Ball moved after marking/replacing on green before being addressed

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No, the decision must be made by the player after examining all of the facts, according to the rules.  If the player has approached the ball, and lacking any possible outside influence, the issue is normally going to be resolved against the player.  That is how the decision quoted by Rulesman reads.  If you are 50 yards away and the ball moves without any apparent reason, then you are not deemed to be the cause.  If you are 3 feet away and the ball moves without any apparent outside influence, then you had better examine everything you have done since getting in the vicinity of the ball.  If you see the ball in some sort of precarious lie, be very cautious when moving around near it and setting up for the shot.  It's only about 10 years back that Rule 23 was changed.  Before that if you moved a loose impediment, no matter where it was located, and your ball moved afterward, then you were deemed to have been the cause.  That phrase has been removed from the rule.  Now there must be reason to believe thatt he removal of the loose impediment was the cause.  However, even if the removal was not the cause, you may still be deemed to have caused it just by being in the vicinity... it's a difficult one to rule on unless you are on the spot when it happens.  That's why the onus of making the determination usually lies with the player.

Is the difference between 78 and 79 really that big a deal?

You seem to give rulings for extremely obvious cases, but not mine.

I wasn`t 50 yards from the ball (THAT WAS ON THE GREEN, NO LOOSE IMPEDIMENTS OR OBVIOUSLY PRECARIOUS LIES INVOLVED), but there were potential outside influences (light wind that was blowing downhill, the direction the ball moved).  So maybe it was my practice stroke, maybe gravity or maybe wind (or a combination).

This seems like a pretty straight forward situation and everyone is telling me that it is not rocket science, but so far none of our resident rules experts have said what the definitive ruling is (whether they were the official or ruling for themselves if they were the player).  AM I LOOKING AT A ONE OR TWO STROKE PENALTY?  (Remember, I replaced the ball back to the original spot and this is where I putted from and completed the hole)

Maybe I should just forget about the one or two stroke penalty and post a 77.  Would that be permitted in tournament play?

I said in my previous post that sometimes you just have to be there.  You say that you made a practice stroke.  Was that close enough to the ball to have deflected the wind toward the ball?  If so then you caused the ball to move, even though the actual agency was the wind.  I can't say any more definitively than that, because I wasn't there and I didn't witness the event.

In a competition, I'd have played it both ways by using a second ball under Rule 3-3 and let the committee decide.  That way you wouldn't have to worry about a 2 stroke penalty - it would be either one stroke or none.  I'd play one ball from where the ball rolled to and claim that as the ball I wanted to count (no penalty if that procedure is approved by the committee), then I'd have played a second ball from the original spot under a one stroke penalty.  These are the only two possible correct procedures, so it's a fail safe way to go.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I said in my previous post that sometimes you just have to be there.  You say that you made a practice stroke.  Was that close enough to the ball to have deflected the wind toward the ball?  If so then you caused the ball to move, even though the actual agency was the wind.  I can't say any more definitively than that, because I wasn't there and I didn't witness the event.

In a competition, I'd have played it both ways by using a second ball under Rule 3-3 and let the committee decide.  That way you wouldn't have to worry about a 2 stroke penalty - it would be either one stroke or none.  I'd play one ball from where the ball rolled to and claim that as the ball I wanted to count (no penalty if that procedure is approved by the committee), then I'd have played a second ball from the original spot under a one stroke penalty.  These are the only two possible correct procedures, so it's a fail safe way to go.

But if, as in your first paragraph, you can't rule because you weren't there and didn't witness it, how can the Committee, per your second paragraph, rule on the situation when THEY weren't there and THEY didn't witness it?  How would the Committee go about making a decision on this kind of case?  This is a serious question for me as I am the newly installed Rules Chair of my club and may be put in this kind of situation someday.

Thanks.

[zeg]

One thing that you could consider in the case of replacing a lifted ball is that the grass on the green can sometimes shift after being replaced. I've had times on a slope (sometimes only a very small one) when it takes a few tries to get the ball to settle where it needs to be placed. In cases like that, I have seen the ball settle for a short time---long enough that it was at rest after being replaced---and then the grass gives a little and it rolls off.

I wasn't there, so can't tell you whether this applies, but in cases like that---where I'd had trouble getting it to sit still---I would be very inclined to conclude that the ball had simply settled a bit further and essentially the grass giving way was the cause of the motion. Even if I had been setting up nearby, unless the motion occurred almost immediately after a stomp or after setting something on the green, I think it would be hard to think I'd really caused the motion. My experience has told me that it's common for balls to move apparently on their own in that situation.

Of course, that depends on the situation. If the green were one of those "trampoline" ones I've sometimes encountered, where you can just feel the turf tugging as you walk around, that might affect things. In the end, I think you just have to be honest with yourself. Did you cause it? Are you (or would you be) comfortable telling a rules official, "No, I did not do anything that caused that ball to move," I think that's just got to be good enough. No sense getting hung up on it more than that. It's important to get right, but occasional errors are going to be made. Just do your best.

Originally Posted by turtleback

But if, as in your first paragraph, you can't rule because you weren't there and didn't witness it, how can the Committee, per your second paragraph, rule on the situation when THEY weren't there and THEY didn't witness it?  How would the Committee go about making a decision on this kind of case?  This is a serious question for me as I am the newly installed Rules Chair of my club and may be put in this kind of situation someday.

Thanks.

I've not been personally involved, so this is based on the couple of times I've seen rules officials doing their thing on TV. It seems they ask the players / witnesses about what was seen, and then if it's clear cut would issue a ruling. If it's not clear cut, I've seen them basically tell the player what the conditions are, and basically tell them to decide. So it's not that different from the answers here as far as I can tell. If the player's decision was inconsistent with the other available evidence, they might overrule him, but if they've determined that there's no other way to determine it, then the player's (hopefully honest) assessment of the events would be all they've got.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by turtleback

But if, as in your first paragraph, you can't rule because you weren't there and didn't witness it, how can the Committee, per your second paragraph, rule on the situation when THEY weren't there and THEY didn't witness it?  How would the Committee go about making a decision on this kind of case?  This is a serious question for me as I am the newly installed Rules Chair of my club and may be put in this kind of situation someday.

Thanks.

The Decision 18-2b/11 gives good guidance here, pls. refer to it in it's entirety. This Dec in a nut shell says that there must be evidence of another agency having caused the ball to move. So in order to make a ruling one has to weigh all the relevant facts. Wind is nowadays often referred as an agency (due to the change in R18-2b) but I would like to emphasize that this is the case rather seldom and in special circumstances on very fast greens. So it is not something that happens every day at every club, not at all.

Whether wind has caused the ball to move is in most, if not all in cases not so hard to determine. A steady wind hardly ever moves a ball from the position it took after a shot but sudden gusts of wind may do that. The effect of wind may be noticed already before the first incident as balls tend to oscillate due to wind. Oscillating balls are a good evidence that wind indeed may have been the cause. Under steady wind conditions with no observations of oscillation it is not very plausible that the wind has been the agency causing the ball to move. So all observations of the ball behaviour before the incident are extremely valuable, also from other groups already having played the particular green in question.

It is not always possible to determine the agency with reasonable certainty and then it is up to the referee to give the ruling. He is no magician so he just has to rely on the facts, Rules and his perception as well as possible other similar incidents enountered during the same competition. But in the end, if it is not known or virtually certain that another agency (other than gravity) has caused the ball to move after address then the player has done it . In overwhelming majority of the cases the player is responsible, directly or indirectly.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by MEfree

After marking/replacing my ball on the green today, it moved while I was taking a practice stroke.  I had not addressed the ball-

1.  Is there a penalty?

2.  Does it need to be replaced?

3.  Assuming the answer to 2 is NO what is there a penalty for replacing the ball?

I thought I would find this easily in the rules, but after skimming 16, 18, 20 and 21 I am still not sure.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Ignorant

The Decision 18-2b/11 gives good guidance here, pls. refer to it in it's entirety. This Dec in a nut shell says that there must be evidence of another agency having caused the ball to move. So in order to make a ruling one has to weigh all the relevant facts. Wind is nowadays often referred as an agency (due to the change in R18-2b) but I would like to emphasize that this is the case rather seldom and in special circumstances on very fast greens. So it is not something that happens every day at every club, not at all.

Whether wind has caused the ball to move is in most, if not all in cases not so hard to determine. A steady wind hardly ever moves a ball from the position it took after a shot but sudden gusts of wind may do that. The effect of wind may be noticed already before the first incident as balls tend to oscillate due to wind. Oscillating balls are a good evidence that wind indeed may have been the cause. Under steady wind conditions with no observations of oscillation it is not very plausible that the wind has been the agency causing the ball to move. So all observations of the ball behaviour before the incident are extremely valuable, also from other groups already having played the particular green in question.

It is not always possible to determine the agency with reasonable certainty and then it is up to the referee to give the ruling. He is no magician so he just has to rely on the facts, Rules and his perception as well as possible other similar incidents enountered during the same competition. But in the end, if it is not known or virtually certain that another agency (other than gravity) has caused the ball to move after address then the player has done it. In overwhelming majority of the cases the player is responsible, directly or indirectly.

I thought it made a difference whether you had addressed the ball or not...In my case, I had NOT addressed the ball which is one reason I had not bothered reading decision 18-2b/11.  Looking at all of the decisions relating to rule 18 provides evidence that it is a badly structured rule that has WAY TOO MANY NUANCES THAT ARE REALLY NOT IMPORTANT TO THE ESSENCE OR INTEGRITY OF THE GAME.  A good clear cut rule would not need to have so many decisions and would not have so many decisions (12) that have been reversed.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I said in my previous post that sometimes you just have to be there.  You say that you made a practice stroke.  Was that close enough to the ball to have deflected the wind toward the ball?  If so then you caused the ball to move, even though the actual agency was the wind.  I can't say any more definitively than that, because I wasn't there and I didn't witness the event.

In a competition, I'd have played it both ways by using a second ball under Rule 3-3 and let the committee decide.  That way you wouldn't have to worry about a 2 stroke penalty - it would be either one stroke or none.  I'd play one ball from where the ball rolled to and claim that as the ball I wanted to count (no penalty if that procedure is approved by the committee), then I'd have played a second ball from the original spot under a one stroke penalty.  These are the only two possible correct procedures, so it's a fail safe way to go.

But if, as in your first paragraph, you can't rule because you weren't there and didn't witness it, how can the Committee, per your second paragraph, rule on the situation when THEY weren't there and THEY didn't witness it?  How would the Committee go about making a decision on this kind of case?  This is a serious question for me as I am the newly installed Rules Chair of my club and may be put in this kind of situation someday.

Thanks.

That is part of their job.  In a case like this they weigh all of the information available and make a decision based on that.  If the facts aren't overwhelmingly in favor of the player, then the ruling usually goes against the player.  They can't award him a bonus based on insufficient data because that would be unfair to the rest of the field.  The committee isn't there to be nice guys - they are there to manage the competition.  Sometimes that means they have to make a harsh ruling.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by MEfree

After marking/replacing my ball on the green today, it moved while I was taking a practice stroke.  I had not addressed the ball-

1.  Is there a penalty?

2.  Does it need to be replaced?

3.  Assuming the answer to 2 is NO what is there a penalty for replacing the ball?

I thought I would find this easily in the rules, but after skimming 16, 18, 20 and 21 I am still not sure.

Thanks

Providing it is certain that you did not cause the ball to move there is no penalty and the ball must be played from where it finished.

If you replace it then there is a penalty of one stroke for moving your ball and another if you don't put it back where it rolled to.

1) The implication in your post was that you moved it. You have no need to read further than 18-2a.

2) If you didn't and you don't find anything in Rule 18 that applies, then you simply pay it as it lies. Rule 18 is the rule for a ball at rest which is moved. As there isn't a 'sub-rule' that covers it then just carry on.

I don't think the rule could be any simpler in your case.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

After marking/replacing my ball on the green today, it moved while I was taking a practice stroke.  I had not addressed the ball-

1.  Is there a penalty?

2.  Does it need to be replaced?

3.  Assuming the answer to 2 is NO what is there a penalty for replacing the ball?

I thought I would find this easily in the rules, but after skimming 16, 18, 20 and 21 I am still not sure.

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

The Decision 18-2b/11 gives good guidance here, pls. refer to it in it's entirety. This Dec in a nut shell says that there must be evidence of another agency having caused the ball to move. So in order to make a ruling one has to weigh all the relevant facts. Wind is nowadays often referred as an agency (due to the change in R18-2b) but I would like to emphasize that this is the case rather seldom and in special circumstances on very fast greens. So it is not something that happens every day at every club, not at all.

Whether wind has caused the ball to move is in most, if not all in cases not so hard to determine. A steady wind hardly ever moves a ball from the position it took after a shot but sudden gusts of wind may do that. The effect of wind may be noticed already before the first incident as balls tend to oscillate due to wind. Oscillating balls are a good evidence that wind indeed may have been the cause. Under steady wind conditions with no observations of oscillation it is not very plausible that the wind has been the agency causing the ball to move. So all observations of the ball behaviour before the incident are extremely valuable, also from other groups already having played the particular green in question.

It is not always possible to determine the agency with reasonable certainty and then it is up to the referee to give the ruling. He is no magician so he just has to rely on the facts, Rules and his perception as well as possible other similar incidents enountered during the same competition. But in the end, if it is not known or virtually certain that another agency (other than gravity) has caused the ball to move after address then the player has done it. In overwhelming majority of the cases the player is responsible, directly or indirectly.

I thought it made a difference whether you had addressed the ball or not...In my case, I had NOT addressed the ball which is one reason I had not bothered reading decision 18-2b/11.  Looking at all of the decisions relating to rule 18 provides evidence that it is a badly structured rule that has WAY TOO MANY NUANCES THAT ARE REALLY NOT IMPORTANT TO THE ESSENCE OR INTEGRITY OF THE GAME.  A good clear cut rule would not need to have so many decisions and would not have so many decisions (12) that have been reversed.

There is nothing wrong with the way the rule is structured.  In a case where the situation isn't cut and dried, then the player or the committee uses it's best judgement based on the available evidence.  That evidence must weigh heavily in the player's favor or the ruling goes against him.  That's all there is to it.  If you are standing 5 feet from the ball lying on the green, haven't done anything to cause it to move, then it gets chalked up to gravity, or the flexibility of grass, or whatever, and you play the ball from that spot.  Such a ruling may even depend on how long the ball was in position before it moved.  Here is a possible investigative process for a ball moving on the putting green:

The ball moved.

Was it on a slope?

Was there any wind?

Was the player near the ball directly before or during the movement?

Did the player take any action near the ball directly before the movement?

Did the player lift and replace the ball?

Did the player move any loose impediments near the ball?

Did the player make a practice stroke near the ball directly before the movement?

There could also be some sub-questions depending on the answers to those questions, but that is how I'd go about it.

Based on the answers to those questions, you would know whether or not the ball needed to be replaced, and whether or not the player would be deemed to have caused the ball to move, and what penalty (if any) should be applied).  Once again, unless there is enough evidence to assure virtual certainty that the movement was caused by an agency other than the player, the ruling would have to deem him as the cause.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Providing it is certain that you did not cause the ball to move there is no penalty and the ball must be played from where it finished.

If you replace it then there is a penalty of one stroke for moving your ball and another if you don't put it back where it rolled to.

1) The implication in your post was that you moved it. You have no need to read further than 18-2a.

2) If you didn't and you don't find anything in Rule 18 that applies, then you simply pay it as it lies. Rule 18 is the rule for a ball at rest which is moved. As there isn't a 'sub-rule' that covers it then just carry on.

I don't think the rule could be any simpler in your case.

I think the complication in the rule is in your first statement.  How can a player ever be certain of the cause unless they touched the ball?  I think it is unlikely that I caused the ball to move as Zeg's case

Originally Posted by zeg

One thing that you could consider in the case of replacing a lifted ball is that the grass on the green can sometimes shift after being replaced. I've had times on a slope (sometimes only a very small one) when it takes a few tries to get the ball to settle where it needs to be placed. In cases like that, I have seen the ball settle for a short time---long enough that it was at rest after being replaced---and then the grass gives a little and it rolls off.

I wasn't there, so can't tell you whether this applies, but in cases like that---where I'd had trouble getting it to sit still---I would be very inclined to conclude that the ball had simply settled a bit further and essentially the grass giving way was the cause of the motion. Even if I had been setting up nearby, unless the motion occurred almost immediately after a stomp or after setting something on the green, I think it would be hard to think I'd really caused the motion. My experience has told me that it's common for balls to move apparently on their own in that situation.

or wind seem to be the most obvious explanations.  Of course, if it was wind, do I have to consider what Fourputt said

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I said in my previous post that sometimes you just have to be there.  You say that you made a practice stroke.  Was that close enough to the ball to have deflected the wind toward the ball?  If so then you caused the ball to move, even though the actual agency was the wind.  I can't say any more definitively than that, because I wasn't there and I didn't witness the event.

while I don`t think the wind from my practice stroke caused the ball to move, I am 6' 3"/190 lbs so my mere presence might cause the wind to bounce off me or redirect towards the ball.  Unless the player is a meteorologist with a PHD in physics, how could they even begin to speculate about this being a cause.  I am neither and think it would be dishonest of me to begin to think that I might be right about the exact causes of the ball moving in this situation.

In this situation, saying you have to be there to make a ruling is a cop out.  I have describe the relevant factors of the situation and don`t see how being there would yield any relevant evidence that I have not presented above.  FWIW, I did not fill in my card (on the cart steering wheel) or tell the guy I was sharing the cart with what score I made, but he wrote me down for a 4 (no penalty) even though I announced the ball moved and he saw me move it back..  He was there but still got this wrong (as I either got a one stroke penalty for causing the ball to move or a 1+1 stroke penalty for incorrectly moving the ball back and playing it from the wrong spot.

The rule could be much simpler if it said a player who had not addressed his ball was only responsible for causing it to move if he touched the ball (directly or indirectly).  This would eliminate the need to figure out if the player might have redirected the wind or if the vibrations from his footsteps/practice swing may have caused the ball to move.  To me, it seems obvious that if a ball moved because a player redirected the wind with his practice swing, then the ball must not have been all that settled in the first place, so why penalize the player?  What advantage has the player gained?

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There is nothing wrong with the way the rule is structured.  In a case where the situation isn't cut and dried, then the player or the committee uses it's best judgement based on the available evidence.  That evidence must weigh heavily in the player's favor or the ruling goes against him.  That's all there is to it.  If you are standing 5 feet from the ball lying on the green, haven't done anything to cause it to move, then it gets chalked up to gravity, or the flexibility of grass, or whatever, and you play the ball from that spot.  Such a ruling may even depend on how long the ball was in position before it moved.  Here is a possible investigative process for a ball moving on the putting green:

The ball moved.

Was it on a slope? Yes (and the ball moved downhill)

Was there any wind? Yes (mostly light but inconsistent/gusty in the direction the ball moved)

Was the player near the ball directly before or during the movement? Yes

Did the player take any action near the ball directly before the movement? Yes, 2 Practice Strokes

Did the player lift and replace the ball?  Yes

Did the player move any loose impediments near the ball? No

Did the player make a practice stroke near the ball directly before the movement? Yes, 2 normal putting strokes for downhill 25 footer...neither was  fat, so at most they lightly brushed the grass.

There could also be some sub-questions depending on the answers to those questions, but that is how I'd go about it.

Based on the answers to those questions, you would know whether or not the ball needed to be replaced, and whether or not the player would be deemed to have caused the ball to move, and what penalty (if any) should be applied).  Once again, unless there is enough evidence to assure virtual certainty that the movement was caused by an agency other than the player, the ruling would have to deem him as the cause.

Based on my answers, if you were me, what ruling would you have made for yourself?

[Fourputt]

After replacing the ball was it truly at rest for at least 15 or 20 seconds before you made your practice strokes?  I've seen a ball move in that situation after 15 seconds had passed just from the grass settling so slowly that it was impossible to tell that it was not actually at rest.  I'm thinking that from all you have said, that it's entirely probable that the environmental conditions caused the movement, but I can't factor in the green speed or turf as I wasn't there (and I would need to see the green and base such an evaluation on my own experience), so I can't say if it is virtually certain.

For handicap, I'd play the ball as it lies from where it ended up unless you feel that it's possible that it was never at rest after you replaced it.  If you feel that it was never really at rest, then the ball should have been replaced.  If it was at rest and nothing you did could have caused it to move, then you play it as it lies.  In either of those cases, there is no penalty if done as I stated.

As I've said several times, this is sometimes a judgement call, and in a casual round just being returned for handicap,  I'd not agonize over it.  If it was in a competition, then I'd play a ball from each position, declaring which one I want to count before playing either one, and let the committee make the decision.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

After replacing the ball was it truly at rest for at least 15 or 20 seconds before you made your practice strokes?  I've seen a ball move in that situation after 15 seconds had passed just from the grass settling so slowly that it was impossible to tell that it was not actually at rest.  I'm thinking that from all you have said, that it's entirely probable that the environmental conditions caused the movement, but I can't factor in the green speed or turf as I wasn't there (and I would need to see the green and base such an evaluation on my own experience), so I can't say if it is virtually certain.

For handicap, I'd play the ball as it lies from where it ended up unless you feel that it's possible that it was never at rest after you replaced it.  If you feel that it was never really at rest, then the ball should have been replaced.  If it was at rest and nothing you did could have caused it to move, then you play it as it lies.  In either of those cases, there is no penalty if done as I stated.

As I've said several times, this is sometimes a judgement call, and in a casual round just being returned for handicap,  I'd not agonize over it.  If it was in a competition, then I'd play a ball from each position, declaring which one I want to count before playing either one, and let the committee make the decision.

Thanks.

I don`t recall saying that it was at rest for at least 15 or 20 seconds, but it may have been.  I was the first to putt and pace of play was not fast.  I don`t recall if I marked the ball, gave it a quick cleaning and replaced it before reading the putt or if I marked the ball and kept it with me while I was reading the putt.  However, I at least one other putt this week where the ball did not want to seem to stay where I was trying to replace it to and this certainly did not seem to be the case here.  It didn`t occur to me, but I suppose it is possible that the grass was settling so slowly that the ball never was at rest.  With this, it seems like you have introduced a 3rd possibility, although I may be misreading this.

I want to make sure that I understand this going forward.  Am I correct that there are 3 possibilities when a ball moves after being replaced on the green but before the player has addressed it-

1. The player caused a ball at rest to move- 1 stroke penalty and replace the ball to the original location.

2. The player did NOT cause a ball at rest to move- No penalty, play the ball from the new location.

3. The replaced ball was never actually at rest- would this be no penalty and replace the ball to the original location?

If I have this right, For handicap, I think I will just post it as a 78 and move on, but I also have a question about rule 3-3.  Do you play 3 balls if there are 3 possibilities?  What counts as a separate possibilitie- i.e. 1 and 3 above are both played from the same location but lying different amounts...would you need to play 2 balls from the same location or just play 1 ball and find out later if there were any penalty strokes or not.?

I appreciate the help you and Rulesman provide on this forum, but have to strongly disagree with anyone who feels that this rule is as simple and straightforward as it could be.

If guys get a chance, could you enlighten us with your wisdom on the hole in one thread I created about balls moving on the green.  I thought I understood the pertinent rules when I posted it in the general section and was just looking for other players opinions, but now I am not certain http://thesandtrap.com/t/62412/hole-in-one#post_772905 Thanks

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

After replacing the ball was it truly at rest for at least 15 or 20 seconds before you made your practice strokes?  I've seen a ball move in that situation after 15 seconds had passed just from the grass settling so slowly that it was impossible to tell that it was not actually at rest.  I'm thinking that from all you have said, that it's entirely probable that the environmental conditions caused the movement, but I can't factor in the green speed or turf as I wasn't there (and I would need to see the green and base such an evaluation on my own experience), so I can't say if it is virtually certain.

For handicap, I'd play the ball as it lies from where it ended up unless you feel that it's possible that it was never at rest after you replaced it.  If you feel that it was never really at rest, then the ball should have been replaced.  If it was at rest and nothing you did could have caused it to move, then you play it as it lies.  In either of those cases, there is no penalty if done as I stated.

As I've said several times, this is sometimes a judgement call, and in a casual round just being returned for handicap,  I'd not agonize over it.  If it was in a competition, then I'd play a ball from each position, declaring which one I want to count before playing either one, and let the committee make the decision.

Thanks.

I don`t recall saying that it was at rest for at least 15 or 20 seconds, but it may have been.  I was the first to putt and pace of play was not fast.  I don`t recall if I marked the ball, gave it a quick cleaning and replaced it before reading the putt or if I marked the ball and kept it with me while I was reading the putt.  However, I at least one other putt this week where the ball did not want to seem to stay where I was trying to replace it to and this certainly did not seem to be the case here.  It didn`t occur to me, but I suppose it is possible that the grass was settling so slowly that the ball never was at rest.  With this, it seems like you have introduced a 3rd possibility, although I may be misreading this.

I want to make sure that I understand this going forward.  Am I correct that there are 3 possibilities when a ball moves after being replaced on the green but before the player has addressed it-

1. The player caused a ball at rest to move- 1 stroke penalty and replace the ball to the original location.

2. The player did NOT cause a ball at rest to move- No penalty, play the ball from the new location.

3. The replaced ball was never actually at rest- would this be no penalty and replace the ball to the original location?

If I have this right, For handicap, I think I will just post it as a 78 and move on, but I also have a question about rule 3-3.  Do you play 3 balls if there are 3 possibilities?  What counts as a separate possibilitie- i.e. 1 and 3 above are both played from the same location but lying different amounts...would you need to play 2 balls from the same location or just play 1 ball and find out later if there were any penalty strokes or not.?

I appreciate the help you and Rulesman provide on this forum, but have to strongly disagree with anyone who feels that this rule is as simple and straightforward as it could be.

If guys get a chance, could you enlighten us with your wisdom on the hole in one thread I created about balls moving on the green.  I thought I understood the pertinent rules when I posted it in the general section and was just looking for other players opinions, but now I am not certain http://thesandtrap.com/t/62412/hole-in-one#post_772905  Thanks

Under Rule 3-3 you can only play 2 balls.  You play one as you think that you want to play it, under the rules as you see them.  Then you play a second ball ball using a procedure which you know is correct, even if potentially less favorable.  If you play both balls under a questionable procedure and the committee denies both, then you have no valid score for the hole unless one of the balls qualifies as being played from a wrong place with no significant advantage gained.  In that case you would be stuck with a 2 stroke penalty, but at least no DQ.  Rule 3-3 isn't a guaranteed sure thing.  It's just a way to keep playing when there is a question or uncertainty about a rule or procedure and no on course rules official you can call.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Based on my answers, if you were me, what ruling would you have made for yourself?

I'd have ruled you DQ for obnoxiously posting 20 pages of decisions in the middle of a thread.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Under Rule 3-3 you can only play 2 balls.  You play one as you think that you want to play it, under the rules as you see them.  Then you play a second ball ball using a procedure which you know is correct, even if potentially less favorable.  If you play both balls under a questionable procedure and the committee denies both, then you have no valid score for the hole unless one of the balls qualifies as being played from a wrong place with no significant advantage gained.  In that case you would be stuck with a 2 stroke penalty, but at least no DQ.  Rule 3-3 isn't a guaranteed sure thing.  It's just a way to keep playing when there is a question or uncertainty about a rule or procedure and no on course rules official you can call.

ok, but am I correct about the 3 potential scenarios?  Can one ball cover two potential scenarios that both have the ball being played from the same place (even if they would be lying a different amount)?

[turtleback]

Thanks to those who responded to my question.

I had a related situation occur just today.,  I hit my drive in the fairway (a rare occurrence, lol) and as I drove the cart to a spot about 10 feet to the right of the ball I saw the ball roll back about a half a ball, right into a divot.  I concluded that I didn't do anything to cause the ball to move since it happened when I, and my cart,  were 10 feet away.  But I wished I was able to replace it, which I couldn't.  I hate hitting out of divots.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Under Rule 3-3 you can only play 2 balls.  You play one as you think that you want to play it, under the rules as you see them.  Then you play a second ball ball using a procedure which you know is correct, even if potentially less favorable.  If you play both balls under a questionable procedure and the committee denies both, then you have no valid score for the hole unless one of the balls qualifies as being played from a wrong place with no significant advantage gained.  In that case you would be stuck with a 2 stroke penalty, but at least no DQ.  Rule 3-3 isn't a guaranteed sure thing.  It's just a way to keep playing when there is a question or uncertainty about a rule or procedure and no on course rules official you can call.

ok, but am I correct about the 3 potential scenarios?  Can one ball cover two potential scenarios that both have the ball being played from the same place (even if they would be lying a different amount)?

Yes.  I answered that a couple of posts back. See my post #19.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yes.  I answered that a couple of posts back. See my post #19.

Ok, so 2 balls could cover more than 2 possible outcomes assuming that there are multiple outcomes (i.e. penalty vs no penalty) from the same position.

Am I correct about the 3 possible scenarios that I laid out in my post #30?  I am pretty sure I have the first two right, but am not certain about the 3rd (which your post #29 seemed to introduce).

Originally Posted by MEfree

I want to make sure that I understand this going forward.  Am I correct that there are 3 possibilities when a ball moves after being replaced on the green but before the player has addressed it-

1. The player caused a ball at rest to move- 1 stroke penalty and replace the ball to the original location.

2. The player did NOT cause a ball at rest to move- No penalty, play the ball from the new location.

3. The replaced ball was never actually at rest- would this be no penalty and replace the ball to the original location?