How do you make the "as near as possible" drop?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by anauthor

If we keep it the way it is. Then what if I drop the ball and it rolls 3 inches closer to the hole, than the original shot? Rule stats, close as possible, not close as possible but no closer to hole! This brings in a real and disturbing possibility. I drop ball as near as possible, and after, after I finish round, high definition camera shows I am 1/4 inch closer to hole than original shot. DQ. Really, that's where we're going unless they bring in the 2 club lengths rule.

That's already - and clearly - addressed: 20-2c(vii) - When to Redrop.

Please read and understand the rules before commenting on them with certainty.

[anauthor]

Sorry about last post about closer to hole. As it is now, what is clear? Close as possible... 6 inches? 1 foot? I never see pros drop into their divot, or within several inches. At what distance should I have my competitor redrop? My opinion is 1 or 2 club lengthens. Not approximately anything. Funny, no pros have come forward and discussed how they drop. We will see this rule again this weekend. Usga must change it. Can't have some golfers use 3 inches, others 6 inches, still others 12 inches. But usga will drag their feet. Only more regrettable drops, that end in penalties will force issue. God how I wish nick Nicklaus, Palmer, or other great would pick this up. How come masters people didn't show other drops this masters and compare distances? Is it just intention of getting better lie, or distance from original spot? Looking forward to Thursdays round at heritage. Let the rules carnage begin!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by anauthor

Sorry about last post about closer to hole. As it is now, what is clear? Close as possible... 6 inches? 1 foot? I never see pros drop into their divot, or within several inches.

This has been covered already. Please read back through the thread.

As nearly as possible means just that: drop as nearly as possible. And a divot is forward of the ball, so no pro should be dropping in their divot.

Originally Posted by anauthor

USGA must change it.

No they don't.

And you'd ask your opponent to re-drop if you didn't think he was making a good faith effort to drop "as nearly as possible."

It's really that simple. There's no distance specified because there's no distance specified.

And 1 or 2 clublengths could be enough to put the player in the fairway instead of the rough, or out from behind a tree, so that's the reason THAT will not be adopted.

[anauthor]

Why couldn't they just have them place ball?

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by anauthor

Why couldn't they just have them place ball?

The answers in this thread are "just because" and "it is, because it is written so....".  Clearly a discussion on opinions of what's better or not are not allowed because it just diverts to a reading from the holy rule book.

I suspect the 'why' of it isn't really common knowledge.  So that's a non-starter.

IMO - placing it within a club length and even allowing an improved lie would be very specific, but then you still have the issue of guessing where the shot was originally hit from (we don't want to slow play down even more by forcing people to mark each shot just in case the shot goes awry....).  So from that perspective, I don't think it really matters.  Just have a rule and do your best to follow whatever the rule is......

[bkuehn1952]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

In the real world, 6 or even 12 inches is such a negligible distance it is nearly impossible that it would determine the difference between a level lie and a downhill lie unless you are playing on the side of a mountain. And no they would not have to re-drop if the ball landed within 6 inches of the original divot.

Really?  The courses you play don't have humps & bumps where a foot doesn't get you a different lie?  Must be nice.  Here in the north central USA the fairways are not 'ironing board' flat and there are depressions and little bumps that give us all sorts of lies.  An extra foot sometimes gives one a downhill lie, a perfectly flat lie or even a slightly uphil lie.  True, many times a foot or even ten won't make a difference but when the ground is rolling there are times that a foot less or extra makes the next shot a lot easier.

As to your decision to not make your opponent re-drop as near as possible, good for you in your trust of your fellow man's intent.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by anauthor

Why couldn't they just have them place ball?

Except for on the putting green, you place your ball only when you know the exact position that you lifted it from.

This rule recognises that often a player won't know the exact location they played their last shot from, and instead will be estimating based on their, or other's recollections of where they played their last shot from. So a "random" lie achieved by dropping is more equitable than one chosen by placing.

[bkuehn1952]

Originally Posted by iacas

Nah. The rule currently protects people who don't know exactly where they played their last shot. What's two clublengths from a spot you can't precisely locate?

We were talking about a spot that we know.  You just hit a shot O.B. and there is a divot hole marking the spot precisely from where you last hit a shot.  Why do you insist on talking about an altogether different scenario where for whatever reason one does not know the location (you went forward thinking the ball was in play, you did not make a mark on the turf, etc ...)?

When you hit into a lateral water hazard from 200 yards out, does anyone really know where the ball last crossed the hazard line?  No, unless someone is standing on top of the shot or there is video replay.  Yet we still get 2 club lengths from the spot we estimate was the point where the ball crossed into the hazard.  In almost every case it is an estimate.  So what is your point about "two club lengths from a spot you can't precisely locate"?  We do it every day.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

Really?  The courses you play don't have humps & bumps where a foot doesn't get you a different lie?  Must be nice.  Here in the north central USA the fairways are not 'ironing board' flat and there are depressions and little bumps that give us all sorts of lies.  An extra foot sometimes gives one a downhill lie, a perfectly flat lie or even a slightly uphil lie.  True, many times a foot or even ten won't make a difference but when the ground is rolling there are times that a foot less or extra makes the next shot a lot easier.

As to your decision to not make your opponent re-drop as near as possible, good for you in your trust of your fellow man's intent.

Your opponent may gain a better (or worse) lie from the way his ball bounces after he drops it. That's why we drop the ball, to bring an element of chance into it that stops us needing to quibble over an inch here or there.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

Really?  The courses you play don't have humps & bumps where a foot doesn't get you a different lie?  Must be nice.  Here in the north central USA the fairways are not 'ironing board' flat and there are depressions and little bumps that give us all sorts of lies.  An extra foot sometimes gives one a downhill lie, a perfectly flat lie or even a slightly uphil lie.  True, many times a foot or even ten won't make a difference but when the ground is rolling there are times that a foot less or extra makes the next shot a lot easier.

As to your decision to not make your opponent re-drop as near as possible, good for you in your trust of your fellow man's intent.

You see these:

Those are called mountains and I play all my golf right at the base of them. The courses here are not flat but I stand by the fact that 6 inches is negligible and does not make a difference 99% of the time. Jeez man you need to relax a tad if you would call your opponent on the carpet for dropping their ball 6 inches from the exact spot they hit from. That is if you can even determine to exact spot and are not having to estimate.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

When you hit into a lateral water hazard from 200 yards out, does anyone really know where the ball last crossed the hazard line?  No, unless someone is standing on top of the shot or there is video replay.  Yet we still get 2 club lengths from the spot we estimate was the point where the ball crossed into the hazard.  In almost every case it is an estimate.  So what is your point about "two club lengths from a spot you can't precisely locate"?  We do it every day.

Because dropping on the hazard line is going to end up with a lot of balls bouncing back into the hazard, and 50% of the time leave the golfer standing in the hazard.

When replaying your last shot, you try your best to replay is as closely as possible. If you had a tree right in front of you, then replay that shot but with two club lengths and suddenly there's no tree in front of you and you're in the fairway. How is that replaying your last shot?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

The answers in this thread are "just because" and "it is, because it is written so....".  Clearly a discussion on opinions of what's better or not are not allowed because it just diverts to a reading from the holy rule book.

I suspect the 'why' of it isn't really common knowledge.  So that's a non-starter.

That's not an accurate characterization at all. For example, here's a response to that:

Originally Posted by Mordan

Except for on the putting green, you place your ball only when you know the exact position that you lifted it from.

This rule recognises that often a player won't know the exact location they played their last shot from, and instead will be estimating based on their, or other's recollections of where they played their last shot from. So a "random" lie achieved by dropping is more equitable than one chosen by placing.

Indeed, "drops" are used so that players can't just set the ball up on a great little fluffy piece of turf. That's your answer. Not "just because."

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

We were talking about a spot that we know.  You just hit a shot O.B. and there is a divot hole marking the spot precisely from where you last hit a shot.  Why do you insist on talking about an altogether different scenario where for whatever reason one does not know the location (you went forward thinking the ball was in play, you did not make a mark on the turf, etc ...)?

Because the rule applies to both situations, and we aren't just talking about ONE specific version where you know exactly where you last hit from.

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

When you hit into a lateral water hazard from 200 yards out, does anyone really know where the ball last crossed the hazard line?  No, unless someone is standing on top of the shot or there is video replay.  Yet we still get 2 club lengths from the spot we estimate was the point where the ball crossed into the hazard.  In almost every case it is an estimate.  So what is your point about "two club lengths from a spot you can't precisely locate"?  We do it every day.

I feel I've been very clear about "why". It could significantly alter the shot by letting you move out from behind a tree or into the fairway when the choice is really to REPLAY the last shot, NOT "replay a shot that's kinda similar but kinda in a different-ish spot."

Plus this:

Originally Posted by Mordan

Because dropping on the hazard line is going to end up with a lot of balls bouncing back into the hazard, and 50% of the time leave the golfer standing in the hazard.

When replaying your last shot, you try your best to replay is as closely as possible. If you had a tree right in front of you, then replay that shot but with two club lengths and suddenly there's no tree in front of you and you're in the fairway. How is that replaying your last shot?

[anauthor]

2 questions. 1) if tiger had not said 'couple of yards back.' Would he have been given a 2 shot penalty? 2) if not, how much farther back could he have been before he would have?

[tristanhilton85]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anauthor

1) if tiger had not said 'couple of yards back.' Would he have been given a 2 shot penalty?

No. Watching live it wasn't evident that he had done anything wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anauthor

2) if not, how much farther back could he have been before he would have?

Hard to say... people usually aren't on the look-out for rules violations; especially on such a routine process as a drop so it would have to be really obvious that he was in the wrong spot. At least a few more yards than what he did; maybe more.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by anauthor

2 questions. 1) if tiger had not said 'couple of yards back.' Would he have been given a 2 shot penalty? 2) if not, how much farther back could he have been before he would have?

No, if Tiger had not mentioned the drop no penalty would have been assessed. That's precisely why he did not get disqualified, they had looked at the tape and had not penalized him. There is no definite distance, although I would imagine if he ventured more than 2 club lengths away that might have raised some eyebrows and He would have had a hard time explaining how that was within the rule.

[anauthor]

I'm just a bit upset. I have a hard time giving a penalty for intent. Who's to say that someone dropped in a flatter area, or an area where it is less likely to roll into a divot. If they don't say they were intentionally doing so, they get away with it. Then again, why have any rule where you get 1 or 2 club lengths? Just determine closest spot and always drop there. I'll bet ever pro when dropping after going into a water hazard, has been trying yo get a good lie for there next shot, not just dropping as close as they could to last spot. But that's just my opinion.

[turtleback]

I think everyone was still a little in shock over the incredibly bad break he got in hitting the flagstick.  Especially Sergio, if he wa watching on TV, who a few years ago expressed the conviction that these things only happen to him.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by anauthor

I'm just a bit upset. I have a hard time giving a penalty for intent. Who's to say that someone dropped in a flatter area, or an area where it is less likely to roll into a divot. If they don't say they were intentionally doing so, they get away with it. Then again, why have any rule where you get 1 or 2 club lengths? Just determine closest spot and always drop there. I'll bet ever pro when dropping after going into a water hazard, has been trying yo get a good lie for there next shot, not just dropping as close as they could to last spot. But that's just my opinion.

If you believe they have identified the wrong location, you can challenge them about it or bring it up with the committee. They have to be making a bona fide effort to identify the location and drop on it. If you have information that can help them identify the location correctly, you should assist them by providing that information. But they have the right to make their own reasonable determination, even if they make an error. There's no other practical way to solve the problem---at some point you have to rely on the integrity of the players.

This was already covered, at least in one case, but you get 1 or 2 club lengths of freedom when the "closest spot" is impractical for some reason. When you're returning to the location of your previous stroke, by definition you already determined that it was reasonable to attempt a stroke from that location, so you don't automatically get leeway.