Back to the tee or otherwise!

[Swango1980]

It all depends on the particular circumstances. That's what the rule amounts to.

Indeed. It is why I tried to give as much detail in my particular scenario.

It was basically to show that, if another player played your ball, and inside 3 minutes of you searching you came to the conclusion that it was highly likely they had played your ball, then surely the rules must allow the player to be able to confirm this? I can see nothing in the rules to suggest this would not be allowable.

Firstly, all the reasons for delaying search time are not listed. Just an example. So, as a referee, I would have liked to have thought they could agree that if a player had already looked 2 minutes before realising the person hit their ball, they could delay the search and go to where that person hit it. They'd have a minute once they get to that point.

If you had a mardy ref who just refused this, then if you could physically see your ball the other player hit, 150 yards away, the you should surely be able to claim you found the ball. You then have reasonable time to identify the found ball, which doesn't have to be inside 3 minutes.

It just seemed that the responses in here suggested something like "no, lost ball, just bad luck". Yet I could see nothing in the rules to actually suggest that.

Obviously, had the player looked for 3 minutes as per the OP and THEN realised what probably happened, then of course I can see why the rules definitively define the ball as lost. No issues with that, although I can understand the feeling of frustration from the player.

 

[salfordlad]

Your suggestion in #41 that you tried to give as much detail as possible doesn't gel - go back and read the sequence of your posts. They change often and there is a mixture of contrasting information. This is an observation, not a criticism - I have no issue with you continuing to raise different angles, they are all fair grist for t'mill. Yet you seem to be seeking blanket agreement to your view that the time clock can be extended providing B believes that A hit his ball. IMO, that is not the case.
You have also pitched the view that a referee can exercise discretion to stop the time clock. This is not my understanding. The USGA on their FB page have published advice on the question whether if new facts arise during a search that the player is searching in the wrong place, can the clock stop until the player gets to the right area and resume search. The answer was no.
All the facts of the situation have to be considered. For example, if the area these balls are estimated to be has plenty of places that balls can be hiding then there is only a small likelihood that the ball A hit was B's ball. In such a case, it doesn't matter what B believes. This is why I provided a much more detailed framework (#24) that, for me, would support a case for extending the time clock. In sum, I see no automatic answer and no automatic entitlement to B to extend the search time.

 

[Swango1980]

Your suggestion in #41 that you tried to give as much detail as possible doesn't gel - go back and read the sequence of your posts. They change often and there is a mixture of contrasting information. This is an observation, not a criticism - I have no issue with you continuing to raise different angles, they are all fair grist for t'mill. Yet you seem to be seeking blanket agreement to your view that the time clock can be extended providing B believes that A hit his ball. IMO, that is not the case.
You have also pitched the view that a referee can exercise discretion to stop the time clock. This is not my understanding. The USGA on their FB page have published advice on the question whether if new facts arise during a search that the player is searching in the wrong place, can the clock stop until the player gets to the right area and resume search. The answer was no.
All the facts of the situation have to be considered. For example, if the area these balls are estimated to be has plenty of places that balls can be hiding then there is only a small likelihood that the ball A hit was B's ball. In such a case, it doesn't matter what B believes. This is why I provided a much more detailed framework (#24) that, for me, would support a case for extending the time clock. In sum, I see no automatic answer and no automatic entitlement to B to extend the search time.

I appreciated I changed the scenario, hence in post 26 I described the exact situation that happened to me years ago, to try and start afresh. I appreciate every minute detail might have been missing, such as whether I could see the ball I believed the other player had wrongly hit from my position. This is why I added this detail thereafter. However, I'm also aware many rules advice givers on this forum often request more info, or caveat their answers frequently. If they think that it is relevant. As I'd expect, just as I'd expect a referee or Committee member to ask.

In response to your comment regarding reasons to justify stopping the clock or not. If that is what the USGA said, then fine. But it is still surely at their discretion, as the Rules themselves do not specifically describe justifiable reasons?

Going back to the scenario similar to the OP. Let us say, before 3 minutes both players are absolutely convinced Player A hit Player B's ball. Player A hit it onto green 150 yards away, though a dip means ball cannot physically be seen from where they are. Player B has 30 to 60 seconds left of his search time. A referee is present and they ask how to proceed. Are we seriously saying the referee has no discretion under the rules for Player B to identify his ball in reasonable time? That the ref says all you can do is identify ball inside the 3 minutes, you have about 30 seconds left. Player B sprints his life out towards green, identified it and waves back the thumbs up sign. However, if he managed to do it with a second to spare, ball not lost. 1 second too late, the referee signals the cut throat hand signal back - ball lost.

Hopefully you can see why I think this is absurd. If that is genuinely the only thing the written rules allow, then so be it. I just felt they were not written to absolutely rule out a player identifying their ball in this situation. Which is why I brought up both potential get out clauses (I.e. a justifiable stoppage of 3 minutes, or physically seeing your ball and this classifying it as found, yet to be identified.

 

[rulie]

Rule 18.2a(1)
a. When Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds
(1) When Ball Is Lost.
A ball is lost if not found in three minutes after the player or his or her caddie begins to search for it.

If a ball is found in that time but it is uncertain whether it is the player’s ball:

• The player must promptly attempt to identify the ball (see Rule 7.2) and is allowed a reasonable time to do so, even if that happens after the three-minute search time has ended.
• This includes a reasonable time to get to the ball if the player is not where the ball is found.
  

If the player does not identify his or her ball in that reasonable time, the ball is lost.

 

[rulefan]

If a ball is found in that time but it is uncertain whether it is the player’s ball:

• The player must promptly attempt to identify the ball (see Rule 7.2) and is allowed a reasonable time to do so, even if that happens after the three-minute search time has ended.
• This includes a reasonable time to get to the ball if the player is not where the ball is found.
  

Seems to provide an answer.

 

[Swango1980]

Rule 18.2a(1)
a. When Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds
(1) When Ball Is Lost.
A ball is lost if not found in three minutes after the player or his or her caddie begins to search for it.

If a ball is found in that time but it is uncertain whether it is the player’s ball:

• The player must promptly attempt to identify the ball (see Rule 7.2) and is allowed a reasonable time to do so, even if that happens after the three-minute search time has ended.
• This includes a reasonable time to get to the ball if the player is not where the ball is found.
  

If the player does not identify his or her ball in that reasonable time, the ball is lost.

Cheers

 

[jim8flog]

I'm sure they might change the rule one day when it impacts a pro. Maybe some sneaky fan will steal his ball. Pro can't find it in 3 minutes, although as he goes back to tee broadcasters relay msg to him that a fan stole his ball.

Exactly that scenario happened to Sam Torrance in China - lost ball.

 

[salfordlad]

Going back to the scenario similar to the OP. Let us say, before 3 minutes both players are absolutely convinced Player A hit Player B's ball. Player A hit it onto green 150 yards away, though a dip means ball cannot physically be seen from where they are. Player B has 30 to 60 seconds left of his search time. A referee is present and they ask how to proceed. Are we seriously saying the referee has no discretion under the rules for Player B to identify his ball in reasonable time? That the ref says all you can do is identify ball inside the 3 minutes, you have about 30 seconds left. Player B sprints his life out towards green, identified it and waves back the thumbs up sign. However, if he managed to do it with a second to spare, ball not lost. 1 second too late, the referee signals the cut throat hand signal back - ball lost.

Hopefully you can see why I think this is absurd. If that is genuinely the only thing the written rules allow, then so be it. I just felt they were not written to absolutely rule out a player identifying their ball in this situation. Which is why I brought up both potential get out clauses (I.e. a justifiable stoppage of 3 minutes, or physically seeing your ball and this classifying it as found, yet to be identified.

Again, I don't find these words the same as before. Regardless, I think it is worth fleshing out the main categories of approach. If the facts on the ground lend themselves to players being "absolutely convinced" A hit B's ball there is no rule 18 issue - this is a 9.2/9.6 issue with KVC an outside influence has moved B's ball - no further need to search, B places a ball on the estimated spot and plays on. But if your "absolutely convinced" is intended to mean something less than KVC, perhaps something like a strong likelihood before the 3 minute limit that A hit B's ball, and that struck ball is in a known position (even if not immediately visible) then, as I indicated earlier, I think this is the 18.2a(1) scenario that enables the player reasonable time to get to the ball to identify it even if that overruns the 3 minute time limit. However, if the facts on the ground suggest multiple possible explanations for why B's ball is not found (including that A may have hit it) then I don't see a case for extending the search time. None of this is automatic, the facts guide which world we are in.
On the other angle you touched on, I don't believe any referee or Committee has authority to stop the clock for later restart to assist a player to identify a "found" ball, because there is explicit direction in 18.2a(1) for how to deal with this scenario - by extending the clock. And once past that three minutes, if the found ball is not B's, or if B's ball is found elsewhere, S&D is the only way forward.