Ball in a rolled up leaf inside bunker

[andyh]

Hi,

Hope I can get some help with this.

Today I hit my shot straight down the fairway and it landed inside a rolled up leaf in a fairway bunker. The leaf was rolled up like a tube and the ball rolled into it. We could not find the ball and started lifting leaves in the area. I picked this leaf up and the ball rolled out?

I replaced the ball and played on. After the game we checked the rules and it seems that I should have been penalized 1 shot.

That seems really harsh but is that the correct ruling?

thks

andy

[wadesworld]

Yep, 1-stroke penalty.  Sucks, but that's the rule.

b . Searching for or Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard

In a hazard , if the player’s ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments to the extent that he cannot find or identify it, he may, without penalty, touch or move loose impediments in order to find or identify the ball. If the ball is found or identified as his, the player must replace the loose impediments . If the ball is moved during the touching or moving of loose impediments while searching for or identifying the ball, Rule 18-2a applies; if the ball is moved during the replacement of the loose impediments , there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

If the ball was entirely covered by loose impediments , the player must re-cover the ball but is permitted to leave a small part of the ball visible.

[thescarecrow]

Why a penalty?

Ball was replaced.

[vasaribm]

  thescarecrow said:

Originally Posted by thescarecrow

Why a penalty?

Ball was replaced.

My understanding is that the ball should have been replaced inside the leaf as he found it.  Reading the OP description this was not done, only the ball was replaced, therefore a penalty.

[thescarecrow]

I am reading replaced ie; as found. (returned to leaf)

We may be confusing andyh

[andyh]

I did not replace it back into the leaf, so I guess that would be another penalty.

From reading the ruling I should have placed the ball back inside the rolled up leaf but could have left a small part of the ball visible. plus taken a 1 stroke penalty because I moved the ball when I was searching for it.

or could it have been replaced back into the leaf without penalty?

[GaijinGolfer]

1 stroke penalty.  You needed to put the ball back inside the leaf in the exact spot where you found it.

[Golfingdad]

  thescarecrow said:

Originally Posted by thescarecrow

Why a penalty?

Ball was replaced.

Rule 18-2a says that if the player or caddy lifts or moves the ball, touches it purposely, or causes it to move, then it's a one-stroke penalty.

So, even if he did put it back where he found it and put the leaf back where he found it, he still gets the 1-stroke penalty.  I guess an additional one-stroke penalty for not putting it back into the leaf.

It brings up a follow-up question though:

If he noticed the ball inside the rolled up leaf before he moved it, yet could not possibly move the leaf to identify it without moving the ball and incurring the one-stroke penalty, what can he do?

Can he play it and go chase it down afterwards, confirm its his and play on?  Or find out it's not his, and return back to original spot (prior to bunker) and play under lost ball penalty?  How does it work?

[Dormie1360]

The 1 stroke penalty was for moving the ball at rest when the loose impediment was moved during the search.  R18-2a  The fact that the player did not see the ball, it was in the leaf, unfortunately is irrelevant.

The player must replace the ball.  Failure to do so is a general breach of Rule 18 which is and a 2 stroke penalty or loss of hole in match play.  (2PS total, you don't count 1 + 2 more.)

Rule 12-2 covers how to identify a ball that needs to be lifted.  If the player was able to see "a ball" after moving loose impediments, and the ball had not been moved during this search, the player would be able to then identify the ball following R12-2 with no penalty.

[Fourputt]

A loose impediment, once moved, does not have to be replaced.  Therefore, the ball must be replaced as closely as possible to where it lay, but the leaf does not have to be replaced.  If anyone can find a decision disputing this, I'd be happy to see it.

[Missouri Swede]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

A loose impediment, once moved, does not have to be replaced.  Therefore, the ball must be replaced as closely as possible to where it lay, but the leaf does not have to be replaced.  If anyone can find a decision disputing this, I'd be happy to see it.

Rule 12-1 b:

b. Searching for or Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard

In a hazard , if the player’s ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments

to the extent that he cannot find or identify it, he may, without penalty,

touch or move loose impediments in order to find or identify the ball.

If the ball is found or identified as his, the player must replace the loose

impediments . If the ball is moved during the touching or moving of loose

impediments while searching for or identifying the ball, Rule 18-2a applies;

if the ball is moved during the replacement of the loose impediments , there is

no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

If the ball was entirely covered by loose impediments , the player must

re-cover the ball but is permitted to leave a small part of the ball visible.

[Golfingdad]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

A loose impediment, once moved, does not have to be replaced.  Therefore, the ball must be replaced as closely as possible to where it lay, but the leaf does not have to be replaced.  If anyone can find a decision disputing this, I'd be happy to see it.

The OP's example occurred in a bunker ... and I think you are referring to balls outside of hazards.

At least I think that is the difference.

[Fourputt]

  Missouri Swede said:

Originally Posted by Missouri Swede

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

A loose impediment, once moved, does not have to be replaced.  Therefore, the ball must be replaced as closely as possible to where it lay, but the leaf does not have to be replaced.  If anyone can find a decision disputing this, I'd be happy to see it.

Rule 12-1 b:

b. Searching for or Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard

In a hazard, if the player’s ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments

to the extent that he cannot find or identify it, he may, without penalty,

touch or move loose impediments in order to find or identify the ball.

If the ball is found or identified as his, the player must replace the loose

impediments. If the ball is moved during the touching or moving of loose

impediments while searching for or identifying the ball, Rule 18-2a applies;

if the ball is moved during the replacement of the loose impediments, there is

no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

If the ball was entirely covered by loose impediments, the player must

re-cover the ball but is permitted to leave a small part of the ball visible.

It says "replace the loose impediments", but nothing says that the ball has to be back inside of the leaf.  In fact, it says that he is allowed to see a portion of the ball.  That would seem to preclude rolling it back up in the leaf where he would be unable to see it.

[Ignorant]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It says "replace the loose impediments", but nothing says that the ball has to be back inside of the leaf.  In fact, it says that he is allowed to see a portion of the ball.  That would seem to preclude rolling it back up in the leaf where he would be unable to see it.

Yes, a portion of the ball, not the entire ball. Also, if part of that ball inside the rolled leaf would be visible from any angle that would satisfy R12-2.

IMO the ball should have been replaced inside the rolled leaf, providing any part of that ball could have been seen from any angle. Why would the player be entitled to such a benefit of removing the entire leaf disturbing his shot? This is not what R12-2 is about.

[thescarecrow]

  wadesworld said:

Originally Posted by wadesworld

Yep, 1-stroke penalty.  Sucks, but that's the rule.

b. Searching for or Identifying Ball Covered by Loose Impediments in Hazard

In a hazard, if the player’s ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments to the extent that he cannot find or identify it, he may, without penalty, touch or move loose impediments in order to find or identify the ball. If the ball is found or identified as his, the player must replace the loose impediments. If the ball is moved during the touching or moving of loose impediments while searching for or identifying the ball, Rule 18-2a applies; if the ball is moved during the replacement of the loose impediments, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

If the ball was entirely covered by loose impediments, the player must re-cover the ball but is permitted to leave a small part of the ball visible.

Player hits ball in bunker. Player finds ball rolled in leaf in bunker. Player identifies ball, returns ball as near as possible as found, then hits ball.  No penalty as per above, refer in order to find

[thescarecrow]

wrong, one stroke penalty.......  my mistake

[Dormie1360]

  Ignorant said:

Yes, a portion of the ball, not the entire ball. Also, if part of that ball inside the rolled leaf would be visible from any angle that would satisfy R12-2. IMO the ball should have been replaced inside the rolled leaf, providing any part of that ball could have been seen from any angle. Why would the player be entitled to such a benefit of removing the entire leaf disturbing his shot? This is not what R12-2 is about.

I would agree. [URL]http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-23/#23-1/7[/URL] [URL]http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-12/#12-1/3[/URL]

[phan52]

  Fourputt said:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It says "replace the loose impediments", but nothing says that the ball has to be back inside of the leaf.  In fact, it says that he is allowed to see a portion of the ball.  That would seem to preclude rolling it back up in the leaf where he would be unable to see it.

The point is that he has to replace the impediment in a hazard.