Played with a rules 'expert'

[Foxholer]

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.

I agree - though 20-3b might be involved too, if relatively rarely!

 

[azazel]

So, at the risk of confusing things, but hopefully not, and in search of clarification as something like this could easily come up given the rough at our place:

If I stand on my ball in the rough without having seen it beforehand, therefore not knowing exactly how far or in which direction it moved when I stood on it, then it's a penalty shot and a drop within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

If I stand on it having seen it a split second before, it's a one shot penalty again but I recreate the lie within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

 

[guest100718]

So, at the risk of confusing things, but hopefully not, and in search of clarification as something like this could easily come up given the rough at our place:

If I stand on my ball in the rough without having seen it beforehand, therefore not knowing exactly how far or in which direction it moved when I stood on it, then it's a penalty shot and a drop within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

If I stand on it having seen it a split second before, it's a one shot penalty again but I recreate the lie within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

No one club length...has to go back to where it was or as close as if you dont know the location

 

[azazel]

No one club length...has to go back to where it was or as close as if you dont know the location

Ah, cheers. "Nearest lie most similar to original and not more than on club length".

 

[Maninblack4612]

So, at the risk of confusing things, but hopefully not, and in search of clarification as something like this could easily come up given the rough at our place:

If I stand on my ball in the rough without having seen it beforehand, therefore not knowing exactly how far or in which direction it moved when I stood on it, then it's a penalty shot and a drop within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

If I stand on it having seen it a split second before, it's a one shot penalty again but I recreate the lie within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

Rule 18.2 says ball must be replaced. In any event, if you drop a ball under penalty it's two club lengths, not one, it's only one when taking relief without penalty under the rules.

 

[Foxholer]

So, at the risk of confusing things, but hopefully not, and in search of clarification as something like this could easily come up given the rough at our place:

If I stand on my ball in the rough without having seen it beforehand, therefore not knowing exactly how far or in which direction it moved when I stood on it, then it's a penalty shot and a drop within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

If I stand on it having seen it a split second before, it's a one shot penalty again but I recreate the lie within one club length (not nearer the hole)?

The Rule (20-3) is the place to go for simplicity - having applied the Penalty of 18-2.

Here's my take on the key things to ask and how to proceed...

(18-2) Did it move - presumably yes, otherwise we wouldn't be in this discussion.

then, as 18-2 specifies that ball busy be 'replaced'....

(20-3)
Is lie unchanged?
Is spot to replace determinable?

Apply 20-3 b (place in nearest li,e most similar to original lie, within 1 club length) or c (drop as near as poss NNTH) if answer to those is 'No' respectively, except where both are 'No'

If Both are No, then.. If original Lie is known, apply 20-3b (place in nearest lie etc) otherwise 20-3 c (drop etc).

So priorities are...
1. Replace as was if possible
2. Replace in same/similar lie if 1 not possible.
3. Drop as 'last resort'.

I may be wrong about the order of those questions and would appreciate conformation from Colin and/or Rulefan but that's my understanding - and the order of the Rule - of how/why.
My only question is whether I have got those questions/actions in the wrong order.
Should

 

[duncan mackie]

Ah, cheers. "Nearest lie most similar to original and not more than on club length".

you were doing well with your original post, but have now managed to confuse the various options a little - not surprising given the subject matter and discussions!

the rule you are proceeding under requires the ball to be replaced by dropping it "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", and 20-2b further clarifies "When a ball is to be dropped as near as possible to a specific spot, it must be dropped not nearer the hole than the specific spot which, if it is not precisely known to the player, must be estimated."

to put this in context, many referees would expect that the ball would land within a hands width of the specific point - although the average amateur probably doesn't practice their dropping skills as much as the professionals!!!

 

[duncan mackie]

The Rule (20-3) is the place to go for simplicity - having applied the Penalty of 18-2.

Here's my take on the key things to ask and how to proceed...

(18-2) Did it move - presumably yes, otherwise we wouldn't be in this discussion.

then, as 18-2 specifies that ball busy be 'replaced'....

(20-3)
Is lie unchanged?
Is spot to replace determinable?

Apply 20-3 b (place in nearest li,e most similar to original lie, within 1 club length) or c (drop as near as poss NNTH) if answer to those is 'No' respectively, except where both are 'No'

If Both are No, then.. If original Lie is known, apply 20-3b (place in nearest lie etc) otherwise 20-3 c (drop etc).

So priorities are...
1. Replace as was if possible
2. Replace in same/similar lie if 1 not possible.
3. Drop as 'last resort'.

I may be wrong about the order of those questions and would appreciate conformation from Colin and/or Rulefan but that's my understanding - and the order of the Rule - of how/why.
My only question is whether I have got those questions/actions in the wrong order.
Should

my only comment would be with -

"1. Replace as was if possible
2. Replace in same/similar lie if 1 not possible.
3. Drop as 'last resort'."

in all cases you are replacing the ball - that's what 18-2 requires.
20-3 tells you how to replace it - so 1 & 2 above should read 'place' for clarity.

 

[Foxholer]

my only comment would be with -

"1. Replace as was if possible
2. Replace in same/similar lie if 1 not possible.
3. Drop as 'last resort'."

in all cases you are replacing the ball - that's what 18-2 requires.
20-3 tells you how to replace it - so 1 & 2 above should read 'place' for clarity.

Agreed.

I've also Emailed Barry Rhodes on the 'order of doing things'.

I've lost my access to a definitive source - an ET Ref.

 

[Fish]

I had to raise 2 points with the Pro when I came off on Saturday as I was getting conflicting answers to our alleged "local rules".

The first occasion was when I went to take a shot off our "astro" style path/s when I first joined in April and was told that "I had to" take relief which I was avoiding as the rough either side of it was pretty deep and thick, my PP on Saturday found himself on a path and I repeated what I was told by the club greens chairman and like me, my PP wasn't too chuffed and dropped in the rough! We questioned this when we got in and it now seems that rule has since ceased some 16 months ago (although I was informed of it only in April!) and its still written on our scorecards, but, there is no mention of it now on the new local rules which are on a slip of paper in the Pro shop or in our new website, so, clarification is being sort now to find out if this is still in operation or not!

My PP also asked for relief from standing in a rabbit hole, again I told him I was refused this again by a senior committee member when I first joined and indeed there is a local rule that clearly states;

c] Burrowing Animals: Interference with a player's stance is deemed to be of itself NOT interference under 25-1.

We questioned this also and the Pro wasn't sure but believed that a hole not a scrape should offer relief, but what constitutes a hole as their is no real clarification in the wording of the local rule, its pretty 100% a No No!

Some places don't make things easy for us, do they

 

[Foxholer]

c] Burrowing Animals: Interference with a player's stance is deemed to be of itself NOT interference under 25-1.

We questioned this also and the Pro wasn't sure but believed that a hole not a scrape should offer relief, but what constitutes a hole as their is no real clarification in the wording of the local rule, its pretty 100% a No No!

Some places don't make things easy for us, do they

The is a legitimate LR and is covered by the Note to the Rule (25-1 a).

The relief from the path is the usual 'used to be, but no longer is, but not everybody knows' problem. Though surprised, or maybe not, who was the provider of the 'wrong' info. Where changes clash with what's written on the card, it's essential that the change is well publicised.

 

[duncan mackie]

Agreed.

I've also Emailed Barry Rhodes on the 'order of doing things'.

I've lost my access to a definitive source - an ET Ref.

there's not really an order as nothing's is mutually exclusive.

as you listed 20-3 covers the options and, together with the note, all you need. (there are differences in what to do depending on where it was as well that you have glossed over which is the danger of paraphrasing the rule!)

for a ball lying TTG that is moved and has to be replaced -

1. put it back exactly where (and by implication how) it was if that's known, and the lie is unaltered.
2. if lie was known (and by implication the spot), and got altered such that you can't just put it back, 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; If the original lie of was known and has been been altered such that it's now impossible to determine the exact spot where it originally lay you still apply this - if the original lie was not known, but was definitely altered, quite logically you treat it the same as if the spot itself wasn't known. Arguably this note doesn't really add much other than confusion in practice!
3. if the spot was not known, (and by implication the lie wasn't), the player must drop the ball as near as possible to where it lay (best estimate) etc

possibly some of the confusion relates to the difference between spot not known and spot not determinable - the latter refers to an altered set of conditions that didn't match the original such that the spot the ball was known to lie no longer physically exists!

 

[Fish]

The is a legitimate LR and is covered by the Note to the Rule (25-1 a).

The relief from the path is the usual 'used to be, but no longer is, but not everybody knows' problem. Though surprised, or maybe not, who was the provider of the 'wrong' info. Where changes clash with what's written on the card, it's essential that the change is well publicised.

The "verbal provider" was last years club captain and current greens chairman

 

[Foxholer]

there's not really an order as nothing's is mutually exclusive.

as you listed 20-3 covers the options and, together with the note, all you need. (there are differences in what to do depending on where it was as well that you have glossed over which is the danger of paraphrasing the rule!)

for a ball lying TTG that is moved and has to be replaced -

1. put it back exactly where (and by implication how) it was if that's known, and the lie is unaltered.
2. if lie was known (and by implication the spot), and got altered such that you can't just put it back, 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; If the original lie of was known and has been been altered such that it's now impossible to determine the exact spot where it originally lay you still apply this - if the original lie was not known, but was definitely altered, quite logically you treat it the same as if the spot itself wasn't known. Arguably this note doesn't really add much other than confusion in practice!
3. if the spot was not known, (and by implication the lie wasn't), the player must drop the ball as near as possible to where it lay (best estimate) etc

possibly some of the confusion relates to the difference between spot not known and spot not determinable - the latter refers to an altered set of conditions that didn't match the original such that the spot the ball was known to lie no longer physically exists!

I'm not sure that I agree with you about the order. I think different action (Drop) would be required if 20-3c was 'applied' first. It seems much more logical to apply it as written - a, b, c - and looks (by the presence/wording of the Note in b) as if that's the how it should be done - clauses b and c are, in effect, a worded decision tree.

It seems to me that the priority is to attempt to recreate the lie and that a Drop is really only to be used as a last resort - and perhaps as much a random recreation of what a ball might do as it came into the area as 'trust to luck' of usual drops. But that (function of the drop) could just be my imagination/sense of convenience!

 

[duncan mackie]

I'm not sure that I agree with you about the order. I think different action (Drop) would be required if 20-3c was 'applied' first.

give me one, example that results in a different action if things are applied in a different order.

as I said, the note to 20-3b is probably more of a confusion element than of practical assistance; all it says is that just because the lie is altered you don't try and replace the ball under 20-3b (dealing with altered lies) if you didn't know the original lie! It does get round the potentially philosophical question of whether you could really know the lie has been altered if you didn't know the original lie though...

 

[Foxholer]

give me one, example that results in a different action if things are applied in a different order.

as I said, the note to 20-3b is probably more of a confusion element than of practical assistance; all it says is that just because the lie is altered you don't try and replace the ball under 20-3b (dealing with altered lies) if you didn't know the original lie! It does get round the potentially philosophical question of whether you could really know the lie has been altered if you didn't know the original lie though...

If you apply 20-3c first (give priority), then a Drop will occur whenever 'the Spot cannot be determined' irrespective of whether Lie is known or altered.

I could write it in 'pseudo-code' or produce a flowchart if you wish, but it should be obvious just be reading 20-3c then 20-3b, that that is not the way it's meant to happen - and that 20-3b (and Note), then 20-3c is the logical way.

 

[Spuddy]

The reason you would be referring to 20-3 is because the ball has moved and you are looking at 18-2. It's the notes under that rule which tell you to refer to 20-3b or c depending on the scenario you are faced with.

 

[duncan mackie]

If you apply 20-3c first (give priority), then a Drop will occur whenever 'the Spot cannot be determined' irrespective of whether Lie is known or altered.

ah - the light goes on. I now understand where you are coming from. Apologies for being dense.

we have already established agreement as to how to react to the various situations (I think!) so I think the usual step of working through the rule as written and using the most specific ruling applies here, as elsewhere. That you could create a matrix or rewrite 20-3 as a flowchart does effectively the same thing. Given only 2 recognised variables, but with a number of environments (putting green, w hazard, bunker, TTG) it's probably best to just apply the rules as written!

 

[Foxholer]

ah - the light goes on. I now understand where you are coming from. Apologies for being dense.

we have already established agreement as to how to react to the various situations (I think!) so I think the usual step of working through the rule as written and using the most specific ruling applies here, as elsewhere. That you could create a matrix or rewrite 20-3 as a flowchart does effectively the same thing. Given only 2 recognised variables, but with a number of environments (putting green, w hazard, bunker, TTG) it's probably best to just apply the rules as written!

Indeed! I have also been assuming it's as per the original post and ignoring the other possibilities (for simplicity).

The more I check through the 'logic' of the Rule, the more obvious it is that it has to be done as a then b, Notes to b then c!

 

[duncan mackie]

The more I check through the 'logic' of the Rule, the more obvious it is that it has to be done as a then b, Notes to b then c!

now that IS a great summary :thup: