Did Rollins' ball roll back into its own pitchmark on the fairway at the Buick today?

[Chas]

Interesting scenario at the Buick Invitational today (Sunday). I forget some of the details (e.g. which hole - after the 13th I think), but Rollins' ball lands about 8 iron distance from the green, bounces up and comes down again a few feet to the side, then it rolls back towards its original landing spot and ends up in a pitch mark. Question is, did it end up in its own pitch mark (as Rollins believed, it seems) or that of another ball?

If it was determined to be back in its own pitch mark, Rollins could have taken a free drop - from a fairly nasty plugged lie. If not, he would have to play the ball as it lay. The rules guy was on the radio talking to other rules guys, and they even asked CBS if they had anything on tape. Which they did, but it wasn't definitive - Faldo tried to mark the exact landing spot on the monitor to see if the ball rolled back there, but the camera moved and it didn't work - nice try though Nick.

The decision was that it could not be determined with certainty that the ball was sitting in its own pitch mark, so Rollins could not pick it up and take a free drop.

Rollins then made a superb approach shot from the plugged lie (large divot taken) to maybe 8ft and then sank the putt for a birdie. Nice play there John.

Later: I should add, I thought from looking at repeated plays of the tape that the ball very likely did end up in its own pitch mark. Faldo said the rules guy should have looked around to see if there were any pitch marks nearby. If not, he should have given Rollins the drop. I'm not so sure about that. This should only be allowed if there's no real doubt, which presumably there WAS in the official's mind. A tough judgment call at any rate.

[iacas]

It looked to me like the ball hopped forward and right, then rolled a bit left, so I didn't think it landed in its own pitch mark.

The rule was enforced correctly.

[Chas]

To clarify: since I couldn't say with any certainty that it DID end up in its own hole, I agree with you about the ruling - even though I think it likely did do just that. For this kind of thing, "likely" isn't good enough.

[David in FL]

I think it probably did, but without knowing for sure, I have to agree with the ruling as it stood.

He made a helluva shot afterwards!

[gobluemich]

The thing that interested me the most at first was the rules official asking about the shot. And after John said it was out of the rough the official started asking others for help. So what I'm wondering if this shot was from the fairway not the rough if the official would've granted relief because he must have thought he wouldn't get enough spin out of the rough for that to happen with the ball flight John described. Because really how many times does someone actually see if the ball lands in it's own pitch mark. They would be able to tell if it just landed and plugged without a bounce but then in most cases like that they are playing lift, clean and place anyway.

I think they made the right call because you couldn't prove it was his pitch mark. Even though I'm almost positive it was his own pitch mark. I highly doubt anyone else landed there all day because he was in the rough and behind a tree with his drive so he had to layup. And I doubt anyone else really laid up there all day because it was a par 4. So that's why I believe it was his mark. And just to clarify it was a par not a birdie.

[tjy355]

...

Indeed a superb shot from a skilled professional. These are the kind of shots I like to see from the pros. Contrary to the assertions being made in another thread ("lift, clean and place") that no one wants to see the pros hit from an "unfair" lie, they should always have a perfect lie in the fairway every time.

[superotto80]

I believe it did end up back in his own pitchmark, but it was impossible to prove. Not taking anything away fro the argument but it really didnt matter cause he made a great shot following so it really did nit effecty his score.

[shakogolfer78]

it looked on tape that it rolled back into its original mark because around the ball there wasn't any other pitch mark. Anyway, it all worked out because he played a great pitch anyway.

[Chas]

I think they made the right call because you couldn't prove it was his pitch mark. Even though I'm almost positive it was his own pitch mark. I highly doubt anyone else landed there all day because he was in the rough and behind a tree with his drive so he had to layup. And I doubt anyone else really laid up there all day because it was a par 4. So that's why I believe it was his mark. And just to clarify it was a par not a birdie.

Good point about the layup position - I hadn't thought of that, as affecting the likelihood of another player making that pitch mark. So that likelihood just fell a bit more IMO, but it was still the right decision.

I stand corrected, it was indeed for par not birdie. It must have felt like a birdie to him though - what an up-and-down!!

[zeg]

Wow, quite a story... but when I first read it, I somehow misunderstood "pitch mark" as "divot." I thought, "Wow, maybe I *do* have a chance on the Tour if this guy's 8-iron landed back in his divot."

[Chas]

Now THAT is funny.

When I watched Villegas mishit a greenside bunker shot (ball contacted clubface!) and send it clear across the green and away, I thought to myself, "hey, I can relate to that!". Actually I very rarely do that any more, but I do sometimes take too much sand and leave it in.