• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

3 minutes to find ball

Slab said:
I hope rulefan & colin etc don’t mind if I continue to comment on the scenario, in the rules section, leaving the real work to them

I can’t help wonder what P2 thought about seeing 2 balls on the fairway and 2 players and himself each looking for balls on the fairway. Basic numbers says 2 into 3 don’t go, so someone is missing a ball.. but it didn’t occur to P2 that it could be him missing out especially now that one group says he’s on the fairway and another group says those in view aren’t his ball

But it’s the action of scuffing around in the rough further up that’s most unclear and difficult to imagine that action taking place and then hearing that it was not connected to the search for his ball. Just because it turns out it was totally the wrong place it doesn’t mean the time wouldn’t be counted in his 3 minutes. I’ll bet we’ve all searched in totally the wrong place more than once
Click to expand...

I agree - but playing devil's Advoc - if a search does not start until you are looking in the approximate area the ball is lost? I know he'd had a quick glance at the two balls on the fairway, but to him he had not confirmed one way or the other, and as he waited to confirm he looked elsewhere...which is probably his mistake.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
if a search does not start until you are looking in the approximate area the ball is lost?
Click to expand...
The rule does not require the player to be searching in the 'appropriate area' or where he thinks the ball may be. Simply searching is sufficient to start the clock.
If however he can legitimately claim that he knew his ball could not be in that area of rough and therefore was not searching for his ball, then that time should not count.
But then my query is, why was he there and what was he doing? Was it dangerous to stand/look elsewhere (ie to the side by where he looked at the two balls)

Edited to start the clock
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I agree - but playing devil's Advoc - if a search does not start until you are looking in the approximate area the ball is lost? I know he'd had a quick glance at the two balls on the fairway, but to him he had not confirmed one way or the other, and as he waited to confirm he looked elsewhere...which is probably his mistake.
Click to expand...

But that bits not true. The approximate area the ball actually is doesn't matter for starting the clock, its where you believed the approximate area is/was & start searching, even if it later turns out that the player was wrong in choosing that area

(& if you move off somewhere else adjacent after the clock stared then its easy to see how that might look like widening the search area because it hasn't been found it yet)
 
rulefan said:
The rule does require the player to be searching in the 'appropriate area' or where he thinks the ball may be. Simply searching is sufficient to start the clock.
If however he can legitimately claim that he knew his ball could not be in that area of rough and therefore was not searching for his ball, then that time should not count.
But then my query is, why was he there and what was he doing? Was it dangerous to stand/look elsewhere (ie to the side by where he looked at the two balls)

Edited to start the clock
Click to expand...

Rather than just stand and do nothing as he waited for the group to reach the two balls I guess he just started looking somewhere else - just in case. He may have been thinking he'd run out of time if he just stood and waited, as he most likely didn't know the clock could be stopped. Even although he was probably pretty certain he wouldn't find his ball in the rough where he was now looking... Because as soon as they reached the balls - if they confirmed neither was his - he would have to start looking elsewhere anyway.

As it happens where he would be standing waiting would not be a great place to wait as the third player played up. But I don't think that that is why he started looking further on and out of range. That said, I do not know for certain that he was in fact looking in the rough for his ball - I did not seem him do it. It was the 'accusing' player who made that deduction from what he saw as he walked up the hole and then afterwards told me (in the c/house).
 
Slab said:
But that bits not true. The approximate area the ball actually is doesn't matter for starting the clock, its where you believed the approximate area is/was & start searching, even if it later turns out that the player was wrong in choosing that area

(& if you move off somewhere else adjacent after the clock stared then its easy to see how that might look like widening the search area because it hasn't been found it yet)
Click to expand...

He believed his ball was on the 11th fairway as that was where he was told it was. After that I suspect he had no idea where his ball might be. Where he was looking was not an impossible place for his ball to have ended...we know how balls can bounce around to the weirdest of places inside stands of mature trees.

P2's argument was that the time was taken up by him waiting for the 3rd player to play up and for the group to then walk up to the two balls. They disagreed - citing him checking the two balls; being told by them that the balls were not his; then him engaging in the search they saw him doing in the rough further on.
 
Last edited:
Still quite surprised that the 11th fairway rulie guy just come straight out with a line like 'if you play that you're a cheat'

Whatever his frustrations with membership compliance that's pretty well nailed on to get the hackles up and set off a square-go (quite surprised there wasn't another two balls found on the fairway!)
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
He believed his ball was on the 11th fairway as that was where he was told it was. After that I suspect he had no idea where his abll might be.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can imagine/have been in that situation.
Do you think that not knowing where to look next would be enough to stop the clock though? I kinda doubt it
 
If he was not actively looking for his ball for a legitimate reason the clock stops.
IMO he doesn't have to prove it, the accuser has to give the Committee very good reason for the justification of a penalty.
 
rulefan said:
If he was not actively looking for his ball for a legitimate reason the clock stops.
He doesn't have to prove it. The accuser has to give the Committee very good reason for the justification of a penalty.
Click to expand...

In a hypothetical situation I just posed: 'not sure where to look next' Could that be a legitimate reason?
 
Slab said:
In a hypothetical situation I just posed: 'not sure where to look next' Could that be a legitimate reason?
Click to expand...
Give the facts to the Committee, it's their responsibility to decide if there was a breach or not, not everyone's.
 
Slab said:
Still quite surprised that the 11th fairway rulie guy just come straight out with a line like 'if you play that you're a cheat'

Whatever his frustrations with membership compliance that's pretty well nailed on to get the hackles up and set off a square-go (quite surprised there wasn't another two balls found on the fairway!)
Click to expand...

P2 is a nice and pretty laid-back sort of lad - but his brother (who was P3) tells he is stubborn...and he was absolutely steaming over this.

rulie guy agrees he was possibly a bit strong on it - but I guess he just saw it as sooo blatant he just couldn't contain himself.

I'll note that after all the discussion on this matter last week I actually took my iPhone 5s out with me on Saturday with display set to stopwatch and 3mins. Early on in the round when P2 was about to start a search (on 2nd hole) I had a surreptitious go at setting the stopwatch running - but blow me - I couldn't read the screen due to the glare and my not having my reading glasses on - so I didn't bother. Who'd have guessed what would happen 8 holes later...:( You couldn't make it up...
 
There's certainly no reason for anyone to have bandied around 'cheat' or 'cheating'. The accuser could have approached the situation by gently explaining to the player not to forget that only 3 minutes now, he thought he had seen him searching for longer than that and he considered the ball to be lost. If player disagreed then could have stated that he would be reporting the matter to committee and hence player might want to play 2 balls.
 
badgergm said:
There's certainly no reason for anyone to have bandied around 'cheat' or 'cheating'. The accuser could have approached the situation by gently explaining to the player not to forget that only 3 minutes now, he thought he had seen him searching for longer than that and he considered the ball to be lost. If player disagreed then could have stated that he would be reporting the matter to committee and hence player might want to play 2 balls.
Click to expand...

Yes to all of that - but unfortunately that is not what happened :(
 
In terms of how the committee might proceed in sorting this out, I suggest it should clarify with the accusatory player that the assertion that Player 2 would be cheating if he played the found ball was wrong and needlessay inflammatory.He would have to understand that if he believed that 3 minutes of search time had already elapsed, he should have let the player know that if he played his ball, it would be a wrong ball and that his correct action would be to play his provisional if there was one, or take stroke & distance. At the point of the intervention, Player 2 did not know if he was over the 3 minute limit and his action had he played the wrong ball would have been made in innnocence of any intent. In those circumstances, the accusation should be retracted and an apology considered.

With that out of the way, the facts of the matter can be considered and the most important questions in my view are a) by what means did the player from the 11th time the search ; b) when did start timing it and c) can he say how long Player 2 was standing waiting to access the 11th fairway. If it wasn't timed by a watch, I reckon that's the end of the matter. If it was. but the timing might have started too soon, that puts the timing in doubt. And if the Committee were in agreement that the time spent waiting to access the 11th to check the balls there was to be discounted, the player's timing is invalidated if he did not stop and re-start his timing accordingly or, not having done so, could not be reasonably precise as to how much time should be discounted.
 
Colin L said:
That's all right. You can always ask questions in this forum of those of us who have read them all, studied them all, passed exams in them all and who can help you in your knowleldge and understanding.;)
Click to expand...

Yet another condescending reply from one of our "resident experts"!
 
Having difficulty recognising humour even when signalled by a suitable emotiwhatsit?

And, by the way, I've no idea who these "resident experts" might be. I contribute to the forum on my own behalf and have no connection with Golf Monthly as a resident anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Slab
No Penalty for Rose
Replies
8
Views
858
nickjdavis
N
D
Status of holed ball
Replies
8
Views
2K
D-S
D
F
Ban Club Championship
Replies
4
Views
2K
Frankiehug67
F
D
USGA Quiz Question (Ref# 689)
2 3
Replies
43
Views
6K
Colin L
Colin L
G
Alternative to handicaps
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
6K
sunshine
S
Top