nsxguy

Not sure exactly what you mean. Overhanging the hole - 10 seconds. And "inch away", to ME, says the ball is not overhanging the hole, and we're right back to your OP.

No, in this case the ball would be considered holed with that player's previous stroke as you did not allow him the 10 seconds to see if it would fall in. Reference Nelly Korda in the Solheim(?) Cup a few years ago.

You OK now ?

It was a practice swing in THIS case, but it doesn't have to be. It's moving the ball in play anywhere other than on the green or in the teeing area. He!!, even *I* can remember that.

Pedantic ? YOU are the one who said a "millionth of a millimeter". I just told you why that wouldn't matter. OK, so you tell me. How many millimeters in a "significant". The ruling bodies suggested the naked eye test, i.e. not a set distance, just "can a human see it with the naked eye. As for "zero effect", sure, in LOWRY'S case, you'd probably be right. What about when it moves 4 inches ? 4 feet ? 4 yards ?

How did this thread even continue after this ?

A millionth of a millimeter wouldn't be visible to the naked eye, which is part of the test.

I doubt you're actually being told that, but have you read your membership agreement/contract ?

Firstly, you know what Felix Unger said in court about when one assumes, yes ? Picture someone who hasn't read the board for a while and a thread with a lot of posts. While some people would ignore (most of ?) the new posts and skip to the end and post,,,,,,, whatever,,,,,, unlike those posters, I actually read all the older ones from the last time I saw the thread, to the end, and answer those I find interesting/wrong/challenging/whatever. Sound reasonable ? So, 3-4 rounds a week, once or twice a month, and an "impossible" one once a year, IN season. Sounds a bit unusual to me. I play twice a week year-round (with the occasional time off for good behavior LOL), so I'd guess we're close to even. I can't remember the last time I was IN a divot, never mind the "impossible" one. The ruling bodies made the game MUCH more forgiving AND fair 6+ years ago, much of it due to the cries of the population, removing loose impediments in PAs and bunkers being part of that, fixing anything on the green, etc. It's also no coincidence that the rules were made much easier to remember due to these same changes. NOBODY I know objected to any of it. The divot argument fires up multiple times a year with nobody on either side changing their mind. The chief sticking point is always "when is it a divot (hole)". The typical response ? "I know a divot when I see one". So, freshly made divot hole or almost invisible, you'll be having guys move the ball everywhere they can "get away with it". It's funny you said you were OK with "rub of the green" and in your previous paragraph, showed exactly the opposite. I will however, especially in this day of coaches challenges in darn near every sport, I am a bit intrigued by the "1 divot per round free relief idea". Hope this helps. Have a good one !!!

No sympathy here. You still live in a gorgeous city !!!

Yeah, I understood you. I guess I only quoted you because you were last in line not to mention what options a player would have; not so much about the rules issue.

Have you ever seen the Rule book for other sports ? The only real difference is all the other sports have officials at the event making all the calls, whereas in golf, the players are expected to know the Rules and, in most instances, apply them properly themselves. Average (most ?) golfers know very few rules and care not at all. Only about (roughly) 1 in 8 keep a handicap and presumably play BY the rules. The other 87% couldn't care less. But for golfers who play in "events", where they can be penalized or DQ'd whether they knew the rule or not ? They better know the rules AND the terminology. So, "pedantic" ? Maybe, but for very good reasons imo.

Why doesn't that surprise me ?

Not an analogous situation at all. Your dignity and self-esteem aside for "taking your medicine" aside, YOU hit a poor shot to a place you should NOT have hit it. The "divot in the fairway" guys, in the vast majority of circumstances, hit it right where they were supposed to. And no, I do NOT support free relief from divots.

Don't need dozens, but why don't you name 5 or 6 of them ? TIA

How many times a year do you have "no chance" ? Or even land in a divot to begin with ?

Yup. W/o intent, the player has moved his ball in play and must replace it. Same thing applies (intent) in the teeing area and on the green EXCEPT there is no penalty in those 2 instances. In the teeing area, the player can tee it up again (or not) and play from a different spot IN the teeing area. And on the green, the player must replace the ball on the spot. If he doesn't replace it, I believe he's played from a "wrong place" and suffers the same 2-stroke wrong place penalty as discussed earlier.

Brother, what a crappy topic !!!

But here's the part of said issue that's been left out and that "Sniper" was alluding to The very edge of the OB cart path is painted white so the entire path is OB. The ball rests against the edge of the path and therefore is IN bounds. So, NO free relief from the OB path. Hit it, or take an unplayable penalty drop - not so ?

And you (seem to) think that *I* say idiotic things ? My bad. Obviously, I've wasted my time asking *you* to think. I'll try to remember that going forward. 👍

The problem when making rules is to try to make them accommodate all such situations. The main rule is to play the ball as it lies. You have to expand your thinking. i.e. what if the player is in a terrible spot ? Maybe can't even take an unplayable lie for 1 stroke. But maybe, if he accidentally causes it to move, say inside and under a bush on a big hill where he couldn't possibly even get a club on the ball, it accidentally rolls down that hill to get him a clear shot for "only" 1 penalty stroke ? So, it's a 1-stroke penalty AND you have to put it back where it was and deal with it as you should have in the 1st place. Otherwise, add 1 more. And if you don't, and it's considered a serious breach, you're DQ'd (because who knows HOW many strokes you'd have taken getting it back in play ?). It's like that Hewlett-Packard ad in the 90's. "We never stop asking "what if ?""

There doesn't have to actually BE any, him being that close to the ball. But if you watch carefully, there's a really thin twig, about 8-12 inches long; one end apparently being under(?) the ball, and the other end being where Lowry hit the grass on his practice swing. I'm thinking that twig was either holding up the ball or nudged it slightly when Lowry hit it.

The link you posted is from the pre-2019 rules. That said I don't think it's any difference now (just too lazy to go look for it. LOL) But note, in the link it says "1) when video reveals evidence that could not reasonably be seen with the “naked eye,” (no penalty). And, imo, there's the rub. I kinda agree with Footwedge. When the golfer takes a practice swing, he's looking at the spot where the ball would've been. And at that point, the ball moves enough to be seen a mere 12 inches away from him. He should've seen it move. But that aside, whether he was looking at it or not, is not what you posted said. Video evidence is admissible, and imo, that movement could definitely have been seen from 5+ feet above the ball.

It's sounding like they're going to talk to him and decide, but I don't know what there is to decide on, other than what Nance(?) was talking briefly about. Did it start to move a "hair" before Lowry clipped that twig ? After all, it appeared to be him hitting that twig, away from the ball, that was long enough to also be under the ball and cause the ball to move. I believe the "naked eye test" means that the movement can be SEEN by the naked eye, but it doesn't mean the player has to see it himself.