re placing ball

[guest100718]

My ball was mistakenly hit by another golfer, he duffed it about 20 yards. He left a massive divot so it was clear where my ball was. I pushed the divot back down and placed my ball on top. I have since learned I could have placed it nearby if my original lie had been changed.

Question. Since the area of my original lie had been hacked up, was I obliged to find a new lie or was reparing it and placing my ball back in that spot OK?

 

[rulefan]

There is no provision in the rule for the lie to be reinstated.

[h=4]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;

 

[guest100718]

There is no provision in the rule for the lie to be reinstated.

Lie of Ball to be Placed or Replaced Altered

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;

yes had since read that and thats what made me ask
so was there any penalty for me?

 

[Colin L]

2 stroke/loss of hole for a breach of rule 20-3b (the one rulefan quoted above). You needed to read a bit further for the penalty statement.

 

[Spuddy]

Hypothetically, if there's a massive divot, could you argue that the exact spot isn't determinable and therefore a drop would be the correct option?

 

[guest100718]

2 stroke/loss of hole for a breach of rule 20-3b (the one rulefan quoted above). You needed to read a bit further for the penalty statement.

Cheers. No affect overall as I played rubbish anyway.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Seems harsh for trying to do the right thing. Is there an argument that once the divot was replaced the nearest most similar lie was on the replaced divot?

Might Decision 20-3b/7 - Whether Original Lie May Be “Nearest Lie Most Similar” apply?

 

[Colin L]

Spot not determinable?
I don't see that as applicable. The player does know where the spot is. It is not, however, possible to replace his ball there because the turf has been removed - i.e, the lie has been altered.

Original lie nearest lie most similar?
I don't think that would usually work either. It is applicable where the original lie, even though it has been altered, is nonetheless more similar to its original state than any alternative. Possible in this case, of course, but it seems unlikely when you are talking about a " massive" divot having been removed.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I was thinking that it might actually be easier with a massive divot as there would be a nice big area of undisturbed grass on which to replace the ball!

 

[chrisd]

I was thinking that it might actually be easier with a massive divot as there would be a nice big area of undisturbed grass on which to replace the ball!

But what if the divot had been shredded into several pieces?

 

[MashieNiblick]

But what if the divot had been shredded into several pieces?

Well in that case it wouldn't apply, but if you took a nice large piece of turf and replaced it I was thinking that arguably replacing the ball on top of that might be OK. I have taken a few divots in my time that when replaced you wouldn't even know it had ever been a divot.

 

[guest100718]

Well in that case it wouldn't apply, but if you took a nice large piece of turf and replaced it I was thinking that arguably replacing the ball on top of that might be OK. I have taken a few divots in my time that when replaced you wouldn't even know it had ever been a divot.

It was a flap of turf that was still connected, I folded it down and you wouldn't have noticed that someone had hit a ball from there.

 

[duncan mackie]

Well in that case it wouldn't apply, but if you took a nice large piece of turf and replaced it I was thinking that arguably replacing the ball on top of that might be OK. I have taken a few divots in my time that when replaced you wouldn't even know it had ever been a divot.

I think there's the potential for a little confusion here!

If the playing partner who took the divot has replaced it such that the ground is back how it was then I wouldn't have a problem either way if a player chose to replace his ball on it or if he argued that the nature of the lie (it's now on a replaced divot!) had been altered and he selected the nearest most similar spot.

What YOU cannot do, outside a hazard, is recreate the lie by replacing the divot (that he didn't replace)

 

[Fish]

I think there's the potential for a little confusion here!

If the playing partner who took the divot has replaced it such that the ground is back how it was then I wouldn't have a problem either way if a player chose to replace his ball on it or if he argued that the nature of the lie (it's now on a replaced divot!) had been altered and he selected the nearest most similar spot.

What YOU cannot do, outside a hazard, is recreate the lie by replacing the divot (that he didn't replace)

I've been following this and can honestly say that my head is swimming

So, if the person who played the wrong ball and took a divot didn't replace the divot, you can't replace it for him and subsequently place the ball on it! You would have to place the ball either side of the divot.

If he did replace the divot you should place your ball on the said divot returning it to its original position, unless its torn and shredded when you could argue that the original lie has been altered.

 

[rulefan]

Replacing a divot is not really reinstating the lie. A player who normally takes a divot will notice the effect of hitting a movable piece of turf, rather than solid turf attached by roots to the ground below.

 

[drdel]

Replacing a divot is not really reinstating the lie. A player who normally takes a divot will notice the effect of hitting a movable piece of turf, rather than solid turf attached by roots to the ground below.

Totally agree: why would you want to hit from a loose piece of turf as you're not going to be able to get any 'pinch' on the ball!!

Take a new firm position within a club's length seems the only sensible option to me.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Watched a lad in a group ahead of us playing a hole in parallel to ours take a drop from a path from which relief is provided. So without comment on the rights or wrongs of any of the following this is what I observed from about 5 yds away

Path runs RHS of fairway

1 Player gets to his ball
2 Ball picked up
3 No marking of original ball position
4 No measuring for NPR
5 Player stood just off and to the RHS of the path to drop
6 Arm extended and inclined towards ground with body leaning away from path as much as he could
7 ball dropped with a back spin imparted
8 ball hits ground closer to hole than original ball position
9 ball rolls downhill and back onto the path
10 repeat 2-9
11 repeat 2-8
12 Ball comes to rest and not on path
12 No check with PPs on closer or not to hole
13 played shot

After he had played I mentioned to him that he only needed to drop it twice and then he could place it. He replied that (clearly) he thought he had to drop three times before he could place.

 

[rulefan]

8 ball hits ground closer to hole than original ball position

In such cases he must redrop every time. No limit other than 6-7.

 

[duncan mackie]

I've been following this and can honestly say that my head is swimming

So, if the person who played the wrong ball and took a divot didn't replace the divot, you can't replace it for him and subsequently place the ball on it! You would have to place the ball either side of the divot.

If he did replace the divot you should place your ball on the said divot returning it to its original position, unless its torn and shredded when you could argue that the original lie has been altered.

I carefully didn't say either should, or must, but was suggesting that I can envisage a situation where the player both might wish to and that it would be acceptable.ie he could.

I also said that recognising the other aspects of lie it would also clearly be acceptable to find the nearest most similar lie and use that.

 

[duncan mackie]

Watched a lad in a group ahead of us playing a hole in parallel to ours take a drop from a path from which relief is provided. So without comment on the rights or wrongs of any of the following this is what I observed from about 5 yds away

Path runs RHS of fairway

1 Player gets to his ball
2 Ball picked up
3 No marking of original ball position
4 No measuring for NPR
5 Player stood just off and to the RHS of the path to drop
6 Arm extended and inclined towards ground with body leaning away from path as much as he could
7 ball dropped with a back spin imparted
8 ball hits ground closer to hole than original ball position
9 ball rolls downhill and back onto the path
10 repeat 2-9
11 repeat 2-8
12 Ball comes to rest and not on path
12 No check with PPs on closer or not to hole
13 played shot

After he had played I mentioned to him that he only needed to drop it twice and then he could place it. He replied that (clearly) he thought he had to drop three times before he could place.

Shouldn't this be a seperate thread, or at least the one re dropping and marking?

Not sure the question but the answers lie in most of rule 20!