Ball on top of another ball, unsure if its on the course

[cmagnusson]

Okay, this came out of a throwaway comment I made on a post about a different rule, but it seems it deserves its own post because now that I realized I may have been wrong initially, I'm very confused as to what is right. I'm not a huge rules guy so forgive my incorrect interpretations if (read: when) they occur.

 

My tee shot goes into a pile of leaves just inside the bush on the left side of the fairway. When I come to my ball and start removing loose impediments slowly and carefully to find it in the pile, I find that my ball is *fully* on top of another ball in the same pile.

ISSUE #1:

Is a pile of leaves part of the course? They are the only reason my ball is able to be on top of the other ball, and whether they are considered part of the course dictates whether I was correct in proceeding under 15.2a(2) and taking 1 clublength of relief, or if I should have replaced the ball after moving the moveable obstruction (abandoned ball) under 15.2a(1).

ISSUE #2:

So this is the part that's *really* confusing me. If we do decide the leaves are part of the course (they were not piled for removal and can't be an abnormal condition, btw), then I proceed under 15.2a(1). However, if that's the case, I have to dig through and disrupt the pile significantly in order to get the other ball out, which arguably puts me in violation of 15.1a because moving all the leaves would have caused my ball to move originally. I'm not sure if 9.4b(ex1) would apply here to exempt me from that penalty because I was doing so as part of the process of the lift afforded in 15.2a(1), but even then where should I be replacing my ball? 14.2d(2) says I have to place it in the most similar lie possible, but 14.2c says I don't have to replace any of the loose impediments I removed, so should I just put it on what remains of the pile? And if "on top of the pile" is then my designated replacement spot, if it sinks in or rolls around (as it very well may since leaves are soft and moveable), do I, after aaaaallll of this, then get my 1 club length of relief anyway under 14.2e?

 

 

 

Rules man. This was fun to go through, but its amazing how little I understand the game I've been playing for 30 years.

[Purple Toupee]

How did you not take a picture?

[antip]

Here's the reference to some public USGA advice: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10158846314998656&set=gm.3381592671896405

 

Your example is slightly different in the role of the leaves. Does that change anything? If you are so moved about this, and you think there is a ghost's chance in hell this will ever happen again in our lifetimes, you might like to send your picture or your story in to the USGA for their further adjudication. 

 

But, IMO, the ruling would not change. The lie of your ball is on the course and my ruling would be you proceed under 15.2a(1). If you do ask the USGA, I'd love to hear their answer. 

 

As to your other questions, the rules fully guide what you need to do. You lift that other ball in the least intrusive manner you can, which will likely cause your ball to move, and then you replace your ball. It is that simple. Your lie has not changed, because the leaves are not part of the lie (see the definition of lie). 

[cmagnusson]

1 hour ago, Purple Toupee said:

How did you not take a picture?

 

Oh that I wish I had. Even better: would you believe me that based on the markings and the type of ball that it was originally hit into those leaves last fall my one of my fellow competitors for the round?

 

 

1 hour ago, antip said:

Here's the reference to some public USGA advice: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10158846314998656&set=gm.3381592671896405

 

Your example is slightly different in the role of the leaves. Does that change anything? If you are so moved about this, and you think there is a ghost's chance in hell this will ever happen again in our lifetimes, you might like to send your picture or your story in to the USGA for their further adjudication. 

 

But, IMO, the ruling would not change. The lie of your ball is on the course and my ruling would be you proceed under 15.2a(1). If you do ask the USGA, I'd love to hear their answer. 

 

As to your other questions, the rules fully guide what you need to do. You lift that other ball in the least intrusive manner you can, which will likely cause your ball to move, and then you replace your ball. It is that simple. Your lie has not changed, because the leaves are not part of the lie (see the definition of lie). 

 

Okay I get that the leaves aren't part of the lie, but:

Quote

Exception 1 – Removing Loose Impediment Where Ball Must Be Replaced: Before replacing a ball that was lifted or moved from anywhere except the putting green:

• A player must not deliberately remove a loose impediment that, if moved before the ball was lifted or moved, would have been likely to have caused the ball to move.

That's the part of putting it back that's holding me up now, because all the leaves I move to get the obstruction out would fall under this rule.

 

I think I will send it into the USGA. The only argument I would have against the leaves being part of the course is that I'm allowed to move the leaves since they are a loose impediment, I am not allowed to modify the course, therefore logically it would follow the leaves cannot be part of the course because I am allowed to move them. In fact, loose impediments are defined as an object or condition in 2.3 which, in my mind, would be them specifically separating them from being "the course". 

[Mr. Bean]

4 minutes ago, cmagnusson said:

 

I think I will send it into the USGA. The only argument I would have against the leaves being part of the course is that I'm allowed to move the leaves since they are a loose impediment, I am not allowed to modify the course, therefore logically it would follow the leaves cannot be part of the course because I am allowed to move them. In fact, loose impediments are defined as an object or condition in 2.3 which, in my mind, would be them specifically separating them from being "the course". 

 

So... if your ball is on top of a fallen leaf and leans against a cigarette lighter you would consider your ball being on top of that lighter because fallen leaf is not part of the course, is that it?

 

I bet the person at USGA reading your question will have a good laugh before starting to formulate the answer 😄

[cmagnusson]

35 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So... if your ball is on top of a fallen leaf and leans against a cigarette lighter you would consider your ball being on top of that lighter because fallen leaf is not part of the course, is that it?

 

I bet the person at USGA reading your question will have a good laugh before starting to formulate the answer 😄

 

 

So would you say that this spoon isn't on top of the paperclip holder because it's leaning against the cup? 

[rogolf]

Imo, the chance of one ball stopping on top of another and staying there without touching a part of the course is extremely rare. Have you ever tried to balance one ball on top of another?

[IndyArcher]

9 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Have you ever tried to balance one ball on top of another?

 

Why, yes. Yes, I have...

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, cmagnusson said:

 

 

So would you say that this spoon isn't on top of the paperclip holder because it's leaning against the cup? 

 

Rules of Golf do not apply to spoons.

 

The way I see it, a ball being "on top" of something by the RoG means it is not leaning against any part of the course (or anything ON the course) in such a way that it would fall off from the "on top" if whatever the ball is leaning against would be removed.

[antip]

7 hours ago, cmagnusson said:

 

Oh that I wish I had. Even better: would you believe me that based on the markings and the type of ball that it was originally hit into those leaves last fall my one of my fellow competitors for the round?

 

 

 

Okay I get that the leaves aren't part of the lie, but:

That's the part of putting it back that's holding me up now, because all the leaves I move to get the obstruction out would fall under this rule.

 

I think I will send it into the USGA. The only argument I would have against the leaves being part of the course is that I'm allowed to move the leaves since they are a loose impediment, I am not allowed to modify the course, therefore logically it would follow the leaves cannot be part of the course because I am allowed to move them. In fact, loose impediments are defined as an object or condition in 2.3 which, in my mind, would be them specifically separating them from being "the course". 

Couple of points. 

Your friend's lost ball from last year? Are you suggesting that a leaf pile stays in place for a year?

More seriously, your concerns about the leaves are misplaced. As I noted in my earlier careful wording ("least intrusive"), you would be free to remove the MO in a way that does not intentionally move leaves out of the way without consequences. Incidental movement of some leaves changes nothing and brings no rules breach - the specific permission to lift overrides the general prohibition in 15.1a Exception 1. 

One further issue, you seem to have concluded this issue is determined solely by language of "on the course" as though that is the critical filter and I don't think it is. Rather, it is about whether the ball is only on (think your spoon) or in an MO (15.2a(2)) or touching an MO AND simultaneously touching course, loose impediments, that frog or other potential items (15.2a(1)).

Edited May 19, 2023 by antip
Removed a certain word "tr..ps" and replaced it with "overrides".

[Mr. Bean]

19 hours ago, antip said:

One further issue, you seem to have concluded this issue is determined solely by language of "on the course" as though that is the critical filter and I don't think it is. Rather, it is about whether the ball is only on (think your spoon) or in an MO (15.2a(2)) or touching an MO AND simultaneously touching course, loose impediments, that frog or other potential items (15.2a(1)).

 

Based on what I wrote before your post it seems we are in total agreement. (How come I am not surprised..?)