Played with a rules 'expert'

[Foxholer]

now that IS a great summary :thup:

And a reply from Email came back.....

In my opinion, when a player treads on their ball during search it is almost impossible to know the exact position or lie of the ball that was moved (backwards, forwards, sideways, deeper, not at all). Therefore, I would go straight to Rule 20-3c and require the player to drop the ball as near as possible to the place where it lay. Simpler, quicker and less likely to be abused, or cause disagreement than 20-3b.

I'm pretty sure the ET Ref I used to consult would do the same (it was my first thought many posts ago) as he's pretty pragmatic about 'fair and reasonable'!

 

[duncan mackie]

And a reply from Email came back.....

In my opinion, when a player treads on their ball during search it is almost impossible to know the exact position or lie of the ball that was moved (backwards, forwards, sideways, deeper, not at all). Therefore, I would go straight to Rule 20-3c and require the player to drop the ball as near as possible to the place where it lay. Simpler, quicker and less likely to be abused, or cause disagreement than 20-3b.

I'm pretty sure the ET Ref I used to consult would do the same (it was my first thought many posts ago) as he's pretty pragmatic about 'fair and reasonable'!

and I believe it's what my first post on the subject in this thread also set out...

the ruling for this situation was simple; 20-3b/5 also confirms

the wider application isn't - as applies to most of rule 20 to be honest. It's a detailed area that can cause the unwary no end of problems around dropping, re-dropping and placing.

 

[Foxholer]

and I believe it's what my first post on the subject in this thread also set out...

the ruling for this situation was simple; 20-3b/5 also confirms

the wider application isn't - as applies to most of rule 20 to be honest. It's a detailed area that can cause the unwary no end of problems around dropping, re-dropping and placing.

I must say, I was inclined to suggest the same, but hesitant because a) wasn't entirely sure that it was totally correct for the circumstances raised and b) Who raised it!

20-3b/5 is slightly different as the Original position was stated as 'not known', as opposed to DelC's assurance that, in their case, it was known. Pretty sure that, if probed, the player would have had admitted that they really only had a 'pretty good idea' of the position rather than knew exactly! That doesn't change the 'logic' of the Rule though.

It does show that Rules should not only be read literally, but that it can be important to read the 'whole Rule' - all of 20-3 in this case - rather than simply taking the first bit that seems relevant.