Embedded Ball Questions

[MEfree]

1.  What level of proof or certainty do you need that a ball is embedded IN ITS OWN PITCH MARK to take relief under rule 25-2?

2.  Are you able to lift your ball to gather evidence/information to determine if it is in its own pitch mark (or below the level of the soil)?

Yesterday was our first sunny day after a week where we got heavy rains at times.  On #2, I had difficulty finding my tee ball on the fairway when on about 10% of the ball was visible with 80+% below the level of the soil.  It seemed obvious it was embedded in its own pitch mark and I took relief.

Next hole, a 215 yard par 3 into the wind, I hit a 4 iron that appeared to land just short of the green take a hop and then quickly stop on the fringe.  FWIW, my eye sight isn't great, so it might have done something else entirely.  When I got to the ball only about 50-60% was visible.  When I lifted the ball, it was clear it was in a pitch mark with about 20-30% of the ball was below the level of the soil.  It wasn't obvious whether it was in its own pitch mark or an older pitch mark so I placed the ball back in the pitch mark and putted it from there.

[iacas]

Having previously just locked this thread, due to the rule we had to create for you*, I've given it more thought and am making an exception this time. Not because your questions are very good, but because I think fun will ensue.

The rule states that you are forbidden from participating in (let alone starting) discussions about the Rules of Golf until you can demonstrate that you've read the Principles book. This was, you'll recall, due to your multiple instances of troll-like behavior when it comes to the Rules of Golf.

My answers to your questions:

1. Enough.
2. That was stupid.

[Ernest Jones]

You could compare the dimple pattern I guess. Or maybe smell the hole and then smell the ball? I dunno, that's a tough one. Have you tried writing USGA?

[newtogolf]

It depends, the ball could have been embedded as a result of a "mashee" penalty in which case you must hop and skip before swinging at it.

[Phil McGleno]

Isnt the bigger question whether the embedded ball affects the rest of the round or not?

[jamo]

Have you tried writing USGA?

That's true, you should always mark your ball. Not sure why you'd want to mark it with "USGA," but to each his own.

[Ernest Jones]

That's true, you should always mark your ball. Not sure why you'd want to mark it with "USGA," but to each his own.

But if you use dry erase wouldn't you see AGSU in the pitch mark?

[MEfree]

Having previously just locked this thread, due to the rule we had to create for you*, I've given it more thought and am making an exception this time. Not because your questions are very good, but because I think fun will ensue.

The rule states that you are forbidden from participating in (let alone starting) discussions about the Rules of Golf until you can demonstrate that you've read the Principles book. This was, you'll recall, due to your multiple instances of troll-like behavior when it comes to the Rules of Golf.

My answers to your questions:

Enough.

That was stupid.

Which part of the Principles book would clarify this?

The USGA (somewhat) defines levels of proof/certainty with their notion of "virtual certainty" and decisions relating to this but there really doesn't seem to be much guidance here.

1.  What constitutes "enough"?

2.  What if you honestly believe your ball is embedded in its own pitch mark, but upon lifting it, realize it is in something other than its own pitch mark (like an obviously old pitch mark)?

[Ernest Jones]

Which part of the Principles book would clarify this?

I guess you'll never know...

[jamo]

But if you use dry erase wouldn't you see AGSU in the pitch mark?

Perfect. My favorite Azerbaijani soccer team.

[MEfree]

I guess you'll never know...

or I'll read the book and still not know.  The concept of "play the ball as it lies" doesn't really explain why there is the embedded ball rule.

[Ernest Jones]

or I'll read the book and still not know.

I believe you.

[cipher]

Isnt the bigger question whether the embedded ball affects the rest of the round or not?

Yeah I think one can "guarantee" that the image of seeing the ball embedded is one of great peril and it is unlikely that one can recover from such a misfortune.

[Fourputt]

The answer to the question is simple.  If you have reason to believe that the ball is NOT lying in its own pitch mark, then it isn't.  Lacking such belief then it is.  Once again, you agonize over what is basically an irrelevancy.  I have seen a ball hit, hop then still end up in its own pitch mark.  In this case, that is what I would assume had happened, and you could never prove that I was wrong without high def video from 15 different angles.

[Golfingdad]

1.  What level of proof or certainty do you need that a ball is embedded IN ITS OWN PITCH MARK to take relief under rule 25-2? 2.  Are you able to lift your ball to gather evidence/information to determine if it is in its own pitch mark (or below the level of the soil)? Yesterday was our first sunny day after a week where we got heavy rains at times.  On #2, I had difficulty finding my tee ball on the fairway when on about 10% of the ball was visible with 80+% below the level of the soil.  It seemed obvious it was embedded in its own pitch mark and I took relief. Next hole, a 215 yard par 3 into the wind, I hit a 4 iron that appeared to land just short of the green take a hop and then quickly stop on the fringe.  FWIW, my eye sight isn't great, so it might have done something else entirely.  When I got to the ball only about 50-60% was visible.  When I lifted the ball, it was clear it was in a pitch mark with about 20-30% of the ball was below the level of the soil.  It wasn't obvious whether it was in its own pitch mark or an older pitch mark so I placed the ball back in the pitch mark and putted it from there.

I think the answers are: 1. 42 2. Snow White (Those are the answers to a lot of the questions around here. ;))

[turtleback]

1.  What level of proof or certainty do you need that a ball is embedded IN ITS OWN PITCH MARK to take relief under rule 25-2?

If in a tournament the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If in a private match the lower "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard.

2.  Are you able to lift your ball to gather evidence/information to determine if it is in its own pitch mark (or below the level of the soil)?

Of course.  That is what the discovery phase of the trial is for.  Bear in mind, however that if you are going to actually touch the ball it must be done pursuant to a subpoena issued by the presiding judge.

[Rulesman]

If in a tournament the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't know where you got those words from but this is what the rules say

25-2/0.5

When Ball Embedded in Ground

A ball is deemed to be embedded in the ground only if:

• the impact of the ball landing has created a pitch-mark in the ground,
• the ball is in its own pitch-mark, and
• part of the ball is below the level of the ground.

Provided that these three requirements are met, a ball does not necessarily have to touch the soil to be considered embedded (e.g., grass, loose impediments or the like may intervene between the ball and the soil).

Any doubt as to whether a ball is embedded should be resolved against the player. (Revised)

[turtleback]

I don't know where you got those words from but this is what the rules say

What do you do when you are pulling one guy's leg and another guy's leg comes off in your hand?