Welcome
Welcome to golfrules

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Lost in leaves

Use this forum to discuss hypos' and what meanings lie behind the rules. Owing to some unwanted visitors it is now necessary to register as a member to post any questions or answers you may have regarding the Rules of Golf.
once you have done that you will be able to post.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
We do not generally discuss H/cap questions but there is no harm in trying, someone on the forum may know the answer. For H/Cap questions WWW.handicapmaster.org is recommended.

Moderators: DC, Ron, Johanna

Lost in leaves

Postby Divot » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:10 am

Good morning all,
Through the green a ball ends up in a pile of leaves. The player carelessly removes leaves to find the ball and moves the ball inadventently . He's earned a one stroke penalty and must replace the ball. Before doing so, may the player clear away all the leaves including any the ball may have been sitting on?
Divot
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Colin L » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:41 am

Yes.
Colin L
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:55 pm
Your location: Edinburgh

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby MikeH » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:37 am

Trying to get my head around the difference between Dec. 23-1/7.5 and 23-1/8 and which applies to Divot's OP. Got a headache now
User avatar
MikeH
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:09 pm
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Your location: Nelson, New Zealand

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Doug » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:45 am

Doesn't 1/8 apply an additional penalty for trying to evade the potential problem?
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby MikeH » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:16 pm

Doug I was meaning how do the two situations differ? and which applies to the OP. I'm obviously missing something :-)
User avatar
MikeH
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:09 pm
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Your location: Nelson, New Zealand

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby RJM » Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:19 pm

My opinion, fwiw: In D23-1/7.5, the loose impediment is moved while a ball is being lifted or moved while in D23-1/8 the loose impediment is removed after the ball has been lifted. Very subtle difference(s) that will undoubtedly lead to confusion.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Chippings » Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:21 pm

Divot wrote:Before doing so, may the player clear away all the leaves including any the ball may have been sitting on?


No -- the player may not remove any leaves that may influence the ball when replaced.
Decision 23-1/8 applies! :o
Chippings
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:00 pm
Your location: Bristol

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Doug » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:19 am

Colin L wrote:Yes.

Were you thinking of 23-1/6 / 23-1/6.5 ?
User avatar
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: Wetherby, UK
Your location: UK

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Mr. Bean » Sat Mar 05, 2016 2:33 pm

As the player already incurred a penalty for causing their ball to move there is no additional penalty should they remove the loose impediments before replacing the ball. That is the conclusion I come to after digesting the relevant Decisions under R23-1.
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby RJM » Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:27 pm

Should he replace the ball by placing or dropping? Note that he was searching....
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Chippings » Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:14 pm

The fact that the player has already incurred a penalty is immaterial.

If the ball is to be replaced (actually replaced ) then 23-1/8 applies.

If the spot is not determinable and the original lie Unknown resulting in the player being required to drop the ball then he may remove any leaves before dropping.

Divot's scenario suggests that the player is going to replace the ball which was laying on some leaves.
Only Divot can say what he originally meant but it was presumed that he needed some guidance re decisions 23-1/7.5 and 23-1/8.
Chippings
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:00 pm
Your location: Bristol

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Mr. Bean » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:21 pm

Chippings wrote:The fact that the player has already incurred a penalty is immaterial.

If the ball is to be replaced (actually replaced ) then 23-1/8 applies.

If the spot is not determinable and the original lie Unknown resulting in the player being required to drop the ball then he may remove any leaves before dropping.

Divot's scenario suggests that the player is going to replace the ball which was laying on some leaves.
Only Divot can say what he originally meant but it was presumed that he needed some guidance re decisions 23-1/7.5 and 23-1/8.


I believe this issue has been discussed earlier either here or elsewhere and in that discussion a double punishment was not an option.

D23-1/8 refers to circumventing R18-2. In the case at hand the player already incurred a penalty so there is no circumventing Rule 18-2 (or 23-1) taking place. Thus cleaning the area is allowed equal to D23-1/6 and /6.5.

EDIT: If the player had removed all of the LI's with one sweep and moved the ball as well would there be a one stroke penalty for moving one's ball in play or something else?
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Colin L » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:18 pm

Doug wrote:
Colin L wrote:Yes.

Were you thinking of 23-1/6 / 23-1/6.5 ?


Maybe. But I think you flatter me. I would go along with the theory that I wasn’t thinking at all. :oops:
Colin L
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:55 pm
Your location: Edinburgh

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Divot » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:23 am

To clarify the scenario: the ball was moved only a bit but indeed moved. Thus, the spot was known and the lie was on top of a few leaves. Discussions over here think last year all the leaves could have been removed and then the ball replaced. This year, the interpretation is that only leaves near the spot can be removed. The leaves very close (esp. the ones "under the ball") can't be moved.
Divot
Divot
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby RJM » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:47 am

How could the spot be known to the required precision (within 1 cm) when he was searching for the ball amongst the leaves?
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby regole » Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:53 am

Divot wrote:Before doing so, may the player clear away all the leaves including any the ball may have been sitting on?


Yes, and applies the rule 20-3c to put the ball into play.
regole
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:16 pm
Your location: Cagliari / Sardegna

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Chippings » Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:09 pm

Mr. Bean wrote:
I believe this issue has been discussed earlier either here or elsewhere and in that discussion a double punishment was not an option ?


Let me share Some "LIMITED" background knowledge I have.

The USGA and R&A do not always agree on the interpretation of a rule and it can be several rule revisions before a matter is agreed.
This was one such matter -- another was the treatment of multiple strokes on the wrong putting green ( previously dec25-3//2 withdrawn 2011).

Hence Mr Bean's recollection of long and differing discussions on this very matter.
USGA believed no second penalty for removing loose impediments whilst R&A view was that the loose impediment should not be removed in line with pre-2016 version of 23-1/8 (old)

England Golf raised this matter with R&A some time ago and issued a guidance paper to all of its referees in April 2011.
"" if,when a ball lies among LIs , the player clears the area of LIs,and in the process,moves the ball,he is penalised under18-2a and must replace the ball.,but not the LIs.
However if the LIs remain where they were, the principle of dec23-1/8 applies and the LIs cannot be removed until after the ball is replaced. In any situation in which a ball is to be replaced, the removal of LIs affecting the lie incurs a 1 stroke penalty ( rule1-4) in addition to the precious penalty under 18-2a.""

It was anticipated that this situation might be explicitly addressed in the next rules revision process but it has taken until now before 23-1/7 revised,23-1/7.5 new ,23-1/8 revised has appeared .


The new wording of 23-1/8 makes it clear that a further penalty will be incurred under equity if LI s are removed before a ball is replaced -- the only exception being under r20-3c if it transpires that the ball must be dropped.

I hope this information assists .

Ps . The new decision 20-7/4 ( last paragraph) suggests that agreement has also been reached to reflect the correct procedure to replace the aforementioned Dec 25-3/2.
Chippings
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:00 pm
Your location: Bristol

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby regole » Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:24 pm

Chippings wrote:
Divot wrote:Before doing so, may the player clear away all the leaves including any the ball may have been sitting on?


No -- the player may not remove any leaves that may influence the ball when replaced.
Decision 23-1/8 applies! :o



Hi Chippings

D 23-1/8 it does not have anything to do,as written by Mr.Bean, with the situation represented by divot!
regole
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:16 pm
Your location: Cagliari / Sardegna

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Mr. Bean » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:00 pm

Chippings wrote:The new wording of 23-1/8 makes it clear that a further penalty will be incurred under equity if LI s are removed before a ball is replaced -- the only exception being under r20-3c if it transpires that the ball must be dropped.


I find that wording far from clear as the primary assumption in D23.1/8 is that no penalty has yet been incurred. It does not say anything about any further penalty. If the RB's intention was to say that in no circumstances the player may remove those LI's they have done a poor job in writing that Decision.

Furthermore, if the lie was not known and the player is required to drop their ball it is permissible to clean the entire area. To me it seems pretty odd that a player, who already incurred a penalty, is not allowed to remove the LI's if the ball must be replaced. Just does not make any sense to me, maybe someone could shed some light to my problem.
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Marek » Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:52 pm

Just a thought: if the player is allowed to remove all leafs, can the ball be replaced in the same spot, doesn't vertical position have to be take into account as well?
Marek
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:36 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby RJM » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:02 am

Revisiting the original post - this player was searching for his ball amongst the leaves. During search, the ball moved. I submit that the player, because he was searching, did not know the precise spot where the ball lay, nor did he know the lie of the ball, otherwise he would have seen the ball and stopped searching. He incurs a one stroke penalty and must drop the ball as near as possible to the estimated spot.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Mr. Bean » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:10 am

Marek wrote:Just a thought: if the player is allowed to remove all leafs, can the ball be replaced in the same spot, doesn't vertical position have to be take into account as well?


A fair point.

What if he swept all the leaves away knowing the lie, would be have to recreate the lie in order to replace the ball? Or place his ball to the nearest similar lie on top of the leaves? Either way, it seems funny that you may clean the area when dropping but not when you are replacing even though you already incurred a penalty for moving a LI in both cases.

Afa the OP is concerned I am with RJM, it seems the player must drop the ball thus allowing him to remove the LI's. So when you are searching your ball amongst the leaves make sure you do not know your lie if you move your ball :lol:
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Marek » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:46 pm

RJM wrote:Revisiting the original post - this player was searching for his ball amongst the leaves. During search, the ball moved. I submit that the player, because he was searching, did not know the precise spot where the ball lay, nor did he know the lie of the ball, otherwise he would have seen the ball and stopped searching. He incurs a one stroke penalty and must drop the ball as near as possible to the estimated spot.

LI are not part of the lie (dec 20-3b/8). Does that change your position?

(I'm starting to get a headache as well.)
Marek
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:36 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby RJM » Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:23 pm

I realize that LI are not part of the lie and that does not change my position. Since the player was searching for his ball and had not yet found(seen) it, I submit that he does not know either the lie or the spot.
RJM
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Mr. Bean » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:08 pm

Marek wrote:
RJM wrote:Revisiting the original post - this player was searching for his ball amongst the leaves. During search, the ball moved. I submit that the player, because he was searching, did not know the precise spot where the ball lay, nor did he know the lie of the ball, otherwise he would have seen the ball and stopped searching. He incurs a one stroke penalty and must drop the ball as near as possible to the estimated spot.

LI are not part of the lie (dec 20-3b/8). Does that change your position?

(I'm starting to get a headache as well.)


Marek, aren't you undermining your previous statement with this post?

LI's may and may not be a part of the lie. In the D20-3b/8 we are dealing with a situation where a lie needs to be re-created and in that particular situation the LI's are not part of that lie. In the OP situation this is not the case, quite on the contrary.
Mr. Bean
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:26 pm
Your location: Finland, Vantaa

Re: Lost in leaves

Postby Marek » Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:09 pm

Mr. Bean wrote:Marek, aren't you undermining your previous statement with this post?


Yes, definitely. I can go either way:

1. The player didn't see his ball so he couldn't see the lie either. Therefore after removing all leafs, he must drop the ball (20-3c).

Or

2. The player didn't see his ball under the leafs, but since LI are not part of the lie that doesn't matter. The lie under the leafs is known so the proper action after removing all leafs is to place the ball in the nearest similar lie (20-3b).
Marek
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:36 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden


Return to Rules of Golf discussions and meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred