ball driven into lake

[rulefan]

Close enough for me.

My assertion is that the reader should implicitly insert the 'In this case' phrase even when the poster hasn't explicitly written it.

The reader should infer that 'the in this case' is included. The writer implies, the reader (hopefully correctly) infers.

But the rules should be explicit unless there can be no misunderstanding.

 

[Colin L]

We can have a discussion about ambiguity some day. :blah:

Do the Mormons still practise ambiguity?

 

[Colin L]

The reader should infer that 'the in this case' is included. The writer implies, the reader (hopefully correctly) infers. .....

I generally have to accept that the battle to maintain the distinction between imply and infer is lost in most contexts. But in matter like the law and the Rules of Golf, it does seem important to keep and protect the distinction for the sake of precision.

It is not for nothing that I am known in my family (affectionately I hope) as a POF.

Go on, work it out for yourselves.

 

[atticusfinch]

Pedantic old fool?

 

[Colin L]

Damn, hat's another fact that escaped me.I'm losing the battle.

But I do not like making assumptions about what the poster means. If his post is not ambiguous I take him at his word. There is nothing in the OP that indicates stroke play and one thing that indicates match play. So unless he corrects me I believe it was match play.

Pedantic old fool?

Two thirds correct.

 

[Foxholer]

The reader should infer that 'the in this case' is included. The writer implies, the reader (hopefully correctly) infers.

I can live with that. Though might question what he actually does to infer.

But the rules should be explicit unless there can be no misunderstanding.

Back half of that sentence is superfluous! Though maybe not, as it 'adds value', if 'unless' was changed to 'so'.:mmm:

 

[rulefan]

I can live with that. Though might question what he actually does to infer.

Back half of that sentence is superfluous! Though maybe not, as it 'adds value', if 'unless' was changed to 'so'.:mmm:

But the rules should be explicit unless there can be no misunderstanding.

Example:

Rule title: Ball on green.

Rule 1: the player may not do XXX when his ball is on the green. Explicit condition.
Rule 2: the player may not do YYY. Implicit condition.

I cannot see any misunderstanding. The reader will surely infer 'when the ball is on the green' by virtue of the context.

 

[atticusfinch]

The thing i have noticed (and lamented about) is how our declining language skills make us less able to make correct inferences. That's why we went from 13 to 35 plus rules. At least on this side of the pond.

 

[delc]

Without wishing to confuse the issue any further, there is a R&A Specimen Local Rule for water hazards that are out of sight from the tee, where you cannot know or be virtually certain that a ball has gone in. This applies to the 15th hole on our course.

1. Water Hazards; Ball Played Provisionally Under Rule 26-1

If a water hazard (including a lateral water hazard) is of such size and shape and/or located in such a position that:
(i) it would be impracticable to determine whether the ball is in the hazard or to do so would unduly delay play, and
(ii) if the original ball is not found, it is known or virtually certain that it is in the water hazard,
the Committee may introduce a Local Rule permitting the play of a ball provisionally under Rule 26-1. The ball is played provisionally under any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 or any applicable Local Rule. In such a case, if a ball is played provisionally and the original ball is in a water hazard, the player may play the original ball as it lies or continue with the ball played provisionally, but he may not proceed under Rule 26-1 with regard to the original ball.
In these circumstances, the following Local Rule is recommended:

“If there is doubt whether a ball is in or is lost in the water hazard (specify location), the player may play another ball provisionally under any of the applicable options in Rule 26-1.
If the original ball is found outside the water hazard, the player must continue play with it.
If the original ball is found in the water hazard, the player may either play the original ball as it lies or continue with the ball played provisionally under Rule 26-1.
If the original ball is not found or identified within the five-minute search period, the player must continue with the ball played provisionally.
PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:
Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.”

So there are circumstances where a provisional ball can be played, even if the original ball has gone into a water hazard and you could possibly have a choice of shots!

 

[Foxholer]

Without wishing to confuse the issue any further, there is a R&A Specimen Local Rule for water hazards that are out of sight from the tee, where you cannot know or be virtually certain that a ball has gone in. This applies to the 15th hole on our course.

So there are circumstances where a provisional ball can be played, even if the original ball has gone into a water hazard and you could possibly have a choice of shots!

Also at the 3rd at Thorndon Park.

Deemed too much hassle (to reprint cards) at my old place. Simply changing the boundary of the WH to where visible/obvious solved it.

 

[duncan mackie]

Without wishing to confuse the issue any further, there is a R&A Specimen Local Rule ........

already fully covered for the purposes of this thread in post #4

therefore the appropriate inference in reading any subsequent responses is that this is not a factor in the response unless stated otherwise