Rake hitting ball in bunker

[Briser]

Here's a good one. I hit my ball into a bunker near the top lip. I picked up a rake, walked round the outside of the bunker and dropped it on the grass beside the trap. It bounced and toppled into the sand hitting the ball, but not moving it. I had not entered the trap. I did not have to replace my ball and simply lifted the rake out. Should I have penalized myself any shots for this careless episode?

[Golfingdad]

If you know for certain that it didn't move (remember, it could have moved down, especially if the sand was soft), I think you are fine.

[Fourputt]

Here's a good one. I hit my ball into a bunker near the top lip. I picked up a rake, walked round the outside of the bunker and dropped it on the grass beside the trap. It bounced and toppled into the sand hitting the ball, but not moving it. I had not entered the trap. I did not have to replace my ball and simply lifted the rake out.

Should I have penalized myself any shots for this careless episode?

It's a question of fact whether the ball moved or not.  I have a lot of trouble imagining a rake hitting a ball resting in a bunker and not moving it even a very small amount.

[Briser]

So should I have penalized my self or no and how many shots?

[Golfingdad]

So should I have penalized my self or no and how many shots?

Gonna guess that 18-2ai applies here.  Player caused the ball to move, so it must be replaced under penalty of one stroke .

Now, that's where it gets tricky.  If all that was done was that the ball was "hammered" down a fraction of an inch by the rake falling on top of it, no attempt at replacing it is going to get it closer to the original position than just leaving it alone (we exhausted this topic during the thread on Tiger's BMW debacle last year) so common sense would tell me that you just inform everybody that you cannot be sure that your ball didn't move, assess yourself a one-stroke penalty, and play on from there.

For the record, though:  this is one of several rules that, for me, falls into the category of only applying during an actual competition.  If you were just playing a casual round then you use this as a learning experience only, not as a way to artificially inflate your handicap.

[Briser]

Thanks guys. Briser.

[ColinL]

Gonna guess that 18-2ai applies here.  Player caused the ball to move, so it must be replaced under penalty of one stroke.

Now, that's where it gets tricky.  If all that was done was that the ball was "hammered" down a fraction of an inch by the rake falling on top of it, no attempt at replacing it is going to get it closer to the original position than just leaving it alone (we exhausted this topic during the thread on Tiger's BMW debacle last year) so common sense would tell me that you just inform everybody that you cannot be sure that your ball didn't move, assess yourself a one-stroke penalty, and play on from there.

For the record, though:  this is one of several rules that, for me, falls into the category of only applying during an actual competition.  If you were just playing a casual round then you use this as a learning experience only, not as a way to artificially inflate your handicap.

If the original lie in a bunker was altered by the rake hitting the ball, the lie should be recreated and the ball replaced.  See Rule 20-3b(iii)

[Golfingdad]

If the original lie in a bunker was altered by the rake hitting the ball, the lie should be recreated and the ball replaced.  See Rule 20-3b(iii)

Yeah, that's great in theory, but how do you actually apply that in real life?  The scenario I'm picturing has the rake hit the ball from directly above.  It's soft enough sand that it's reasonable to cautiously assume that the ball moved downward a bit, but it clearly didn't travel sideways anywhere. Any attempt at recreating the original lie would likely take it FURTHER from the original lie than where it currently sits.

I feel like it would make more sense to leave it be for that reason than it would be to actually go through the charade of trying to recreate the original lie.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

If the original lie in a bunker was altered by the rake hitting the ball, the lie should be recreated and the ball replaced.  See Rule 20-3b(iii)

Yeah, that's great in theory, but how do you actually apply that in real life?  The scenario I'm picturing has the rake hit the ball from directly above.  It's soft enough sand that it's reasonable to cautiously assume that the ball moved downward a bit, but it clearly didn't travel sideways anywhere. Any attempt at recreating the original lie would likely take it FURTHER from the original lie than where it currently sits.

I feel like it would make more sense to leave it be for that reason than it would be to actually go through the charade of trying to recreate the original lie.

The point is that the rules require that you make the best attempt possible.  Not making any attempt will result in an additional penalty stroke for not replacing the ball.  Making your best try, even though it may seem unlikely that you precisely duplicate the original lie, will at least mean that you only incur the one penalty stroke for causing your ball at rest to move.

[Golfingdad]

The point is that the rules require that you make the best attempt possible.  Not making any attempt will result in an additional penalty stroke for not replacing the ball.  Making your best try, even though it may seem unlikely that you precisely duplicate the original lie, will at least mean that you only incur the one penalty stroke for causing your ball at rest to move.

Well, then that's silly.

When there are situations where it's reasonable to conclude that the current lie is closer to the original than anything that could be manufactured, requiring people to go through the charade for the sake of going through the charade just seems silly.

They should add a 20-3b/7 decision:  "Lie of Ball in Bunker Altered; Original Lie of Ball Known But Spot Where Ball Lay Closer to Original Lie Than If Attempt Is Made To Re-create Original."

[iacas]

Well, then that's silly.

When there are situations where it's reasonable to conclude that the current lie is closer to the original than anything that could be manufactured, requiring people to go through the charade for the sake of going through the charade just seems silly.

They should add a 20-3b/7 decision:  "Lie of Ball in Bunker Altered; Original Lie of Ball Known But Spot Where Ball Lay Closer to Original Lie Than If Attempt Is Made To Re-create Original."

Huh? Move some sand around and re-create the lie. Do your best.

No need for a Decision.

[Golfingdad]

Huh? Move some sand around and re-create the lie. Do your best.

No need for a Decision.

Fine, be that way.

I still think a decision would be a good idea ... even if it was to clear up confusion for people like me and said in more formal terms, exactly what you said.  i.e.:

20-3b/9:

Lie of Ball in Bunker Altered; Original Lie of Ball Known But Spot Where Ball Lay Closer to Original Lie Than If Attempt Is Made To Re-create Original

Q: A has determined that he caused his ball to move by dropping a rake on it.  However, it is impossible to exactly re-create the original lie and A, as fell as his fellow competitiors, all agree that the ball as it lies most closely resembles the original lie.  Can A play the ball as it lies without incurring an additional penalty?

A: No.  A must attempt to recreate the original lie even if he risks moving the ball further away from said original lie.  A must move some sand around.  A must do his best.

See?  Even if the decision goes the opposite way, it will still clear up any confusion from people like me who would prefer to inject common sense and "spirit" into the concrete rules.

[joekelly]

Gotta agree with Erik.  OP messed up, accidentally or not, and needs to accept responsibility. Part of the responsible golfer notion is to return situation, as well as possible, to condition prior to mess up.  Allot 8 seconds to fix-up, drop or place ball (i can't say which just now), and play out of sand. Add one stroke.

Although dropping the ball from 4 feet high might indeed recreate a semi-buried lie, not found in original situation, if ball had run into bunker.  Well, OK.  Place ball.

[Fourputt]

Gotta agree with Erik.  OP messed up, accidentally or not, and needs to accept responsibility. Part of the responsible golfer notion is to return situation, as well as possible, to condition prior to mess up.  Allot 8 seconds to fix-up, drop or place ball (i can't say which just now), and play out of sand. Add one stroke.

Although dropping the ball from 4 feet high might indeed recreate a semi-buried lie, not found in original situation, if ball had run into bunker.  Well, OK.  Place ball.

If you are recreating the original lie, then you place the ball.  It would only be if the original lie was not known that the ball would be dropped, but in that case you wouldn't be trying to recreate it either.

[Yukari]

Attempt to recreate the original lie seems okay, but isn't the bunker considered a hazard?  If so, you are not allowed to touch the materials within the hazard.  So wouldn't you be incurring additional penalty trying to recreate the original lie?

[ColinL]

Attempt to recreate the original lie seems okay, but isn't the bunker considered a hazard?  If so, you are not allowed to touch the materials within the hazard.  So wouldn't you be incurring additional penalty trying to recreate the original lie?

Yes, a bunker is a hazard and yes you are not allowed to touch the ground of a hazard if your ball is lying in it. (Rule 13-4).    At the time you are recreating your lie, your ball has been lifted and is not lying in the hazard.

Rule 20-3b(iii) explicitly instructs you to recreate the lie anyway.  How could you be penalised for doing what a Rule tells you to do?

[Highdriver]

Quote:

Yes, a bunker is a hazard and yes you are not allowed to touch the ground of a hazard if your ball is lying in it. (Rule 13-4).    At the time you are recreating your lie, your ball has been lifted and is not lying in the hazard.

But if I read rule 13-4 completely I will learn, that I may not touch the ground in the hazard, if...a ball that is in a hazard or that, having been lifted from a hazard , may be dropped or placed in the hazard ... .

I think, the important point is not, that the ball has been lifted before recreating the lie, but  the words  » Except as provided in the Rules ...«

So the second part of your answer is more convincing for me:

Quote:

Rule 20-3b(iii) explicitly instructs you to recreate the lie anyway.  How could you be penalised for doing what a Rule tells you to do?

[ColinL]

That's right.  Apologies for  a sloppy response.