Loose Impediment - Ball Moved Ruling

[Dave325]

In most cases, I usually play by myself. However, I am also trying to learn the correct rules to the game, while I learn the mechanics of my swing. So, I was playing this past week and ran into a situation that I questioned my decision. 

On a par 5, my second shot came to rest underneath a tree. I had a nice lie and ample room for a good swing. No worries there, except that the ball came to rest perfectly leaning against a branch that had fallen from the tree. Doing a quick evaluation of the rules, I determined this to be "Loose Impediment" as defined in the rules and regulations... and proceeded to remove the branch. However, in this act, the ball oscillated slightly. Now, the "Ball Moved" definition references that the ball changes positions, which it did not in my case. So, I determined that there was no penalty on this hole and took a punch shot to the green. Is this a correct assessment of the situation? And, what if the ball did move to a new resting place when the loose impediment was removed? Would that be a penalty? (Sorry for being so anal about this ruling thing )

 

[Martyn W]

10 minutes ago, Dave325 said:

In most cases, I usually play by myself. However, I am also trying to learn the correct rules to the game, while I learn the mechanics of my swing. So, I was playing this past week and ran into a situation that I questioned my decision. 

On a par 5, my second shot came to rest underneath a tree. I had a nice lie and ample room for a good swing. No worries there, except that the ball came to rest perfectly leaning against a branch that had fallen from the tree. Doing a quick evaluation of the rules, I determined this to be "Loose Impediment" as defined in the rules and regulations... and proceeded to remove the branch. However, in this act, the ball oscillated slightly. Now, the "Ball Moved" definition references that the ball changes positions, which it did not in my case. So, I determined that there was no penalty on this hole and took a punch shot to the green. Is this a correct assessment of the situation? And, what if the ball did move to a new resting place when the loose impediment was removed? Would that be a penalty? (Sorry for being so anal about this ruling thing )

 

You proceeded correctly, although if there is any doubt about the ball having moved, the ruling would go against the player. If the ball moves it must be replaced with a one stroke penalty under Rule 18.

Take a look at this new decision, revised this year:

18/4

 

Television Evidence Shows Ball at Rest Changed Position But by Amount Not Reasonably Discernible to Naked Eye

Q.A player addresses his ball. He observes a slight motion of the ball but believes that it has only oscillated and has not left its original position. He therefore plays the ball as it lies. Later, the Committee becomes aware from television evidence that the ball had in fact left its position and come to rest in another place, although that change of position was such that it was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time of the incident. What is the ruling?

A.The ball is deemed not to have moved and therefore there is no penalty under Rule 18-2. The Definition of "Moved" - when a ball "leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place" - does not contemplate movements of the ball that are only discernible through the use of high definition television or any other form of sophisticated technology.

When determining whether or not his ball at rest has moved, a player must make that judgment based on all the information readily available to him at the time, so that he can determine whether the ball must be replaced under Rule 18-2 or another applicable Rule. When the player's ball has left its original position and come to rest in another place by an amount that was not reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, a player's determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed to be conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through the use of sophisticated technology.

On the other hand, if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball is deemed to have moved. As the player did not replace the ball, he incurs a penalty under the applicable Rule and Rule 20-7c for playing from a wrong place.

These principles apply to any review of technological evidence by the Committee, whether before the player makes his next stroke or any time thereafter. These principles also apply in a situation in which the player made no determination whether or not his ball at rest moved (e.g., because he had walked away from his ball after addressing it, was not looking at his ball, or otherwise did not observe any motion of the ball or have any reason to believe that his ball might have moved).

Before determining whether his ball has moved, it is advisable for the player to obtain information from nearby witnesses to the incident and to seek guidance from a referee if one is immediately available. (Revised)

Edited January 9, 2016 by Martyn W
added reference

[ColinL]

Well done, Dave. 

[Dave325]

4 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

You proceeded correctly, although if there is any doubt about the ball having moved, the ruling would go against the player. If the ball moves it must be replaced with a one stroke penalty under Rule 18.

Thanks for the quick reply, So, the ball can oscillate slightly... As long as it doesn't change positions? At what point would a qualified official determine that it "changed positions" .... 1/16 of an inch, one inch, two inches?  Sounds a bit like the end of Legend of Bagger Vance, I know.

4 minutes ago, ColinL said:

Well done, Dave. 

Thanks

[Martyn W]

Just now, Dave325 said:

Thanks for the quick reply, So, the ball can oscillate slightly... As long as it doesn't change positions? At what point would a qualified official determine that it "changed positions" .... 1/16 of an inch, one inch, two inches?  Sounds a bit like the end of Legend of Bagger Vance, I know.

The benchmark is "discernable to the naked eye"

[Dave325]

13 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

The benchmark is "discernable to the naked eye"

Thanks for the information on the ruling, Martyn. So, let's say that the ball was laying against that same branch on an incline. In other words, there is no way to remover the branch without the ball moving to a different lie. As a player, then my only choice is to either take a swing at the ball and branch.... Or, take a drop and a penalty... Or, risk moving the branch and having the ball move with a penalty. Is this correct?

I thought there was something in there above that the player could replace it to the original location under Rule 18-2, correct? So, if I move the branch... The ball moves.... Replace the ball to the place where it first landed, and there is no penalty? Did I read that right?

[Martyn W]

18 minutes ago, Dave325 said:

 

I thought there was something in there above that the player could replace it to the original location under Rule 18-2, correct? So, if I move the branch... The ball moves.... Replace the ball to the place where it first landed, and there is no penalty? Did I read that right?

You MUST replace the ball and there is a penalty. Any time the ball has been move by anything other than a stroke, it must be replaced. If you (the player) caused the ball to move (see 18-2) there is a penalty. There are a couple of exceptions (moving a movable obstruction, for example), but moving a LI is not one of them.

On a side note, the word 'must' in the Rules tells you that there is a penalty attached if you fail to comply.In this case it would be one stroke for causing the ball to move and an additional stroke if you fail to replace it.

[Dave325]

1 minute ago, Martyn W said:

You MUST replace the ball and there is a penalty. Any time the ball has been move by anything other than a stroke, it must be replaced. If you (the player) caused the ball to move (see 18-2) there is a penalty. There are a couple of exceptions (moving a movable obstruction, for example), but moving a LI is not one of them.

On a side note, the word 'must' in the Rules tells you that there is a penalty attached if you fail to comply.In this case it would be one stroke for causing the ball to move and an additional stroke if you fail to replace it.

Ah, very good explanation! Thanks, Martyn!

[DrvFrShow]

I've wondered about this too, because I've had a loose impediment move the ball or moved the ball only when I've lightly grounded the club only to have it return to its original position afterward. I've not assessed a stroke because it returned to its original position without me touching it. 

I think what they're talking about is if you can tell if it moved after you've moved something around it. I'd say that's about 1/4" or so. 

Also, if you take a practice swing that moves a loose impediment, and that object moves your ball, you must replace your ball and take a one stroke penalty 18-2/20.5. Hence it is always a good idea to make your practice swings 90 degrees from your ball and from a few feet behind your ball. Chances of screwing up your lie are then minimized.

PS: This is a bit OT.... I'm trying to find that ruling that affect the ball on the putting green where a gust of wind moves the ball after you've addressed it. While it might not happen on our local dog tracks, on some courses that have upped the stimp in the summer months on a windy day we could see this. Wind is not an outside agency. 

Edited January 9, 2016 by DrvFrShow

[Rulesman]

See this new decision introduced this year after Rule 18-2b was removed. 18-2b was about a ball moving after address)

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5

 

[DrvFrShow]

50 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

See this new decision introduced this year after Rule 18-2b was removed. 18-2b was about a ball moving after address)

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5

 

Thank you. I remember Lydia Ko talking about being penalized for this when the wind moved her ball on the putting green after address. Now this will no longer be the case. 

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

Thank you. I remember Lydia Ko talking about being penalized for this when the wind moved her ball on the putting green after address. Now this will no longer be the case. 

Not sure what you're referring to?  As of Jan 1, 2012, there was no penalty if it was known or virtually certain that the wind moved your ball after address.

 

[DrvFrShow]

22 hours ago, rogolf said:

Not sure what you're referring to?  As of Jan 1, 2012, there was no penalty if it was known or virtually certain that the wind moved your ball after address.

 

IIRC she mentioned it was in her amateur days.

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

IIRC she mentioned it was in her amateur days.

It had to be before Jan 1, 2012 so she would have been 14 at most!

[ColinL]

 

5 hours ago, rogolf said:

It had to be before Jan 1, 2012 so she would have been 14 at most!

Not a problem for one as precocious as Lydia Ko.  She competed in the NZ Amateur Championships in 2005 .... aged 7!

[DrvFrShow]

I think she played in her first professional event at the age of 14 on February 9, 2012.

Edited January 11, 2016 by DrvFrShow