Played with a rules 'expert'

[Foxholer]

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?

Or e) None of the above - as d) would certainly be wrong!

I believe the proper 'process' is as follows

1. Do you know the exact spot to replace? If No, then Drop as close as possible to estimated one NNTH (20-3c) and end of story.
2. (Knowing the correct spot to replace) Has the lie been change? If no, then simply replace; if yes, then find nearest similar lie within 1 club length NNTH(20-3b(i)).

Rulefan posted the references earlier.

 

[delc]

Or e) None of the above - as d) would certainly be wrong!

I believe the proper 'process' is as follows

1. Do you know the exact spot to replace? If No, then Drop as close as possible to estimated one NNTH (20-3c) and end of story.
2. (Knowing the correct spot to replace) Has the lie been change? If no, then simply replace; if yes, then find nearest similar lie within 1 club length NNTH(20-3b(i)).

Rulefan posted the references earlier.

Does 'spot' refer to two dimensions or three dimensions? The ball wasn't moved at all horizontally but was pushed down by about 1/4". The lie in long grass was largely unaffected otherwise and could be recreated. Decision 18/1 confirms that a ball that moves vertically downwards has been moved as far as Rule 18 is concerned, and in that case the ball should be replaced.

 

[duncan mackie]

Does 'spot' refer to two dimensions or three dimensions? The ball wasn't moved at all horizontally but was pushed down by about 1/4". The lie in long grass was largely unaffected otherwise and could be recreated. Decision 18/1 confirms that a ball that moves vertically downwards has been moved as far as Rule 18 is concerned, and in that case the ball should be replaced.

1. the ball should be replaced
2. you have already stated that you could only estimate the original position (in 3 dimensions) so it is replaced as instructed by rule 20-3
"Spot Not Determinable

If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced:

(i) 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"

 

[Foxholer]

Does 'spot' refer to two dimensions or three dimensions? The ball wasn't moved at all horizontally but was pushed down by about 1/4". The lie in long grass was largely unaffected otherwise and could be recreated. Decision 18/1 confirms that a ball that moves vertically downwards has been moved as far as Rule 18 is concerned, and in that case the ball should be replaced.

Are you really sure it wasn't moved horizontally?
How do you know it was moved 'about 1/4"' ' as opposed to about 'about 1/2"'?

The answers to those questions should enable you to say whether you knew the exact spot or not, so how to proceed.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Are you really sure it wasn't moved horizontally?
How do you know it was moved 'about 1/4"' ' as opposed to about 'about 1/2"'?

The answers to those questions should enable you to say whether you knew the exact spot or not, so how to proceed.

Indeed - a bit of 'Known or Virtually Certain' at work here. If a ball is hidden deep in long grass and you stand on it - you might surmise through how it felt when you stood on the ball that the ball did not move horizontally. But as you have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever and cannot therefore be virtually certain that it did not move - you have to assume that it did.

 

[delc]

1. the ball should be replaced
2. you have already stated that you could only estimate the original position (in 3 dimensions) so it is replaced as instructed by rule 20-3
"Spot Not Determinable

If it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced:



(i) 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"

As I read it, Rule 20-3 would only be applicable if the replaced ball wouldn't remain at rest. And 'spot' does not seem to be defined anywhere in the rules, so it could be 2D or 3D.

 

[Spuddy]

A spot must be 3D. For instance, have a look at decision 18-2a/29 and how it talks about a spot being up a tree.

 

[delc]

I am pretty certain that the ball was replaced to within a fraction of an inch of where it originally lay. How accurate do you need to be? A drop might have been more favorable for the player, as it would probably have stayed on top of the long grass which had been somewhat trampled down by this stage. As it was he could only hack the ball out with a wedge.

We only had the small rules book with us without the decisions and I had the R&A Rules App on my mobile phone which also doesn't include the decisions, so not always easy to make a correct judgement out on the course in the absence of an on course rules official (which we obviously don't have for a minor club competition).

 

[Foxholer]

As I read it, Rule 20-3 would only be applicable if the replaced ball wouldn't remain at rest. And 'spot' does not seem to be defined anywhere in the rules, so it could be 2D or 3D.

Completely mis-read!!! No wonder your putting has been rubbish!

It means what it says - nothing more, nothing less!

If it had meant something else - like 'cannot be recreated' - it would have said that!

If it had stated 'cannot be established' it might have been ambiguous, but 'cannot be determined' is unambiguous in this context!

I fear you are going into 'old Delc' mode again!

 

[duncan mackie]

I am pretty certain that the ball was replaced to within a fraction of an inch of where it originally lay. How accurate do you need to be?

as usual you are confusing things by trying to change the facts.

you have stated here that you did your best to estimate the original position of the ball - on that basis you didn't know the original position of the ball (which is entirely consistent with having trodden on a ball that was hidden from sight in long grass!!!).

the scale of the variables is irrelevant

the fact that the player may gain an advantage through the designated procedure is as irrelevant as having to drop in wet sand when gaining relief in a bunker!

in response to #106, 20-3 covers all instances of placing and replacing as has been clearly outlined in this thread, and quoted extensively. your post suggests you should spend more time reading the rules and less pontificating.

 

[Foxholer]

as usual you are confusing things by trying to change the facts.

you have stated here that you did your best to estimate the original position of the ball - on that basis you didn't know the original position of the ball (which is entirely consistent with having trodden on a ball that was hidden from sight in long grass!!!).

To be totally fair, I believe that's only an interpretation of the 'combined' statement about estimating 'position and lie', There hasn't, yet, been an admission that the position alone was not known - though I'd strongly suspect it wasn't!

Was it was known to the same extent/precision of one that was accidentally moved by a practice swing that is placed as opposed to dropped for example? And is it simply a case of 'if there is any inkling/possibility of doubt, then drop'? If so, I believe that would almost certainly be applicable to every case where ball is located by contact rather than vision.

@Delc. Did you know the exact position the ball needed to be replaced? Yes/no answer only please!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

To be totally fair, I believe that's only an interpretation of the 'combined' statement about estimating 'position and lie', There hasn't, yet, been an admission that the position alone was not known - though I'd strongly suspect it wasn't!

Was it was known to the same extent/precision of one that was accidentally moved by a practice swing that is placed as opposed to dropped for example? And is it simply a case of 'if there is any inkling/possibility of doubt, then drop'? If so, I believe that would almost certainly be applicable to every case where ball is located by contact rather than vision.

@Delc. Did you know the exact position the ball needed to be replaced? Yes/no answer only please!

And I'd say that the only way you are gong to know this is if you had spotted the ball before you stood on it and at that point had been able to determine precisely where the ball was at rest.

 

[duncan mackie]

To be totally fair, I believe that's only an interpretation of the 'combined' statement about estimating 'position and lie', There hasn't, yet, been an admission that the position alone was not known - though I'd strongly suspect it wasn't!

I am being totally fair

the Note to 20-3b dealing with an unknown or altered lie tells us that if the original lie is unknown we apply 20-3c, which deals with the situation if the position is unknown.

It clearly follows that if either the lie or position are unknown 20-3 c is the procedure.

We are advised as a fact that either the lie or position are estimated, and therefore unknown.

 

[Foxholer]

I am being totally fair

the Note to 20-3b dealing with an unknown or altered lie tells us that if the original lie is unknown we apply 20-3c, which deals with the situation if the position is unknown.

It clearly follows that if either the lie or position are unknown 20-3 c is the procedure.

We are advised as a fact that either the lie or position are estimated, and therefore unknown.

Not quite! That Note applies when Both the Lie has been altered and the spot to replace is unknown - and which option (20-3b or 20-3c) to take (if the lie is known vs unknown resp). If your 'if either, then 20-3c applies) it would have been a much easier to have written exactly that, or had an 'If either...' wording in a combined (b) that covers the 2 choices.

Delc is yet to confirm whether the spot was known! If it was, then the Note doesn't apply.

 

[Spuddy]

Not quite! That Note applies when Both the Lie has been altered and the spot to replace is unknown - and which option (20-3b or 20-3c) to take (if the lie is known vs unknown resp). If your 'if either, then 20-3c applies) it would have been a much easier to have written exactly that, or had an 'If either...' wording in a combined (b) that covers the 2 choices.

Delc is yet to confirm whether the spot was known! If it was, then the Note doesn't apply.

he said it here

And before you pull me up on Rule 18-2a, we did replace the ball as near as possible to what we estimated to be its original lie and position before he played his next shot.

 

[Foxholer]

he said it here

That doesn't necessarily state that Both were unknown, but can - and was - interpreted that way.

If Delc answers the question I posed in #111, then that will (should ) settle it

 

[duncan mackie]

Not quite! That Note applies when Both the Lie has been altered and the spot to replace is unknown - and which option (20-3b or 20-3c) to take (if the lie is known vs unknown resp). If your 'if either, then 20-3c applies) it would have been a much easier to have written exactly that, or had an 'If either...' wording in a combined (b) that covers the 2 choices.

Delc is yet to confirm whether the spot was known! If it was, then the Note doesn't apply.

the dangers of interpreting the rules in the context of a situation - my point is that for the position to be known (in the vertical plane) the lie must also be known. so when you have to 'estimate the original lie and position' you have to be using 20-3c for the replacement.

if delc says that the position of the ball was known then the facts change, as would the ruling !

 

[delc]

Hmm! I had no idea that this incident would cause so much controversy! The situation was that the ball was lying in fairly deep rough that had been somewhat trampled flat and pushed over by previous players searching in the same area, and was not visible. The player trod squarely on his ball and as far as I could tell did not move it sideways at all. He also thought this was the case. The ball was marked and lifted for identification. There was then a discussion about whether the player had 'caused the ball to move'. From what he said, he thought it had moved down about 1/4", so the answer was yes and a 1-shot penalty would apply under rule 18-2a. He replaced the ball about 1/4" above the ground to replicate the original position, again as per 18-2a. Generally this is an easy rule to apply and to be honest rule 20 wasn't even considered.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Hmm! I had no idea that this incident would cause so much controversy! The situation was that the ball was lying in fairly deep rough that had been somewhat trampled flat and pushed over by previous players searching in the same area, and was not visible. The player trod squarely on his ball and as far as I could tell did not move it sideways at all. He also thought this was the case. The ball was marked and lifted for identification. There was then a discussion about whether the player had 'caused the ball to move'. From what he said, he thought it had moved down about 1/4", so the answer was yes and a 1-shot penalty would apply under rule 18-2a. He replaced the ball about 1/4" above the ground to replicate the original position, again as per 18-2a. Generally this is an easy rule to apply and to be honest rule 20 wasn't even considered.

So you actually saw your PP stand on the ball - even although you say that you could not see the ball?

From what you have said I conclude that neither of you actually saw the ball before it was stood on so neither of you could say for certain whether or not it had moved. Just because you don;t think it moved doesn;t say that it didn't and so I'd say you'd have to assume that it did move and proceed accordingly.

 

[duncan mackie]

Hmm! I had no idea that this incident would cause so much controversy! The situation was that the ball was lying in fairly deep rough that had been somewhat trampled flat and pushed over by previous players searching in the same area, and was not visible. The player trod squarely on his ball and as far as I could tell did not move it sideways at all. He also thought this was the case. The ball was marked and lifted for identification. There was then a discussion about whether the player had 'caused the ball to move'. From what he said, he thought it had moved down about 1/4", so the answer was yes and a 1-shot penalty would apply under rule 18-2a. He replaced the ball about 1/4" above the ground to replicate the original position, again as per 18-2a. Generally this is an easy rule to apply and to be honest rule 20 wasn't even considered.

I don't see a lot of controversy, the rules handle the various elements and there a number of possible (acceptable) solutions in this instance depending on the facts .. Any controversy is merely the result of way the facts were presented here - which in themselves then lead to the ruling.

In practice -

you did what many would have done and, once the competition closed, any associated unknown issues would have been consigned to history. there's no doubt that people are much more comfortable with rulings/decisions on the course where the minimum of change happens - in this case if the player had announced that he had trodden on his ball and didn't know how, or where, it had been at rest accurately so he was going to drop it (on the top of the grass) there might have been a little more discussion at the time - and questions in the bar! Given the initial basis of the issue coming up (bit unfair to get a 1 shot penalty) it's slightly ironic that the possible benefit that he could have serendipitously obtained was denied!

if the facts were presented as the player was sure that when he trod on the ball it moved straight down 1/2" before contacting the ground directly below then I would consider it perfectly acceptable to replace it under 20-3a, and if he wasn't sure (as indicated by the facts as presented) it would be appropriate to drop the ball to replace it under 20-3c for the reasons explained. If he's not sure then use 3-3 and resolve in the club house to avoid additional penalties - although of course as the matter wasn't considered there wasn't any uncertainty at the time! Maybe this thread will help someone in the future. it may seem strange that a player can be so certain about the hidden movement of his ball but, in the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that his representation of the facts was incorrect, they should be accepted.