Sure. But that's not what happened here, is it? I've driven at 35 in a 30 limit. So does that mean I think it's OK to do 70 down the high street, past the school?
Is that the worst analogy ever? It is this month. You can't "restore" going 15 in a school zone after going past it at 70. A thousand possible analogies and you land on that?
Her lie was the same when the ball came to rest and when she hit it. Does it matter
what restored the lie? No. What did you want her to do: bend down, touch the grass to move it a millimeter so she could say "the player" restored the conditions?
Every time the R&A, PGA Tour or whoever let's a pro get away with something like this, to avoid confrontation, the more everybody's going to think it's OK to do stuff like this.
Under the Rules, what she did was okay because the lie was restored.
I think the wording of the rule should be changed to "If a player attempts to improve or improves...etc"
That adds more subjectivity. Now not only must you judge whether the CATS were improved or altered, you must determine whether they were even attempting to do so.
It's a certainty that the lie was altered, and considering the direction she pushed the tuft of grass, it's very likely it was altered in a way that benefitted her, however so minutely. But this can't be proved, so she's off the hook.
The CATS were not affected.
I get what those who are saying that she tried to push it out of the way are saying, but because she failed, because she played from the lie she was given, because the grass rebounded… no penalty.
