Ball Interferes with Play (Through the Green)

[Costanza1980]

My dad and I were playing the other day and both hit slices off the tee. They ended up less than 6 inches away from each other, mine in back of his. The hole was in the direction the balls were pointed (you could draw a straight line through both balls and to the hole). I obviously couldn't hit mine without his being marked because I would hit his on my follow through. He would probably hit mine on his up swing, so he couldn't hit first. So he marked his by laying his driver down, placing the ball at the other end of it, then when I hit he replaced it. Is this the correct way?

 

Thanks. 

[Martyn W]

19 minutes ago, Costanza1980 said:

My dad and I were playing the other day and both hit slices off the tee. They ended up less than 6 inches away from each other, mine in back of his. The hole was in the direction the balls were pointed (you could draw a straight line through both balls and to the hole). I obviously couldn't hit mine without his being marked because I would hit his on my follow through. He would probably hit mine on his up swing, so he couldn't hit first. So he marked his by laying his driver down, placing the ball at the other end of it, then when I hit he replaced it. Is this the correct way?

 

Thanks. 

Rule 22 covers this. This is one of the few occasions when the ball may not be cleaned. As far as marking the position of the ball (Rule 20), the only stipulation as to how the position of the ball is marked is that it must be marked with sufficient accuracy to be able to replace it in the same place. One more thing - if your Dad's lie is altered as a result of your shot, he may find the nearest most similar lie to the original lie within 1 cl no nearer the hole.

[DaveP043]

I have nothing to add about the rule here.  If its me, I would have moved it a shorter distance (a couple of club-head lengths, maybe), but as long as it goes back to its original spot, not cleaned, in the same orientation, you've done everything right.

[Martyn W]

30 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 in the same orientation,

Not, required, Dave.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Not, required, Dave.

I was thinking about the possibility of mud or anything else stuck to the ball.  As you mentioned, you can't clean the ball in this situation.  I've always been taught, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, that you have to replace it with the mud still facing the same way.  That's why I mentioned the orientation.  If I'm wrong, then I've learned something today.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I was thinking about the possibility of mud or anything else stuck to the ball.  As you mentioned, you can't clean the ball in this situation.  I've always been taught, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, that you have to replace it with the mud still facing the same way.  That's why I mentioned the orientation.  If I'm wrong, then I've learned something today.

There's nothing in the Rules of Golf that says you must replace the ball in the same orientation.

[DaveP043]

So to be clear, my ball interferes with another player's swing, so I mark it.  Prior to me marking it, there's a big blob of mud just where my club would strike the ball.  I can't clean the mud, but when I replace the ball I CAN rotate it so I'm now striking a clean portion of the ball.  This seems to violate the principle of playing the ball as it lies, but if that's what the rules allow, then that's what they allow.  Thanks

[Martyn W]

26 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I've always been taught, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, that you have to replace it with the mud still facing the same way.  That's why I mentioned the orientation.  If I'm wrong, then I've learned something today.

The only prohibition is against using the mud as a tee!:

21/5

 

Player Lifts Ball Under Rule Not Permitting Cleaning and Rotates It When Replaced

Q.A piece of mud adheres to a player's ball. The player lifts the ball under a Rule which does not permit cleaning. When he replaces the ball, may he place it facing another direction so that the mud would not interfere between the clubface and the ball?

A.Yes, provided the ball is replaced on the spot from which it was lifted. However, if the player rotated the ball in such a way so as to "tee" it on the mud, he would be in breach of Rule 20-3a.

[DaveP043]

Thanks, gentlemen, I've learned something today, so my day is complete.  Again, this seems to go against the principle of playing it as it lies, as I might gain a small advantage by rotating the ball, but I'll definitely remember it for the future.

[iacas]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

Thanks, gentlemen, I've learned something today, so my day is complete.  Again, this seems to go against the principle of playing it as it lies, as I might gain a small advantage by rotating the ball, but I'll definitely remember it for the future.

You aren't changing the lie of the ball.

[Martyn W]

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 Again, this seems to go against the principle of playing it as it lies, as I might gain a small advantage by rotating the ball, but I'll definitely remember it for the future.

I learned this many years ago and still to this day put my identification 'dots' on only one pole so that I may need to ID my ball under 12-2 and can rotate the ball. Its hasn't given me an advantage in 40+ years, but it could! :)

 

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

You aren't changing the lie of the ball.

And in this, we have to go to the meaning of "the lie".  I said earlier i was too lazy to look right now, but I got more interested so I double-checked the rules, and the term "lie" is not specifically defined.  I don't have my copy of the "Principles..." at the office, so I can't refer to that just now.  Certainly the ball would be sitting on the same blades of grass, so in that way the lie isn't changed.  I am thinking that "lie" should cover the potential playing characteristics of the situation, and in allowing myself to hit a clean patch of golf ball, I've changed those characteristics, without cleaning or moving it.  Without the fortunate coincidence that allows me to lift my ball, I'd be hitting on a blob of mud, so that I'd have an even less predictable shot pattern than my normal level of unpredictability.  Again, I now understand what the rules say, but I feel like I'm gaining a little bit of an advantage simply because the guy playing with me hit his shot so close to mine.

 

Just now, Martyn W said:

I learned this many years ago and still to this day put my identification 'dots' on only one pole so that I may need to ID my ball under 12-2 and can rotate the ball. Its hasn't given me an advantage in 40+ years, but it could! :)

And I've done the opposite, marked both sides so I have less reason to need to mark it to ID my ball.  @iacas, do you encourage your players to mark only one side?  

Spoiler

This is largely in jest, after reading the thread about leaving the flagstick in whenever possible.  This seems like another small statistical advantage to be gained.  Certainly not as significant as the flagstick, but still there.

[bkuehn1952]

I learned the re-orientation of the replaced ball was permitted a few years ago.  Another player was asked to mark his ball on the fringe.  I was going to mention that he should be careful to not clean it but decided I did not want to assume the player did not know the Rule.  When he replaced his ball, he oriented it very carefully, like some people do with the alignment line when putting.  It seemed odd but not knowing whether re-orientation was permitted I just decided to look it up later.

Of course my golf buddy piped up and accused the guy of cleaning his ball (allegedly rolled it around in his hand).  The other player denied it and they went back & forth. All hell broke loose over the next hole or two, ending with the other twosome cursing out my buddy and leaving mid-round.

At least I learned something new that day. 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And in this, we have to go to the meaning of "the lie".  I said earlier i was too lazy to look right now, but I got more interested so I double-checked the rules, and the term "lie" is not specifically defined.  I don't have my copy of the "Principles..." at the office, so I can't refer to that just now.  Certainly the ball would be sitting on the same blades of grass, so in that way the lie isn't changed.  I am thinking that "lie" should cover the potential playing characteristics of the situation, and in allowing myself to hit a clean patch of golf ball, I've changed those characteristics, without cleaning or moving it.  Without the fortunate coincidence that allows me to lift my ball, I'd be hitting on a blob of mud, so that I'd have an even less predictable shot pattern than my normal level of unpredictability.  Again, I now understand what the rules say, but I feel like I'm gaining a little bit of an advantage simply because the guy playing with me hit his shot so close to mine.

Sometimes the rules benefit a player.

Also, they have to be practical. At what point should a fellow competitor or opponent worry about the size of a bit of mud adhering to a golf ball?

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And I've done the opposite, marked both sides so I have less reason to need to mark it to ID my ball.  @iacas, do you encourage your players to mark only one side?  

No.

The odds of a player needing to rotate his ball to identify it are incredibly slim compared to the odds of striking the flagstick. Especially since they play with golf balls with huge school logos on them.

[bkuehn1952]

13 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And I've done the opposite, marked both sides so I have less reason to need to mark it to ID my ball.  

  Reveal hidden contents

This is largely in jest, after reading the thread about leaving the flagstick in whenever possible.  This seems like another small statistical advantage to be gained.  Certainly not as significant as the flagstick, but still there.

Same here.  The more I think about it, a single mark would often allow one to lift the ball to check, thus allowing the re-orientation if a glob of mud is involved.  Also, one can clean enough of the ball to see the mark whereas two marks pretty much eliminate mud covering one's "mark."

We should get one of our statisticians working on the strokes gained/lost from re-orienting the ball versus mistakenly hitting the wrong ball because the mark wasn't visible enough.  Then again ... never mind.

[Costanza1980]

Thanks, everyone. I'm not too serious about the rules like this when playing with my dad, but I appreciate the knowledge for when I play more serious matches.