Rules question: Improving drop area

In general, no, you can't improve the lie of a drop area (Rule 13-2).  Not sure why they'd make an exception.  Maybe there's a local rule?

The only other logic I can see (and it's a stretch) is the principle that you're entitled to the lie that resulted from your stroke, which allows you to e.g. restore your lie if it's affected by another player's subsequent stroke.  However, it seems inapplicable because it doesn't affect the ball's existing lie, and because it's the player himself who caused the irregularities.  So this is really grasping at straws... it seems like an incorrect decision to me.

Did not see the broadcast but those who did told me that Sergio's ball was embedded in a steep grass covered slope adjacent to the 'bunker'. Thus he was about to drop his ball onto the slope instead of the area he asked permission to be raked. It was evident that his ball would not stop on the grass dcovered area but roll into the sand pit.

Now, the question is: Before dropping a ball is a player allowed to smooth the area outside the dropping area but within the area where his ball might roll onto? Would this be against R13-2 or maybe R1-2? Or is this allowed as the player is not smoothing any area he is about to drop his ball onto (as described in R13-2)? Or is that drop area to include any area where the ball might roll onto?

Don't quote me, but I think it's because you are entitled to the conditions which existed when your ball came to rest.  I know that this is true if anyone or anything other than the player himself causes the change, just not positive if it applies when he did the damage himself.  Apparently the rules official thought that it applied.  I can't think of any other reason for him to be able to improve the area of his drop.  Had those footprints already been there when his ball landed there, then he would not get such relief.

But sand isn't a loose impediment except on the putting green.

The Rules Official made a point to tell him that he could not improve the area of his drop but there was nothing to stop him from improving the area into which the ball might roll after the drop. Qusetionable call.

I was thinking that if this was considered a bunker and he walked into it to view his ball, then he may have restored the bunker back to the way he found it before he technically declared his ball unplayable or embedded.  It would be similar to the player who walks into a bunker to view his ball on the putting green.  He would fix the bunker before he putted.  In this case he fixed the bunker before he took his next action, which just coincidentally happened to be dropping for relief in said area.

I did not see the broadcast and have no decision to back up my answer, but it kind of makes sense.

Good point and he was not improving his line of play or area of drop.

I was thinking that as well but  there are some counter arguments. First, Garcia made the footprints himself AND the ball would apparently roll onto that smoothed area. Even though this are was not a hazard there is certain analogy with R13-4 Exception 2:

2. After making the stroke, if the ball is still in the hazard or has been
lifted from the hazard and may be dropped or placed in the hazard,
the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard, provided nothing is
done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If the ball is
outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil
in the hazard without restriction.

What this paragraph means is that if the player's ball after his next stroke would land on the raked area then the player would be in breach of R13-4. This could easily be seen analogous with Garcia's case.

Also this area could perhaps be seen as his line of play as his ball would end up being played from there.

All in all, IMO it is contrary to the spirit of the game to smooth any area where a dropped ball would roll onto. Removing loose impediments is specifically allowed through the green but smoothing the surface is not allowed on the area where a ball is to be dropped. I wonder if that difference would not apply also to the entire dropping area.

All I can find on this in the rules is that the player may not improve the area where the ball is to be dropped, meaning the area where the ball will hit the ground when released.  I can find nothing that mentions any area where the ball might roll to.  So all I can figure is that is how the rule was read by the RO on the spot.

I feel that this is inconsistent with the intent of the rule, and in my opinion the wording should be changed to include the entire area where the ball could come to rest, but as it reads now, what was done appears to have been technically correct.

Yeah, this explanation makes sense, but does not sit well with me.  It seems like a violation of equity: the rules (apparently) do not contemplate whether you can improve the conditions in an area where your ball may roll after dropping, and most similar rules/interpretations would decidedly not let you improve that area.

Still, the most important lesson here, reinforcing what we learned last week from Harrington's incident: involve the RO.  Reasonable people can apparently disagree on the interpretation of the rules here, so get an interpretation from the one guy whose opinion counts.

Comment to John's article in Freedrop:

Rule 1-2 does not seem to fit into this too well. After all, 1-2 specifically allows a player to influence on the ball by all means according to the Rules. Now, if smoothing the area is allowed by the Rules then the player cannot be in breach of 1-2. On the other hand, if it is NOT allowed, then the player is already in breach of another Rule.

So the final ruling is still missing, IMO.