The Jimenez-Dufner-Daly British Open Shamble

[billchao]

Could Dufner have insisted on taking his drop to replace his ball before Jimenez played his 2nd shot and then marked it had Jimenez requested? Would it have just been rub of the green had Dufuner's dropped ball rolled into Jimenez's divot?

That's not a rub of the green. A rub of the green occurs when a player's ball is deflected or stopped by an outside agency.

John Daly experienced a rub of the green when his ball hit Jason Dufner's.

[newtogolf]

Not the first time Jimenez has inserted himself into a rules interpretation and gotten it wrong.  He may be golfs most interesting person but I have no interest in golfing with him.

[wadesworld]

Not the first time Jimenez has inserted himself into a rules interpretation and gotten it wrong.  He may be golfs most interesting person but I have no interest in golfing with him.

Jimenez didn't insert anything or get anything wrong. He did what the referee told him, and the referee was wrong.

[Hatchman]

The RA got it wrong and instructed Jimenez to mark, pickup, and drop ball. Daly's ball actually interfered with Dufner's ball pushing it forward @ 2 feet, when it was initially next to Jiminez. Daly' ball was in play, and Jiminez. It wasn't until the telecaster RA radioed (anything can be used to get it correct) did they replace or redrop the Jiminez ball and return the Dufner ball under rule provision. Daly had played away while the decision was forthcoming. At least he knew he was in play, I think.

[ColinL]

At the time of reading this thread, I was enjoying a beer next to the 12th fairway from where I could see the imposing figure of a certain John Paramor sitting in his buggy about 50 metres away. I know, I thought, on behalf to the readers of The Sandtrap I'll go and ask him what happened, but on reflection I reckoned I'd have been pounced on by a marshall halfway over the fence on to the course and took another swig of beer. :-D To clarify one thing in the midst of all the supposition going on: each group at the Open is accompanied by a walking referee. These guys stay close enough to the players to observe what's going on and close enough to see when they are needed - such as in this situation. I didn't see the event, but I'd put money on it that the referee was on the spot immediately; that any misunderstanding was between the cameraman and him/her; that Jimenez simply did what he was told; and that the referee finally sorted it out as was his/her job to do. Also bear in mind how quick these players are to get a ruling in order to avoid falling into the trap of a hidden (to them) penalty. I reckon you should go with wades world's explanation of events. It will be interesting golf today as it is blowing a hoolie. (That's Scots for a gale!)

[Hatchman]

I agree. The onsite referee did get it wrong. Almost twice. He was about to get it wrong the second time until he was radioed as I stated to replace the interfered ball on the fairway, Dufner's. The other two were always in play. The OP raised several complex questions that were addressed but this was a simple ruling. No penalty for following wrong directions. Replace the Jimenez miss dropped ball. Replace the Dufner interfered ball. Play away. Benign ruling. Use of cameras, spectators, TV replay, commentators, etc, allowed to get ball placements, rulings correct. Where did the ball land or hit you is one?

[ColinL]

As simple as this: http://www.theopen.com/News/News/2015/07/Saturday-18th/RULING-OF-THE-DAY-ROUND-2 Disappointingly, the "hoolie" that I said was blowing has got so bad that play was suspended early this morning. It's now 1253 and no sign of its abating. :(

[Rulesman]

But no mention of Jimenez’s activities.

[ColinL]

Yes there is. It's wrapped up in the splendidly unrevealing statement: Initially there was some confusion as to which ball had been moved :-)

[Fourputt]

Because they acted on the instructions from a rules official, there would be no penalty if they had continued play because they were going by the best information that was available, and were proceeding under the officials ruling.  When corrected information was made available before Jimenez played, he was not only allowed to redrop, but was required to do so.  Since the first drop was in the wrong place, he was allowed to correct the error without penalty as long as no stroke had been made.

Because the difference was only a foot or two, it seems like a lot of conferring for something that was insignificant in view of the overall play of the hole, but equity demanded that it be treated the same as if the mistake was critical to one or both of the players' scores.  Since the detailed video information was available, they did a very good job of correcting the original ruling and ensuring that no question would arise to cloud any player's results.

[ColinL]

The wind is forecast to be lessening and play is scheduled to restart at 1600.

I'm on my way!

[newtogolf]

I agree. The onsite referee did get it wrong. Almost twice. He was about to get it wrong the second time until he was radioed as I stated to replace the interfered ball on the fairway, Dufner's. The other two were always in play.

The OP raised several complex questions that were addressed but this was a simple ruling. No penalty for following wrong directions. Replace the Jimenez miss dropped ball. Replace the Dufner interfered ball. Play away. Benign ruling.

Use of cameras, spectators, TV replay, commentators, etc, allowed to get ball placements, rulings correct. Where did the ball land or hit you is one?

The OP stated;

Then Jimenez, with an incorrect understanding of what happened, marked his ball and dropped it where he thought it should be.  (This was wrong.)  He had picked up his ball marker and was addressing the ball to hit his second when the booth announcers called down to the cameraman and had them tell Jimenez that he'd incorrectly dropped his ball.

After hearing and understanding the correct explanation from the cameraman, Jimenez replaced his ball to the spot of his mark (which he had taken out of his pocket and put back on the fairway when the booth called down and suggested that he not hit his second yet).  Then Dufner moved his ball to the correct position.  Finally, after several minutes of delay, Jimenez and Dufner hit their second shots.  This raises several rules questions for me.

There is nothing in that quote that indicates Jimenez was directed by a rules official, he did this on his own based on "advice" from a cameraman.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchman

I agree. The onsite referee did get it wrong. Almost twice. He was about to get it wrong the second time until he was radioed as I stated to replace the interfered ball on the fairway, Dufner's. The other two were always in play.

The OP raised several complex questions that were addressed but this was a simple ruling. No penalty for following wrong directions. Replace the Jimenez miss dropped ball. Replace the Dufner interfered ball. Play away. Benign ruling.

Use of cameras, spectators, TV replay, commentators, etc, allowed to get ball placements, rulings correct. Where did the ball land or hit you is one?

The OP stated;

Quote:

Then Jimenez, with an incorrect understanding of what happened, marked his ball and dropped it where he thought it should be.  (This was wrong.)  He had picked up his ball marker and was addressing the ball to hit his second when the booth announcers called down to the cameraman and had them tell Jimenez that he'd incorrectly dropped his ball.

After hearing and understanding the correct explanation from the cameraman, Jimenez replaced his ball to the spot of his mark (which he had taken out of his pocket and put back on the fairway when the booth called down and suggested that he not hit his second yet).  Then Dufner moved his ball to the correct position.  Finally, after several minutes of delay, Jimenez and Dufner hit their second shots.  This raises several rules questions for me.

There is nothing in that quote that indicates Jimenez was directed by a rules official, he did this on his own based on "advice" from a cameraman.

The information in that quote is as wrong as what the cameraman told them to begin with.  I watched the whole thing live (well - on DVR anyway).  There was a rules official there the entire time.  It was he who was conferring with the cameraman, and it was he who radioed back to the committee, who then checked the replay and radioed back that the original drop was incorrect.  Jimenez stepped back from his shot when the official said he had additional information on the way.

[newtogolf]

The information in that quote is as wrong as what the cameraman told them to begin with.  I watched the whole thing live (well - on DVR anyway).  There was a rules official there the entire time.  It was he who was conferring with the cameraman, and it was he who radioed back to the committee, who then checked the replay and radioed back that the original drop was incorrect.  Jimenez stepped back from his shot when the official said he had additional information on the way.

That makes sense then, the way it was worded it appeared Jimenez was acting on his own without direction from referee.

[wadesworld]

That makes sense then, the way it was worded it appeared Jimenez was acting on his own without direction from referee.

I watched it.  It was quite clear what happened and Jimenez was not at fault.  Not sure why there continues to be a question.

[iacas]

One thing I found interesting is that Duffner did not drop his ball until after Jimenez hit from a few inches away from where Dufner's ball was before Daly's ball hit it. This made sense from the perspective that Dufner's ball might have interfered with Jimenez's shot (at least visually) but it also made it possible that Dufner's dropped ball could have rolled into Jimenez's divot (which was not there when Dufner's ball came to rest originally.

Dufner's entitled to the lie his shot gave him. If a player takes a shot and disturbs the lie, he doesn't have to play from the divot.

Same when a player's ball is near another's ball in a bunker, or a player hits a ball to the fringe and another subsequent shot deposits a clump of sand or a makes a ball mark on his line or near his ball.

See 13-2/8, 8.5, and 8.7 for examples.

Specifically…

13-2/8.7

Player's Area of Intended Stance Affected by Another Player's Stroke

Q.The balls of A and B lie near each other through the green. A plays and in doing so affects B's area of intended stance (e.g., by creating a divot hole). What is the ruling?

A.B may play the ball as it lies. In addition, if the original area of intended stance could be easily restored, in equity (Rule 1-4), the area of intended stance may be restored as nearly as possible, without penalty.

If the original area of intended stance could not be easily restored, in equity (Rule 1-4), the player may place his ball, without penalty, on the nearest spot within one club-length of the original lie that provides the most similar lie and area of intended stance to the original lie and area of intended stance. This spot must not be nearer the hole and must not be in a hazard.

You are interested in the rules, and yet, you don't seem to be capable of looking up related and relevant Decisions and reaching conclusions on your own.

[MEfree]

Dufner's entitled to the lie his shot gave him. If a player takes a shot and disturbs the lie, he doesn't have to play from the divot. Same when a player's ball is near another's ball in a bunker, or a player hits a ball to the fringe and another subsequent shot deposits a clump of sand or a makes a ball mark on his line or near his ball. See 13-2/8, 8.5, and 8.7 for examples. Specifically…

[COLOR=474B55]

[/COLOR] You are interested in the rules, and yet, you don't seem to be capable of looking up related and relevant Decisions and reaching conclusions on your own.

I'm familiar with what you have quoted, but was wondering if the fact that Dufner's ball was in hand (and un-marked) at the time Jiminez played his shot made a difference. I thought the whole reason that Dufner dropped his ball as opposed to placing it was because they didn't know exactly what his lie was. It seems fair to me that he wouldn't have to play from Jimenz's divot, but relying on 1-4 seems more uncertain than other rules. TV viewers could see that Dufner's ball was not in a divot before Daly's ball moved it. Had Dufner's dropped ball rolled a club length to the left and into someone else's old divot that wouldn't have been the lie his shot gave him either. Is it your position that: a. Dufner would have been able to re-drop had his dropped ball rolled into any divot. b. Dufner would have been able to place had his dropped ball rolled into any divot. c. Dufner would have been able to re-drop had his dropped ball rolled into Jimenz's divot, but not a pre-existing divot. d. Dufner would have been able to place had his dropped ball rolled into Jimenz's divot, but not a pre-existing divot. e. Something else?

[iacas]

I'm familiar with what you have quoted, but was wondering if the fact that Dufner's ball was in hand (and un-marked) at the time Jiminez played his shot made a difference. I thought the whole reason that Dufner dropped his ball as opposed to placing it was because they didn't know exactly what his lie was. It seems fair to me that he wouldn't have to play from Jimenz's divot, but relying on 1-4 seems more uncertain than other rules.

He could have dropped it before Jimenez played and the rules would be the same. The situations cited would directly apply. His shot gave him a lie with no divot, thus he's entitled to that lie. Whether that's via dropping or placing is determined by how well they understand the original position of the ball.