Embedded Ball? - nice job by the RO

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Martyn W said:

This Decision was added in January to clarify when a ball is embedded: the third illustration is clearly what Villegas had. Notice also that any doubt is resolved against the player

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.

I wasn't there so it isn't as obvious to me. I didn't see a close-up.

The diagram seems to equate level of ground as top of the soil surface. Given the geologic definition of soil (is it defined differently in golf?), it seems possible that there was a depression in the mix of organic material (more than 15%?) and sand below the pine needle 'nest' on the very surface.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I wasn't there so it isn't as obvious to me. I didn't see a close-up.

The diagram seems to equate level of ground as top of the soil surface. Given the geologic definition of soil (is it defined differently in golf?), it seems possible that there was a depression in the mix of organic material (more than 15%?) and sand below the pine needle 'nest' on the very surface.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but I doubt very much that a ball resting on pine straw would also be below the level of the soil.

The ball can be resting on loose impediments (like a leaf) and still be embedded, but I've never seen that with a bunch of pine straw between the ball and the soil.

Also, the Rules of Golf don't define sand as "soil," regardless of what the geological definition is. I've since watched the video and his ball was resting on loose material.

[natureboy]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but I doubt very much that a ball resting on pine straw would also be below the level of the soil.

The ball can be resting on loose impediments (like a leaf) and still be embedded, but I've never seen that with a bunch of pine straw between the ball and the soil.

I'm making a technical argument and pointing out how some of the terms used in the rules are slightly ambiguous relative to scientific definitions.

Soil is defined as a 15% mix of decaying matter and weathered rock and mineral (which encompasses sand). It seemed likely that with pine straw that deep there was appreciable decaying organic matter and therefore an established or forming 'soil' where the pine straw met the sand layer below.

As far as I understand by the rules, there is no rule that excludes by definition soil or ground on sand substrates as 'ground'. I can think of lots of links courses that have soil on top of a sand substrate. That's why it seems possible to me (without seeing the bottom of his lie up close) that it could have fit the definition of embedded.

Was the rules official correct in saying it can't embed in 'sand'? Also IMO it was not relevant to the diagram posted by @Martyn W whether the ball was sitting on pine needles, but whether those pine needles were in a depression relative to the formerly existing surface that was created by the ball.

Quote

Ground: The surface of the Earth, as opposed to the sky or water or underground.

Is there a specific definition for ground and soil under the ROG or are they relying on the accepted geologic definitions? It seems intuitive that they are two separate things, but you can actually have soil with sand.

Edited April 16, 2016 by natureboy

[Martyn W]

36 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Was the rules official correct in saying it can't embed in 'sand'?

Yes.

 

36 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It seems intuitive that they are two separate things, but you can actually have soil with sand.

I concede that it could be questionable, and the Decision recognizes that fact. That is why the decision says that 'any doubt should be resolved against the player'. Perhaps this is one of the reason the R&A is reluctant to incorporate the TTG LR into the Rules.

[natureboy]

1 minute ago, Martyn W said:

Yes.

Correct that it can't embed in sand without a local rule or also under the local rule?

1 minute ago, Martyn W said:

I concede that it could be questionable, and the Decision recognizes that fact. That is why the decision says that 'any doubt should be resolved against the player'. Perhaps this is one of the reason the R&A is reluctant to incorporate the TTG LR into the Rules.

I'm curious as to the distinction wherein Zach Johnson got this drop ruling in similar, though not necessarily identical circumstances. I doubt there's any grass under those pine needles and it's likely it was about the same as what was under Villegas' lie.

 

[Martyn W]

13 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Correct that it can't embed in sand without a local rule or also under the local rule?

From the LR in Appendix 1

" A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely-mown."

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm curious as to the distinction wherein Zach Johnson got this drop ruling in similar, though not necessarily identical circumstances. I doubt there's any grass under those pine needles and it's likely it was about the same as what was under Villegas' lie.

 

Can't really see what is under the ball (btw 'grass' is irrelevant) The RO obviously determined that the ball was embedded by definition.

[natureboy]

26 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

From the LR in Appendix 1

" A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely-mown."

Can't really see what is under the ball (btw 'grass' is irrelevant) The RO obviously determined that the ball was embedded by definition.

The lies look very similar to me.

Not saying they can't look similar and be different, but wondering if the RO in the Villegas' case made an assumption on what the surface below the ball was based on the fact that there was sandy waste beyond where the pine needles lay, while Zach Johnson's area of pine needles was surrounded by grass creating an intuitive assumption that there wasn't a mix of sand and organic material below the ball. They may well have actually examined it in Zach's case and seen all organic material and no sand.

Based on the definition of 'soil' just seeing some sand (versus all sand) under the pine needles doesn't mean it's automatically not soil. Per the geologic definition there only needs to be 15% organic matter mixed in with the sand to qualify as soil.

Not saying it was definitely a bad ruling, but I don't think it's necessarily cut and dried either and what's intuitively understood as soil may vary individual to individual.

Edited April 16, 2016 by natureboy

[Lihu]

On 4/15/2016 at 5:43 PM, No Mulligans said:

I think Villegas was grasping at straws on this one.

No, I believe he was grasping at the pine needles.

I think the issue is that no part of the ball was below what the RO defined as ground level, but is the ground level where that earthen looking material and the pine needles split or was it below that earthen looking material that the RO said was not part of the ground?

It's hard to say, but I would probably give my opponent the drop if there were no RO available. My guess is that anyone else seeing that earthen soil like loose impediment material would probably have given him a free drop.

Villegas was kind of right that the RO was basically justifying his original decision based on something called over a radio without actually seeing it himself. Although, I would never argue with a RO, just go with the flow. I like playing out of crappy situations anyway, makes the game more fun.

[DrvFrShow]

It was worth a try, though.

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

It was worth a try, though.

Yeah. It reminds me of Bubba and the ants (burrowing colonies as opposed to animals).

It sure looked like the ground to me, but the composition was obviously pine needles and dust and other compacted "loose impediment" stuff.

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, Lihu said:

Yeah. It reminds me of Bubba and the ants (burrowing colonies as opposed to animals).

It sure looked like the ground to me, but the composition was obviously pine needles and dust and other compacted "loose impediment" stuff.

Well Bubba kind of had a point about the slightly arbitrary definitions in the rules. By the normal use of words, ants are burrowing animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrow), but their mounds (casts & heaps) are specifically defined as loose impediments under the rules so he was stretching it. Personally I think those definitions could be cleaned up a bit.

Zach Johnson got a favorable ruling in very similar looking conditions to Villegas - I think correctly arguing his point. Just because there is some sand under pine needles doesn't mean there isn't also enough decaying organic material below the pine needles to constitute 'soil'.

Many courses are are turf on an underlying sand base. Say for arguments sake you embedded deep enough in a patch of ground with a thin turf surface and the ball contacted this base layer so it was sitting on what appeared to be all sand. That doesn't mean it's not embedded under the rules, right?

I don't see a specific definition of soil in the rules so it's completely up to the individual rules official. Lots of people assume soil is an 'obvious' thing to identify, but would you call this soil if you saw it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_soil_crust

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Well Bubba kind of had a point about the slightly arbitrary definitions in the rules. By the normal use of words, ants are burrowing animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrow), but their mounds (casts & heaps) are specifically defined as loose impediments under the rules so he was stretching it. Personally I think those definitions could be cleaned up a bit.

Zach Johnson got a favorable ruling in very similar looking conditions to Villegas - I think correctly arguing his point. Just because there is some sand under pine needles doesn't mean there isn't also enough decaying organic material below the pine needles to constitute 'soil'.

Many courses are are turf on an underlying sand base. Say for arguments sake you embedded deep enough in a patch of ground with a thin turf surface and the ball contacted this base layer so it was sitting on what appeared to be all sand. That doesn't mean it's not embedded under the rules, right?

I don't see a specific definition of soil in the rules so it's completely up to the individual rules official. Lots of people assume soil is an 'obvious' thing to identify, but would you call this soil if you saw it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_soil_crust

Yeah, it seems a little bit arbitrary, but that's why they have people who are familiar with the courses making these decisions. I'm sure these RO make thousands of decisions on their courses every year for the tournaments held on their courses.

[natureboy]

After seeing the video below, I think I fixated on what the commentator was saying rather than the RO.

 

The RO was focused on the ground / surface, while the commentator (and possibly the first RO) was focused on 'sand'. The 'sand' thing does matter under the local rule adopted as a condition of competition where the embedded ball through the green does not apply to areas of 'sand' whether a defined hazard or not.

The 2nd rules official avoided the question of whether sand with organic matter mixed in constitutes soil / ground and I gess Zach got a favorable ruling because his ball created a perceivable 'dent' in the surface which was determined to not be 'sand'.

So I agree now that the RO got it right (assuming he could see whether there was a dent in the surface better than me), but I think the issue of sand vs. soil is still a potential question mark as the rule is written.

-----

@klund here's the thread that discusses this.

Edited June 25, 2016 by natureboy