Plugged balls

[Skypilot]

Watching the Memorial this weekend, there were several instances of players etc. looking for balls in the rough.
It made me wonder what the ruling would be if a ball became plugged because the player trod on it.
Would he still be able to re-place the ball?

 

[salfordlad]

Player standing on their ball comes under rule 9.4, the player gets a one stroke penalty unless one of the exceptions applies. One exception is if the player accidentally moves the ball during search (while trying to find or identify it), then no penalty (see rule 7.4). In either case, the player must replace the ball. If the lie was altered (likely on the OP information), the player must place the ball on the nearest spot with a lie most similar to the original lie within one club length, not nearer the hole and in the same area of the course. The replace procedure is different if the ball's original position is in sand, then the player must re-create the lie.

 

[rulefan]

Watching the Memorial this weekend, there were several instances of players etc. looking for balls in the rough.
It made me wonder what the ruling would be if a ball became plugged because the player trod on it.
Would he still be able to re-place the ball?

7.4 Ball Accidentally Moved in Trying to Find or Identify It
There is no penalty if the player’s ball is accidentally moved by the player, opponent or anyone else while trying to find or identify it.
If this happens, the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

However this would not be a 'plugged' (technically 'embedded') ball as that is "When a player’s ball is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of the player’s previous stroke"

 

[salfordlad]

7.4 Ball Accidentally Moved in Trying to Find or Identify It
There is no penalty if the player’s ball is accidentally moved by the player, opponent or anyone else while trying to find or identify it.
If this happens, the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

However this would not be a 'plugged' (technically 'embedded') ball as that is "When a player’s ball is in its own pitch-mark made as a result of the player’s previous stroke"

There is a caution here, the player is not permitted to replace on the original spot when the lie is altered.

 

[rulie]

There is a caution here, the player is not permitted to replace on the original spot when the lie is altered.

As is nearly always true, there is an exception. Interpretation 14.2d(2)/1, "Altered Lie Might Be "Nearest Spot with Lie Most Similar".

 

[salfordlad]

As is nearly always true, there is an exception. Interpretation 14.2d(2)/1, "Altered Lie Might Be "Nearest Spot with Lie Most Similar".

My post was about the OP, a scenario for which 14.2d(2)/1 has zero relevance.

 

[Colin L]

My post was about the OP, a scenario for which 14.2d(2)/1 has zero relevance.

It could, for all we know, be wholly relevant. In any case, the reference is a generally useful bit of additional information, not a correction.

 

[salfordlad]

It could, for all we know, be wholly relevant. In any case, the reference is a generally useful bit of additional information, not a correction.

Suggest you re-read the information in the OP. Zero relevance to the OP. You want to vary the OP information provided then go right ahead, but be explicit about it, not pretend someone else has left out some relevant rules observations.

 

[Skypilot]

I asked the question because I wondered if a player could possibly gain an advantage, if his ball was in a bad lie, if he "accidently" trod on it when "looking for it" and embedded it, thus then getting to place it.
Or even if it was genuinely unintentional, what the ruling would be.

 

[rulefan]

I asked the question because I wondered if a player could possibly gain an advantage, if his ball was in a bad lie, if he "accidently" trod on it when "looking for it" and embedded it, thus then getting to place it.
Or even if it was genuinely unintentional, what the ruling would be.

Has post #2 answered your question?

 

[Skypilot]

I thought it had until I read the bit in italics and the bottom of post #3

 

[rulefan]

I thought it had until I read the bit in italics and the bottom of post #3

Sorry if I confused the issue. Many equate 'plugged' with 'embedded' and I was trying to point out that the term is only relevant to a ball embedding as a result of a stroke.
In your case post #2 and the body of #3 have the answer.

 

[Colin L]

Suggest you re-read the information in the OP. Zero relevance to the OP. You want to vary the OP information provided then go right ahead, but be explicit about it, not pretend someone else has left out some relevant rules observations.

May I mention something before I crawl back into my box, duly chastised?
There is a caution here, the player is not permitted to replace on the original spot when the lie is altered could have given the impression of a general prohibition on replacing on the original spot. At the most, given that the OP was asking about a ball that had been trodden on, it is highly unlikely that the original spot would be the most similar lie, but it's possible. And given a possibility, no matter how unlikely, the Interpretation is relevant. For that matter, I'm even wondering if an Interpretation can ever be irrelevant to the Rule it's an interpretation of? Offhand it seems a bit of a contradiction.

And in terms of helping members of the forum with their knowledge and understanding of the rules, does it not make sense to expand on the specifics of a question and have wider conversations about the rule in hand - and beyond as sometimes happens? We're just people sharing an interest in the rules and helping each other, not adversaries.

 

[salfordlad]

May I mention something before I crawl back into my box, duly chastised?
There is a caution here, the player is not permitted to replace on the original spot when the lie is altered could have given the impression of a general prohibition on replacing on the original spot. At the most, given that the OP was asking about a ball that had been trodden on, it is highly unlikely that the original spot would be the most similar lie, but it's possible. And given a possibility, no matter how unlikely, the Interpretation is relevant. For that matter, I'm even wondering if an Interpretation can ever be irrelevant to the Rule it's an interpretation of? Offhand it seems a bit of a contradiction.

And in terms of helping members of the forum with their knowledge and understanding of the rules, does it not make sense to expand on the specifics of a question and have wider conversations about the rule in hand - and beyond as sometimes happens? We're just people sharing an interest in the rules and helping each other, not adversaries.

Thank you for these comments. I couldn't agree more, we are not adversaries. Yet after Rulie and yourself decided you did not like a post of mine on another thread, every comment you have replied to one of mine sought to pick holes with it. So I am happy to have you suggest we are not adversaries, because I had received a distinctly different impression to date.
I also have no issue with widening an explanation or discussion and agree it can be beneficial but I suggest the message should be clear when it is dealing with something outside or having limited overlap with the earlier discussion.

I have a separate reaction to your post above, but I will address it in a separate reply, and limit this one to the general themes touched on above.

 

[rulefan]

Perhaps this sort of conversation should be held via PMs

 

[salfordlad]

There is a caution here, the player is not permitted to replace on the original spot when the lie is altered could have given the impression of a general prohibition on replacing on the original spot. .

First some context for my comment in #4 above (your italics): Rulefan's post #3 quoted the OP, the last line of which was "Would he still be able to re-place the ball?" and then in a quote from 7.4 conveyed the following words "If this happens, the ball must be replaced on the original spot.....". IMO, this risked causing considerable misunderstanding that the OP's ball must be replaced, because in the OP's situation that general 7.4 requirement is overridden by the operation of 14.2d.

Returning to your quoted words above (the non-italics), IMO, there is a 'general prohibition' under rule 14.2d(2) on replacing on the original spot - the rule states that the player must replace the ball by placing it in the nearest spot with a lie most similar...etc. Ie, a spot that almost always will not be the original spot. The sort of exceptional situation raised in Interpretation 14.2d(2)/1 is an exception to that 'general prohibition' and is, IMO, worth identifying - but I suggest doing so needs to be linked appropriately to the situation being discussed.

 

[Foxholer]

My post was about the OP, a scenario for which 14.2d(2)/1 has zero relevance.

I disagree!
With the proviso that the players action specified in the OP was accidental. If it was deliberate, then (s)he's a cheat and should be treated accordingly!
Rule 7.4 is not an 'exception' to Rule 9.4! It is a separate (earlier) Rule that specifically covers the situation in the OP - including referring to 14.2. There is however a reference in 9.4 b to 7.4(as one of the 4 exceptions)