The Jimenez-Dufner-Daly British Open Shamble

[MEfree]

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.

Does that mean you are answering A or B? It seems to me that despite the TV coverage, they had some uncertainty regarding the original position which is why they had him drop it instead of place it. Suppose this had occurred on the edge of the fairway, 1 foot from the rough. Dufner drops his ball and it rolls 1 club length into the rough. Re-drop?

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Does that mean you are answering A or B? It seems to me that despite the TV coverage, they had some uncertainty regarding the original position which is why they had him drop it instead of place it.

Suppose this had occurred on the edge of the fairway, 1 foot from the rough. Dufner drops his ball and it rolls 1 club length into the rough. Re-drop?

Read Rule 20 and then you wouldn't have to ask silly questions about dropping.

[Shorty]

Suppose this had occurred on the edge of the fairway, 1 foot from the rough. Dufner drops his ball and it rolls 1 club length into the rough. Re-drop?

A 4 marker thinks that if you drop a ball and get a lie you don't like you redrop?

[MEfree]

Read Rule 20 and then you wouldn't have to ask silly questions about dropping.

Which part of 20? 20-2 doesn't seem to offer any relief for a drop that rolls into a divot, but Iacas thinks that Dufner would have gotten to either re-drop or place his ball by hand had the drop rolled into a divot.. My follow-up question was trying to clarify Erik's position.

[iacas]

Which part of 20? 20-2 doesn't seem to offer any relief for a drop that rolls into a divot, but Iacas thinks that Dufner would have gotten to either re-drop or place his ball by hand had the drop rolled into a divot.. My follow-up question was trying to clarify Erik's position.

You don't know what I think because I didn't answer your question. They've gone well beyond tedious at this point. You never seem to want to look things up for yourself and present what you think the answer is.

In layman's terms, and even if they are the right ones "don't put words in my mouth." Thank you.

[MEfree]

You don't know what I think because I didn't answer your question . They've gone well beyond tedious at this point. You never seem to want to look things up for yourself and present what you think the answer is. In layman's terms, and even if they are the right ones "don't put words in my mouth." Thank you.

True, you didn't directly answer the question I posed directly, but you did quote me and then say [quote name="iacas" url="/t/83301/the-jimenez-dufner-daly-british-open-shamble/18#post_1171309"] 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.[/quote] Let's assume that the reason they had Dufner drop was that they didn't know with 100% certainty his exact original position. Suppose his dropped ball rolled into a divot. What next?

[iacas]

Suppose his dropped ball rolled into a divot. What next?

Answer and support that answer yourself. I'm tired of your games. You think you understand the rules but never seem to demonstrate such.

[MEfree]

Answer and support that answer yourself. I'm tired of your games. You think you understand the rules but never seem to demonstrate such.

Post #18- [quote name="MEfree" url="/t/83301/the-jimenez-dufner-daly-british-open-shamble#post_1170701"]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. 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? I know that you can recreate your original lie when you have to mark in the bunker and a player who plays first messes up your original lie, but it seems Dufner might have forfeited that option by not dropping before Jimenez hit (even though this is what the referee may have instructed). There seems to be a lot of hair splitting on whether you know the correct position with enough certainty to replace a ball or have to drop. Had there been better communication I think they could have figured out where Dufner's ball was originally within an inch or two, yet he took a drop. When they replaced Jimenez's mistaken drop after he had picked up the marker of where he incorrectly moved from, they could have been off by an inch, but they still had him replace it as opposed to dropping again. Sure, maybe he was able to find the hole the tee that he marked with created, but even with that, it seem unlikely that he would put the ball back in the EXACT same position. (My guess is that most of us are off by a blade of grass or two every time we mark and replace a ball).[/quote] My support is that Rule 20-2 does not allow for a re-drop if your ball rolls into a divot (unless the divot happens to be closer to the hole, more than two club lengths, etc). As you pointed out, there might be a case in equity that entitles him not to have to play from Jimenz's divot that was created after his drive originally came to rest. However, the reason for my follow-up posts was to try to ascertain how much relief equity might provide for him. Does it allow relief only from Jimenez's divot, or does it also allow relief from other situations that obviously were not the lie he originally had? You were the one who cited 1-4, so I asked the question because I am not sure of the answer.

[iacas]

You were the one who cited 1-4, so I asked the question because I am not sure of the answer.

I didn't cite 1-4. I've been intentionally vague here as you often are and have specifically NOT answered your question despite knowing how I'd handle the situation. Ask yourself this question - would you have had him drop prior to Jimenez hitting or not?

[MEfree]

I didn't cite 1-4. I've been intentionally vague here as you often are and have specifically NOT answered your question despite knowing how I'd handle the situation. Ask yourself this question - would you have had him drop prior to Jimenez hitting or not?

You might not of specifically cited 1-4, but you did quote a decision that cited it. I think it is hard to argue that this is a clear cut decision. Given that you admit to being intentionally vague, I am surprised that you didn't expect follow-up questions. My best guess is that they might have given Dufner relief from Jimenez's divot since they could be 100% certain that this occurred after his ball originally came to rest but that they would not have given him relief had his ball rolled into an older divot (even if the cameras showed that he originally had a good lie). I guess I don't understand why the rules might rely on equity in one situation, but not another. Yes, given the time to think about it, I would have had him drop before Jimenez hit. Although less convenient, at least his ball would have been in play and then it would be clear that he would have gotten relief from Jimenez's divot (and no relief from another divot he may have rolled into) Quote: [quote] 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.[/quote]

[Hatchman]

RA should have done the following if your going to nit pick the rules: 1. Replace the Jimenez ball marked and picked up to original position. 2. Return the Daly interfered Dufner ball to original position, or as close as possible. 3. Play the Daly ball as it lies in the fairway. 4. Determine who is away for order or play to avoid stroke penalty, oh they forgot that. Daly hit before final disposition causing a divot that Dufner and Jimenez ball did not lie in or on. Fair equity would place any returned ball on similar surface.

[iacas]

Big fan of putting words in mouths, you are. I never said it was a clear cut decision. Also, you're talking about divot holes. Not divots. :-)

[MEfree]

RA should have done the following if your going to nit pick the rules: 1. Replace the Jimenez ball marked and picked up to original position. 2. Return the Daly interfered Dufner ball to original position, or as close as possible. 3. Play the Daly ball as it lies in the fairway. 4. Determine who is away for order or play to avoid stroke penalty, oh they forgot that. Daly hit before final disposition causing a divot that Dufner and Jimenez ball did not lie in or on. Fair equity would place any returned ball on similar surface.

I agree but there is no penalty for hitting out of order in stroke play. In my mind, if they could replace Jimenez's wrongly moved ball, then they could have replaced Dufner's without having him take a drop.

[MEfree]

Big fan of putting words in mouths, you are. I never said it was a clear cut decision. Also, you're talking about divot holes. Not divots. :-)

Not trying to say you said it was clear cut, but assuming you agree that it is NOT clear cut, why do you keep telling me to simply look up the rules and figure it out myself? It is the hard decisions like these that help to generate conversations that keep your site in business. If every rules decision could simply be looked up, then why have a Rules section of the forum?

[iacas]

Not trying to say you said it was clear cut, but assuming you agree that it is NOT clear cut, why do you keep telling me to simply look up the rules and figure it out myself? It is the hard decisions like these that help to generate conversations that keep your site in business. If every rules decision could simply be looked up, then why have a Rules section of the forum?

Rules discussions don't contribute much at all to the bottom line. You overstate their importance. I'd have not restricted you from starting your silly threads because of your unwillingness to spend $3 (or accept a free copy) if rules discussions mattered that much. I know what I'd do. There's not a specific decision so it's not clear cut. I never told you to simply figure it out for yourself. I asked you what you thought. Not the same. So your position is that he'd have to play from the divot hole if that's where it rolled? Jimenez was not closer to the hole or two club lengths away.

[MEfree]

Rules discussions don't contribute much at all to the bottom line. You overstate their importance. I'd have not restricted you from starting your silly threads because of your unwillingness to spend $3 (or accept a free copy) if rules discussions mattered that much. I know what I'd do. There's not a specific decision so it's not clear cut. So your position is that he'd have to play from the divot hole if that's where it rolled? Jimenez was not closer to the hole or two club lengths away.

No, I said: [quote name="MEfree" url="/t/83301/the-jimenez-dufner-daly-british-open-shamble/36#post_1171356"] You might not of specifically cited 1-4, but you did quote a decision that cited it. I think it is hard to argue that this is a clear cut decision. Given that you admit to being intentionally vague, I am surprised that you didn't expect follow-up questions. My best guess is that they might have given Dufner relief from Jimenez's divot since they could be 100% certain that this occurred after his ball originally came to rest but that they would not have given him relief had his ball rolled into an older divot (even if the cameras showed that he originally had a good lie). I guess I don't understand why the rules might rely on equity in one situation, but not another. Yes, given the time to think about it, I would have had him drop before Jimenez hit. Although less convenient, at least his ball would have been in play and then it would be clear that he would have gotten relief from Jimenez's divot (and no relief from another divot he may have rolled into) Quote: [/quote] Personally, I think the logic of decision 20-3b/4 should apply in this situation also and they should simply have had Dufner replace his ball as near as possible to where they thought it was. They knew (or could have confirmed) that it was a standard fairway lie a few inches from where Jimenez's ball originally lay, so why not place it there? Dropping under 20-3c is only suppose to be used if it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed. Given the TV coverage, if it was impossible to determine where Dufner's ball was, when would it be possible to ever determine where any ball that moved was originally located? 20-3b/4 Lie of Ball Through the Green Altered; Original Lie of Ball Known But Spot Where Ball Lay Not Determinable Q.In stroke play, B plays A's ball, which was lying through the green, and in the process removes a divot. The original lie of A's ball was known and has been altered. It is impossible to determine the exact spot where A's ball originally lay. Should A proceed under Rule 20-3b or Rule 20-3c? A.As A knew the original lie of the ball, Rule 20-3b applies (see Note to Rule 20-3b). The spot where the ball lay will need to be estimated, and a ball must be placed in the nearest lie most similar to the original lie that is not more than one club-length from the estimated spot, not nearer the hole and not in a hazard.

[iacas]

So was that discussion worthwhile to you? Cuz… Not every situation has a specific Decision or Rule. Yet you are one of the biggest champions of "simplification." Golf has lots of "not simple" situations.

[inthehole]

whatever guys, just hit your ball.    No one with authority saw the exact situation, so just soldier on.    Totally agree with Daly's approach.   I've seen Jiminez be a self imposed rule enforcer before - seemed pretty irritating to the other professionals involved.