Mud on ball question

[rogolf]

 

[Mr. Bean]

28 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I agree, so the idea of "rotating the ball to see if an object is sticking to it" is totally fallacious and irrelevant.

 

You don't have much creativity in you, do you? This is only playing with the thought how to find out if an object is sticking or not.

[rogolf]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You don't have much creativity in you, do you? This is only playing with the thought how to find out if an object is sticking or not.

Try playing golf instead of playing with words!🙄

[Mr. Bean]

6 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Try playing golf instead of playing with words!🙄

 

It is raining and I do not like to play in the rain...

[2bGood]

26 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I agree, so the idea of "rotating the ball to see if an object is sticking to it" is totally fallacious and irrelevant.

Completely agree

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

Completely agree

See my post above about arguments (video).  Obviously, some people are only about arguments, and are even willing to pay someone for their time doing so.

[jomatty]

36 minutes ago, rogolf said:

See my post above about arguments (video).  Obviously, some people are only about arguments, and are even willing to pay someone for their time doing so.

Some people enjoy theoretical discussions.  Others who don’t, will sometimes spend a lot of effort trying to prove that theoretical discussions are not a good use of time (even after saying they won’t).  Seems like the person who doesn’t enjoy such discussions could just not participate and everyone would be happy.

[jomatty]

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

Try playing golf instead of playing with words!🙄

It’s 1:17 AM...

[jobin]

Could i not use a portable personal fan, which i carry on hot muggy days, to direct a powerful air stream onto the ball and watch the leaf/mud fly off?  Never of course touching the ball.

 

Certainly!  Force majeure at work. 

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, rogolf said:

I agree, so the idea of "rotating the ball to see if an object is sticking to it" is totally fallacious and irrelevant.

 

The Definitions say:

 

Loose Impediment
Any unattached natural object such as:
•• Stones, loose grass, leaves, branches and sticks,
•• Dead animals and animal waste,
•• Worms, insects and similar animals that can be removed easily, and the mounds
or webs they build (such as worm casts and ant hills), and
•• Clumps of compacted soil (including aeration plugs).
Such natural objects are not loose if they are:
•• Attached or growing,
•• Solidly embedded in the ground (that is, cannot be picked out easily), or
•• Sticking to the ball.

 

As the Rules distinguish a natural object sticking to the ball and a natural object sitting on the ball, there must be situations, although rare, when the difference must somehow be determined. How is it done? After all, a Loose Impediment may be removed but an object sticking to the ball may not so that may have an impact on a player's score.

 

Rotating a ball is one way to do it and I took it up as a response to 2bgood's question. In practice one may use that only in situations in which a ball may be lifted but not cleaned and in such situations it is IMO a valid method. But how to determine the status of a small leaf attached to the ball if that ball may not be lifted nor touched? Can be tricky and it is not always possible take rogolf's suggestion:

 

  

12 hours ago, rogolf said:

Hit the ball.  The sudden increase in velocity from zero to >100 mph will surely dislodge most of the issue, aided by the rotational velocity.

 

for example when ball is to be putted or chipped from the apron and the object will hinder a good contact between the club and the ball.

 

Well, this is just theoretical speculation as those situations occur very seldom and therefore not worth spending time on 😉

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, jomatty said:

It’s 1:17 AM...

 

That's right. It will take another 1-2 weeks before it is possible to play through the night in Northern Finland. Been there, done that 😎

[jomatty]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

The Definitions say:

 

Loose Impediment
Any unattached natural object such as:
•• Stones, loose grass, leaves, branches and sticks,
•• Dead animals and animal waste,
•• Worms, insects and similar animals that can be removed easily, and the mounds
or webs they build (such as worm casts and ant hills), and
•• Clumps of compacted soil (including aeration plugs).
Such natural objects are not loose if they are:
•• Attached or growing,
•• Solidly embedded in the ground (that is, cannot be picked out easily), or
•• Sticking to the ball.

 

As the Rules distinguish a natural object sticking to the ball and a natural object sitting on the ball, there must be situations, although rare, when the difference must somehow be determined. How is it done? After all, a Loose Impediment may be removed but an object sticking to the ball may not so that may have an impact on a player's score.

 

Rotating a ball is one way to do it and I took it up as a response to 2bgood's question. In practice one may use that only in situations in which a ball may be lifted but not cleaned and in such situations it is IMO a valid method. But how to determine the status of a small leaf attached to the ball if that ball may not be lifted nor touched? Can be tricky and it is not always possible take rogolf's suggestion:

 

  

 

for example when ball is to be putted or chipped from the apron and the object will hinder a good contact between the club and the ball.

 

Well, this is just theoretical speculation as those situations occur very seldom and therefore not worth spending time on 😉

I don’t think that rotating the ball to make a determination could be correct.  I’m definitely not a scientist but if you rotate the ball you are exerting some force, however minimal, on the ball.  Also you have the weight of the mud or other object that would, in essence, pull the mud off of the ball.  For instance, if you had 2 pounds of mud firmly adhered to the ball and rotated the ball then a good amount of the mud would certainly come off.  But that doesn’t mean that the mud was not adhered to the ball, just that gravity and other forces caused it to break free.  Again, as I’m sure is crystal clear by my explanation of my thought process, not a scientist or someone who really understands this stuff but just offering my gut feelings...

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, jomatty said:

I don’t think that rotating the ball to make a determination could be correct.  I’m definitely not a scientist but if you rotate the ball you are exerting some force, however minimal, on the ball.  Also you have the weight of the mud or other object that would, in essence, pull the mud off of the ball.  For instance, if you had 2 pounds of mud firmly adhered to the ball and rotated the ball then a good amount of the mud would certainly come off.  But that doesn’t mean that the mud was not adhered to the ball, just that gravity and other forces caused it to break free.  Again, as I’m sure is crystal clear by my explanation of my thought process, not a scientist or someone who really understands this stuff but just offering my gut feelings...

 

You are right, part of the mud would come off. However, some part would remain adhered (= sticking by the RoG) to the ball so rotating the ball would tell us that the lump of mud remaining on the ball is not a Loose Impediment.

 

But rotating the ball slowly would not be the reason for part of the mud to come off but insufficient cohesion inside the lump of mud. If you take a small leaf instead of those 2 pounds of mud you would notice that a wet leaf would stay adhered to the ball when the ball is slowly rotated as the adhesion forces between the leaf and the ball are greater than the force created by gravity and the very very small centrifugal force created by rotating the ball.