Repositioning ball on green

[Backsticks]

When a ball played to a green moves a ball already at rest on the green - but the players dont see that it was moved - what is its status ? So they dont reposition the first ball. Whats the situation - round for the moved ball is fully legal, or, ball played from the wrong place but nobody knows that is the case ?

 

[Colin L]

If you don’t know it happened, it didn’t happen. Play on in blissful ignorance and all is good.

 

[IanM]

If a leaf falls in the forest......

 

[Backache]

If a leaf falls in the forest......

Improving area of swing 2 penalty strokes. ;-)

 

[Steven Rules]

When a ball played to a green moves a ball already at rest on the green - but the players dont see that it was moved

I am curious. How do you know if it moved or not? What makes you think it moved?

 

[Backsticks]

I am curious. How do you know if it moved or not? What makes you think it moved?

Is that relevant ? (and maybe it is, thats what I am wondering).

Yes it is a bit a tree falling in the forest, but nevertheless.

Regardless of who knows, if it is a fact that the second ball moved the first one, but the players didnt see it (shielded by a hump or contour say). What is the technical status of the first ball if the player of the first ball plays on without replacing it ?

 

[Steven Rules]

Relevance? I am just trying to unpick the logic of the situation.

If nobody knows if the ball moved or not, then how is anybody to know whether the ball needs to be replaced or not, and on what basis would anybody be able to apply a penalty (or not) for failing to do the right thing?

 

[Steven Rules]

Post script on relevance.

Rule 9.2a

A player’s ball at rest is treated as having moved only if it is known or virtually certain that it did.

If the ball might have moved but this is not known or virtually certain, it is treated as not having moved and must be played as it lies.

 

[Colin L]

Is that relevant ? (and maybe it is, thats what I am wondering).

Yes it is a bit a tree falling in the forest, but nevertheless.

Regardless of who knows, if it is a fact that the second ball moved the first one, but the players didnt see it (shielded by a hump or contour say). What is the technical status of the first ball if the player of the first ball plays on without replacing it ?

It is his ball in play.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Is that relevant ? (and maybe it is, thats what I am wondering).

Yes it is a bit a tree falling in the forest, but nevertheless.

Regardless of who knows, if it is a fact that the second ball moved the first one, but the players didnt see it (shielded by a hump or contour say). What is the technical status of the first ball if the player of the first ball plays on without replacing it ?

Ok I’ll just go along with this even though it’s frankly a bizarre question and @ColinL has provided the answer, I’ll ask that if neither player saw the collision of balls and so neither saw the first ball at rest…to which position on the green would the first ball be replaced? Quite…

 

[rulie]

A Clarification does exist on this "unknown" issue, see below. In stroke play, another player's ball is an outside influence to any other player's ball.

9.6/3 – Player Learns That Ball Moved After Stroke Made

If it is not known or virtually certain that the player’s ball has been moved by an outside influence, the player must play the ball as it lies. If information that the ball was in fact moved by an outside influence only becomes known to the player after the ball has been played, the player did not play from a wrong place because this knowledge did not exist when the player made the stroke.

 

[salfordlad]

Is that relevant ? (and maybe it is, thats what I am wondering).

Yes it is a bit a tree falling in the forest, but nevertheless.

Regardless of who knows, if it is a fact that the second ball moved the first one, but the players didnt see it (shielded by a hump or contour say). What is the technical status of the first ball if the player of the first ball plays on without replacing it ?

RBs saw this scenario as important and provided very specific guidance in 9.6/3. The ball at rest was moved by an outside influence and came to rest in a wrong place and was still ball in play. But if the facts are unknown, the player must proceed under Rule 9.1 and play the ball as it lies. Once done, the ball's technical status continues to be ball in play and the player continues without penalty. It is irrelevant whether the facts come to light subsequently. If the facts emerge before the moved ball is played, the player must replace the ball, estimating the original position if not known.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

A Clarification does exist on this "unknown" issue, see below. In stroke play, another player's ball is an outside influence to any other player's ball.

9.6/3 – Player Learns That Ball Moved After Stroke Made

If it is not known or virtually certain that the player’s ball has been moved by an outside influence, the player must play the ball as it lies. If information that the ball was in fact moved by an outside influence only becomes known to the player after the ball has been played, the player did not play from a wrong place because this knowledge did not exist when the player made the stroke.

Indeed, though 9.6/3 covers a different scenario from that painted in the OP when no mention was made of any 3rd party witness.

 

[rulefan]

Indeed, though 9.6/3 covers a different scenario from that painted in the OP when no mention was made of any 3rd party witness.

Not really. The OP asked
Whats the situation - round for the moved ball is fully legal, or, ball played from the wrong place but nobody knows that is the case ?

The Clarifications addresses it specifically
the player did not play from a wrong place because this knowledge did not exist when the player made the stroke.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Not really. The OP asked
Whats the situation - round for the moved ball is fully legal, or, ball played from the wrong place but nobody knows that is the case ?

The Clarifications addresses it specifically
the player did not play from a wrong place because this knowledge did not exist when the player made the stroke.

I’m not disagreeing, but as others responded - the implication in the question is that nobody witnessed the collision therefore nobody could subsequently and later tell the players.

The OP question makes absolute sense if there was a 3rd party witness…and as you say rule 9.6/3 covers that scenario.

 

[rulefan]

I’m not disagreeing, but as others responded - the implication in the question is that nobody witnessed the collision therefore nobody could subsequently and later tell the players.

The OP question makes absolute sense if there was a 3rd party witness…and as you say rule 9.6/3 covers that scenario.

The OP simply said "but the players dont see that it was moved".

There is no indication that someone else may or may not have seen it. But why did the players think it had moved? Doesn't this suggest that someone did see it move and told them later?

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I'll have a look back in this thread again when it reaches page 4 or so.

What a question.

 

[Colin L]

I'll have a look back in this thread again when it reaches page 4 or so.

What a question.

Already fully answered...... as if that had anything to do with it.