Replacing a moved ball is different and should only be done if you know the exact spot.

The incident was reported to the club pro and the committee, who ruled that there had been no infringement of the rules, so the player's score stood. End of story!

 

[rulefan]

If your dropping but don't know the exact spot then you estimate where it is (20-2B). Replacing a moved ball is different and should only be done if you know the exact spot.

Why doesn't he know the spot. The ball " hadn't been moved sideways, just pushed down a bit."
​20-3b applies. No drop, place.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The incident was reported to the club pro and the committee, who ruled that there had been no infringement of the rules, so the player's score stood. End of story!

So you and your pro and committee all decoded to ignore golf rules ?

Any other rules that your club has that are different to everyone else

 

[Spuddy]

Why doesn't he know the spot. The ball " hadn't been moved sideways, just pushed down a bit."
​20-3b applies. No drop, place.

OK, assuming the ball has gone straight down and you know the spot, how do you know the original lie? The simple fact is that you don't which would mean that 20-2c should apply.

 

[Foxholer]

So you and your pro and committee all decoded to ignore golf rules ?

Any other rules that your club has that are different to everyone else

I would think they actually ruled that there had been no breach of the rules! Rulefan's post certainly indicates that!

I'd check with the Pro, but there have probably been so many incidents with Del, he'd probably not remember which one!

 

[North Mimms]

It would be helpful if people made it clear what should or shouldn't be done, rather than just having a go at Del.
I don't read this forum with a copy of Rules in my hand, so expanding the reply would be useful.
At the moment I am no wiser about correct procedure

 

[rulefan]

OK, assuming the ball has gone straight down and you know the spot, how do you know the original lie? The simple fact is that you don't which would mean that 20-2c should apply.

20-3b specifically says. "If the original lie of a ball to be placed or replaced has been altered: "

20-2c is about re-dropping. ie a ball that has already been dropped

I assume you meant 20-3c which is about a spot that is not determinable. It is nothing to do with the lie. Spot and lie are not the same thing, which is why there are two different rules.

The spot in this case can be determined as the ball has not left it. It was just moved downwards.

 

[Foxholer]

It would be helpful if people made it clear what should or shouldn't be done, rather than just having a go at Del.
I don't read this forum with a copy of Rules in my hand, so expanding the reply would be useful.
At the moment I am no wiser about correct procedure

There's enough references to appropriate Rules/Decisions - 18-2, 20-3b,c and the decision I posted (forgot the link this time) and Rulefan has posted the text of 20-3b.

Rarely going to get the all-encompassing answer in a single post (specially, in my experience, with Del involved). If you want additional clarification, just ask!

Basically....If position known, Replace; if position not known, Drop as close as possible to estimated position. I've seen an explanation (from Barry Rhodes I think) saying a drop simulates the 'randomness' of the result of the original shot. It also removes any possibility of 'improvement' so another 'plus'.

 

[Spuddy]

20-3b specifically says. "If the original lie of a ball to be placed or replaced has been altered: "

20-2c is about re-dropping. ie a ball that has already been dropped

I assume you meant 20-3c which is about a spot that is not determinable. It is nothing to do with the lie. Spot and lie are not the same thing, which is why there are two different rules.

The spot in this case can be determined as the ball has not left it. It was just moved downwards.

.

Apologies for my dodgy references. I was of course looking at 20-3.

In your opinion, how do you recreate or choose a similar lie if no one sees the ball before it has moved. You might know the spot but you have no idea as to how the ball was sitting or the height off the ground (if any).

 

[rulefan]

.

Apologies for my dodgy references. I was of course looking at 20-3.

In your opinion, how do you recreate or choose a similar lie if no one sees the ball before it has moved. You might know the spot but you have no idea as to how the ball was sitting or the height off the ground (if any).

In this case the ball was trodden on and into the ground. Therefore the lie had changed. The requirement is only to "place in the nearest most similar lie". As that implies a judgement, I can't see a problem.

 

[delc]

In this case the ball was trodden on and into the ground. Therefore the lie had changed. The requirement is only to "place in the nearest most similar lie". As that implies a judgement, I can't see a problem.

Our thought process at the time was that the player had caused his ball to move, albeit downwards, so a 1-shot penalty would apply and the ball would have to be replaced, as per Rule 18-2a. If he had played the ball from its altered lie, presumably a 2-shot penalty would apply under the same rule. I should point out that it was in quite deep rough and had to be marked and lifted for identification. The player had to make a best estimate of the original lie when replacing his ball.

 

[Spuddy]

In this case the ball was trodden on and into the ground. Therefore the lie had changed. The requirement is only to "place in the nearest most similar lie". As that implies a judgement, I can't see a problem.

To use your judgement and assess whether an adjacent lie is similar then you would have to know the original lie.

If, for instance, you knew it was sitting up a little originally but subsequently stood on and plugged the ball then you could find another lie that was 'similar'.

i think we're going round in circles now so perhaps we should agree to disagree

 

[duncan mackie]

20-3b specifically says. "If the original lie of a ball to be placed or replaced has been altered: "

20-2c is about re-dropping. ie a ball that has already been dropped

I assume you meant 20-3c which is about a spot that is not determinable. It is nothing to do with the lie. Spot and lie are not the same thing, which is why there are two different rules.

The spot in this case can be determined as the ball has not left it. It was just moved downwards.

I'm sorry but I agree with Spuddy on this case as presented - which was the reason for my original post on the subject.

My reasons are -

1. the original lie of the ball is completely unknown - there is not even a suggestion that the player saw the ball a moment before treading on it, it's in 'deep rough' and we are specifically told that the lie was unknown.
2. this isn't a case of a lie being altered because to know it's altered you have to know what it was. the note to 20-3b makes this clarification "Note: If the original lie of a ball to be placed or replaced has been altered and it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced, Rule 20-3b applies if the original lie is known, and Rule 20-3c applies if the original lie is not known."
3. the original lie is unknown so 20-3c applies.
4. 20-3c tell us that "through the green, the ball must be dropped as near as possible to the place where it lay but not in a hazard or on a putting green;"

It's neither relevant nor appropriate to consider the original committee's decision because it will have been made on the basis of the facts presented - if they were advised that 'we knew exactly where the ball was, and how it was lying and it just got pushed down into the ground it was sitting on a little........then they might well rule as they did.

 

[rulefan]

This is really all speculation. We don't know what the player knew about the lie and we don't know what explanation was given to the committee, nor their analysis of that information.

However, we are agreed that knowing the lie or otherwise is important.

 

[duncan mackie]

This is really all speculation. We don't know what the player knew about the lie and we don't know what explanation was given to the committee, nor their analysis of that information.

However, we are agreed that knowing the lie or otherwise is important.

Completely agree re the committee ruling - by referencing it I was simply trying to lead things away from a comparison of how they rules with what is being said here.

With regards to the lie/position we were told "we did replace the ball as near as possible to what we estimated to be its original lie and position" which is what triggered the discussion. you estimate the lie and position because they are unknown, and the rest follows from that...

 

[delc]

Completely agree re the committee ruling - by referencing it I was simply trying to lead things away from a comparison of how they rules with what is being said here.

With regards to the lie/position we were told "we did replace the ball as near as possible to what we estimated to be its original lie and position" which is what triggered the discussion. you estimate the lie and position because they are unknown, and the rest follows from that...

Sorry, but after reading the comments in this thread and Rules 18 and 20, I am still none the wiser as to the correct procedure in this case. Should the player have:
a) Played the ball as it lay after being pushed down? (probably not!)
b) Replaced the ball as closely as possible to the original position and lie? (which is what happened)
c) Placed the ball in the nearest equivalent lie? (which we didn't really know for certain)
d) Dropped the ball within one club length of the original spot, not nearer the hole?