Replacing opponents ball

[atticusfinch]

.
20-3 tells us who must replace it and it doesn't include the opponent or opponent's partner.

Doesn't it include the person who lifted it?

The opponent's partner did not put it down it from where he picked it up but somewhere else.

So you must be saying a ball moved by another ball is not replaced but placed in every case, because no matter who does it, it will never be put back in the spot where it was picked up. But the way I read you, that will always be "placing" because it is never returned to where it was when picked up.

 

[anotherdouble]

So can somebody tell this totally confused lost soul, in the OP's circumstance who should NOT be able to return the moved ball to an agreed original position and what rule is involved. Cheers

 

[atticusfinch]

So can somebody tell this totally confused lost soul, in the OP's circumstance who should NOT be able to return the moved ball to an agreed original position and what rule is involved. Cheers

Rule 20-3,but there is a dispute about who can do it and whether it is placed or replaced. The rule says it can be replaced by "(i) the person who lifted or moved the ball, (ii) the player, or (iii) the player's partner. " IMHO this includes the opponent or his partner if they are the ones who lifted it. One reason for my thinking is the same rule clearly limits the persons who can place the ball. If they wanted to exclude the opponents from replacing they would have said so.(Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.)

 

[Imurg]

My brain hurts...
If ever there was a thread that shows some simplification is necessary, this is it.
A ball got moved by another ball...someone put it back and move on......

 

[rulefan]

A ball to be placed under the Rules must be placed by the player or his partner.

A ball to be replaced under the Rules must be replaced by any one of the following: (i) the person who lifted or moved the ball, (ii) the player, or (iii) the player's partner.

IMO (only), the ball is being placed because the person who put it down did not put it down from where he picked it up.

The contrary view is that it is being replaced on the spot where the other ball struck it.

But it gets complicated because 18-5 seems to suggest no person moved it from that spot. It was simply moved to another spot by a moving ball (which is still in play). If a person can be said to have moved it, it was the opponent. So he must replace it, not the opponent's partner.

Admittedly, when I have seen this happen, it is usually the person who was nearest or had the clearest view who puts it back, rightly or wrongly. I had never thought about it before.

 

[rulie]

A ball to be placed under the Rules must be placed by the player or his partner.

A ball to be replaced under the Rules must be replaced by any one of the following: (i) the person who lifted or moved the ball, (ii) the player, or (iii) the player's partner.

IMO (only), the ball is being placed because the person who put it down did not put it down from where he picked it up.

The contrary view is that it is being replaced on the spot where the other ball struck it.

But it gets complicated because 18-5 seems to suggest no person moved it from that spot. It was simply moved to another spot by a moving ball (which is still in play). If a person can be said to have moved it, it was the opponent. So he must replace it, not the opponent's partner.

Admittedly, when I have seen this happen, it is usually the person who was nearest or had the clearest view who puts it back, rightly or wrongly. I had never thought about it before.

It was not moved by a person, otherwise Rule 18-3 would be applicable. Rule 18-5 is not about a person moving it.

And it's probably not worth thinking about again, just get the ball back to the correct spot and keep playing.

 

[atticusfinch]

IMO (only), the ball is being placed because the person who put it down did not put it down from where he picked it up.

Won't that always be the case with rule 18-5? The ball is moved from it's resting place by a third force and has to be picked up (lifted) and put back in that place. IOW it will never be returned to the place where it was lifted? Since the rule uses the term "replaced"it must be that means put back where it was even if that is not the place it was lifted?

 

[backwoodsman]

Deleted - not thought out properly....

 

[user2010]

Wow, some knickers have been twisted here I think.:thup:

 

[rulefan]

Won't that always be the case with rule 18-5? The ball is moved from it's resting place by a third force and has to be picked up (lifted) and put back in that place. IOW it will never be returned to the place where it was lifted? Since the rule uses the term "replaced"it must be that means put back where it was even if that is not the place it was lifted?

.
That is probably what it is supposed to mean but I don't think the words say that.
So who is permitted to replace it?

 

[SaintHacker]

What a can of worms.

Next week I will ask about dropping in a flooded bunker...

 

[atticusfinch]

.
That is probably what it is supposed to mean but I don't think the words say that.
So who is permitted to replace it?

1) The rule says the ball must be replaced. But if it will never be returned to the lifted spot and that is what "place" means then the rule could never be followed. "Replace" can only mean returned to where it was lifted.

2) 20-3a says it must be replaced by any one of the following: (i) the person who lifted or moved the ball, (ii) the player, or (iii) the player's partner. In this case the opponent's partner is "the person who lifted" the ball and he may replace it.

 

[Slab]

1) The rule says the ball must be replaced. But if it will never be returned to the lifted spot and that is what "place" means then the rule could never be followed. "Replace" can only mean returned to where it was lifted.

2) 20-3a says it must be replaced by any one of the following: (i) the person who lifted or moved the ball, (ii) the player, or (iii) the player's partner. In this case the opponent's partner is "the person who lifted" the ball and he may replace it.

Doesn't (i) only refer to the original cause of movement of the ball and the reason it is no longer in the place it came to rest

I didn't think it had any meaning in relation to a subsequent 2nd movement of the ball (i.e the lift to replace it)



edit: the ball can change position because it was either moved or lifted so both are covered in the rule (i) but for the 2nd movement (the retrieval of the ball) its immaterial whether it was moved by lifting or kicked or something else, it only matters who replaces it and where

 

[backwoodsman]

How about…

Under 18-5 a ball that get moved by another ball “… must be replaced”. Quite a specific intended action and a specific use of words.

Surely, to comply with the rule, it means picking it up and putting it back on to the spot from which it was moved. Or at least as close as can be ascertained. By using the actual wording of rule 18-5 the completion of that action means the ball has been replaced. It can’t mean otherwise can it – the rule itself says it has?

Under 20-3a a ball can be replaced by any of three persons i) the person who lifted or moved it, ii) the player, iii) the players partner. The rule doesn’t qualify the word “replaced” in any way. So if within the terms of the rules a ball is being replaced, it can be by one of these three

A ball can be lifted by a player, their partner, or another person authorized by the player. (r20-1) “Lifting” is not defined in the rules so presumably can only mean what it commonly means – picking up, or raising up, something up from a given position. Lifting also does not have any reference to what one subsequently might do with that object. It's simply the act of picking it up

So in order to complete the required action of 18-5, provided the opponent is acting under the authorisation of the player, then surely they are ok under 20-1 to pick up (ie lift) the ball, and therefore ok under 20-3a(i) to replace it on the spot it needs replacing.

And finally, there are examples in the rules where “authorisation” is regarded as being not much more than the player knowing about it and doing nothing to stop it. So provided the player was aware & comprehending of what was being done, then surely all was Ok?

I now sit back and await to be shot down in flames

 

[atticusfinch]

Excellent analysis right on it.

 

[rulefan]

Sounds good.