Preferred lies ruling?

Whenever I've played preferred lies I've always played it within 6 inches not nearer the hole. How do other members interpret preferred lies?
The reason I ask is that in today's World Cup, Kuchar pushed a tee shot way right on the par 3 11th. The ball ran down a bank and was hard up against the cut of rough. Woodland marked the ball and placed it 3-4 inches nearer the hole taking the fringe of rough out of the equation. Even the commentators questioned it.
Fair, bending the rules or cheating?

If it was allowed by the rules officials then i would say fair.

Its the same rule for everyone so i cant see it being an issue.

As amateurs it is always a 'Local Rule' and usually says not nearer the hole.

As Doon says, in amateur golf, preferred lies are ALWAYS a local rule, so you need to read the card. In pro golf, if the ref says it's ok then it's ok, regardless.

i thought the only time you could drop the ball closer to the hole was when you were droping at a lateral hazard as its all about where the ball crossed the hazard line rather than a not nearer the hole drop.

i would be amazed if you were allowed to drop or place nearer the hole when taking a prefered lie.

liegerwoods wrote:i thought the only time you could drop the ball closer to the hole was when you were droping at a lateral hazard as its all about where the ball crossed the hazard line rather than a not nearer the hole drop.

i would be amazed if you were allowed to drop or place nearer the hole when taking a prefered lie.

There are quite a few instances of the player being able to drop closer to the hole than the ball is lying. If you decide to replay a shot because your ball ends up in an unplayable lie, then you may be dropping it closer to the hole than where your ball currently lies. For example, if you hit a tree just in front of the tee with your drive, and it rebounds 50 yards behind you, ending up in thick rough, you can declare it unplayable and hit your tee shot again.

This case is different - I didn't see it, but I gather it was a preferred lie. If the player moved the ball, and then placed it, and the referee agreed it wasn't closer, then that is fine. The referee's judgment in golf is final, and always correct, even if it's wrong. If the referee agrees with what you are doing, then you can't be later penalised for a rules infraction, even if what you did was wrong.

i always believed preferred lies was so you can clean mud off your ball?
six inches no closer fair enough,but closer to the hole is basically cheating.
why not just replace it where it lies?no confusion or gaining an unfair advange then.

I believe that a referee can also rule 'in equity'

The specimen local rules suggestion from both the R and A and USGA say the same thing.

A ball lying on a closely-mown area through the green (or specify a more restricted area, e.g. at the 6th hole) may be lifted, without penalty, and cleaned. Before lifting the ball, the player must mark its position. Having lifted the ball, he must place it on a spot within (specify area, e.g. six inches, one club-length, etc.) of and not nearer the hole than where it originally lay, that is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.


So both of them say not nearer the hole. Now I appreciate that the local Tournament might change the wording of the local rule, but it would seem surprising if the deviated from the two rules making bodies.

George1507 wrote:

liegerwoods wrote:i thought the only time you could drop the ball closer to the hole was when you were droping at a lateral hazard as its all about where the ball crossed the hazard line rather than a not nearer the hole drop.

i would be amazed if you were allowed to drop or place nearer the hole when taking a prefered lie.

There are quite a few instances of the player being able to drop closer to the hole than the ball is lying. If you decide to replay a shot because your ball ends up in an unplayable lie, then you may be dropping it closer to the hole than where your ball currently lies. For example, if you hit a tree just in front of the tee with your drive, and it rebounds 50 yards behind you, ending up in thick rough, you can declare it unplayable and hit your tee shot again.

This case is different - I didn't see it, but I gather it was a preferred lie. If the player moved the ball, and then placed it, and the referee agreed it wasn't closer, then that is fine. The referee's judgment in golf is final, and always correct, even if it's wrong. If the referee agrees with what you are doing, then you can't be later penalised for a rules infraction, even if what you did was wrong.

george

replaying a shot is not the same as dropping nearer to the hole or in this case placing it nearer the hole. replaying the shot is covered under the penalty of stroke and distance. if you are taking a freedrop or prefered lie you absolutely cannot drop it closer to the hole.

if the referee allowed the relief he must of judged it to be not nearer the hole.

I would like to clarify my OP. The topic heading is misleading as I do not know if is was a ruling from a referee or if Woodland moved the ball himself using a preferred lie to move the ball nearer the hole.
The TV coverage was inconclusive as their was no coverage of a referee being involved. One minute the ball was hard up against the collar of rough, the next it was 3-4 inches nearer the hole.

Wondering, as I didn't see it did the camera angle change?

Rangiora wrote:Wondering, as I didn't see it did the camera angle change?

No. It was the same camera view from above and behind the green. This, I assume, was the view that The Golf Channel commentators were watching when they mentioned the ball having been moved. Shortly after a hand held camera positioned directly behind the ball clearly showed the ball 3-4 inches away from the collar of the rough.

If your ball plugs in the rough when the preferred lie rule is in force would the local rule usually allow you to take a preffered lie.

Depends Mac, I've played two courses in the last couple of weeks where preferred lies were in operation on the fairway and first cut due to how wet the courses were.

I think if a course is so wet that you get a plugged ball regardless of where it lies, you should get relief (except in a bunker)

4putt,

I noticed the very same thing when watching back on Sunday morning. The ball missed the green by about 25 yards to the right and rolled back a foot or so until it was against the collar of rough. The ball was just short of pin high so the next shot needed to be played almost perpendicualr to the collar. I recall thinking "thats a tough shot".

The next view was from behind and before the shot was taken. The ball was at least 3 inches from the collar. I recall thinking there is no way you can move the ball 6 inches sideways and get 3 inches clear of the collar. From behind it appeared that the collar was between the first and second sut of rough so doubted if the ball was on the fiarway anyway (not certain about that point).

The whole thing looked a bit suspicious to me. Monty would have proud.

I'll make a note to watch again tonight to check the details (if not already deleted).

Thank you Scottie. I was beginning to doubt my version of events.

I think a 2 shot penalty should be imposed and the Trophy given to England.

4putt,

The 2 shots would have been added before Poults / Rose played the last few holes. They would have then played the last few holes with a chance of winning.

Either Rose would have knocked in the water off the 16th or 18th tee or Poults would have shanked his approach at either the 16th or 18th.

ScottieD18 wrote:Either Rose would have knocked in the water off the 16th or 18th tee or Poults would have shanked his approach at either the 16th or 18th.

True.

4putt,

Phew, thought you might have been offended.