Ball found within 5 minutes

[Robbo123]

In a recent medal we were looking for my partners tee shot. He did not hit a provisional as we assumed it would be in play But after about 2 mins it was clear that it may have gone into longer rough. To speed play we suggested he go back to the tee and we would continue looking Within 5 minutes and before he had hit another tee shot we found the ball and called him back Someone informed me later that once he walked back he assumes the ball is lost. I recalled that mark omeara won the British open in 1998 with exactly the same incident occurring .Various sites I have found online suggest that you cannot deem a ball lost within 5 minutes and have to play the ball if its found . R and a website seems to mention that ball is lost if your caddy or a caddy in your team hasn't found it. So ultimately my question is is anyone able to find the ball at which point the player has to play the ball. Mark omearas ball was found by a spectator so I am sure that our situation was bona fide. ???

 

[KenL]

A ball found within 5 minutes of searching is not lost unless another has been put into play.

 

[Spuddy]

Decision 27/1-1 covers this exactly. The 'found' ball is in play

 

[chrisd]

Anyone looking, can find the ball and the player is obliged to identify it as his if found.

 

[Ethan]

Decision 27/1-1 covers this exactly. The 'found' ball is in play

Yep, this one is about as clear as the RoG get.

 

[delc]

I was involved in the reverse situation in a medal comp at our club a couple of years ago. A fellow competitor hit a reasonable looking drive that just ran into the semi-rough on the left. We went forward but couldn't immediately find it, so he said he would go back to the tee and play a "provisional" ball and could we go on looking. Just after he struck this we found his original ball a bit further along than expected and hiding in a tufty bit of grass. The FC wanted to play his original ball as it was found within 5 minutes, but I pointed out that he had put another ball into play and it was not a provisional as we had gone forward to search. A somewhat heated discussion followed, which was resolved by a mobile phone call to our pro shop, who confirmed that I was correct. If we had found his original ball before he played the second ball, then he would have been OK.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If you can't declare a ball lost I doubt assuming a ball lost will have specific definition under the rules. Your PP has simply assumed it won't be found within 5 minutes so has gone back to put another ball in play. Luckily for him it was found before he did so and within 5mins he's fine. Common myth I hear this - about saying a ball is lost and starting to walk back to tee.

And his ball doesn't have to be played from where it is found - it is simply his ball in play to do with as he chooses under the rules.

 

[Backache]

We went forward but couldn't immediately find it, so he said he would go back to the tee and play a "provisional" ball and could we go on looking. .

Sounds like a bit of grief might have been saved if the rule was pointed out to him at this stage,

 

[delc]

Sounds like a bit of grief might have been saved if the rule was pointed out to him at this stage,

At the time we thought the original ball was lost, so assumed that this would not become an issue!

 

[Backache]

We all forget to do things and I can certainly understand forgetting to remind him but you did say it appeared to be in the semi and was not immediately found.

 

[Robbo123]

Thanks for all the replies My overriding precedent was always the fact that omeara won the open in that situation. But good to get clarification

 

[Foxholer]

In a recent medal we were looking for my partners tee shot. He did not hit a provisional as we assumed it would be in play But after about 2 mins it was clear that it may have gone into longer rough. To speed play we suggested he go back to the tee and we would continue looking Within 5 minutes and before he had hit another tee shot we found the ball and called him back Someone informed me later that once he walked back he assumes the ball is lost. I recalled that mark omeara won the British open in 1998 with exactly the same incident occurring .Various sites I have found online suggest that you cannot deem a ball lost within 5 minutes and have to play the ball if its found . R and a website seems to mention that ball is lost if your caddy or a caddy in your team hasn't found it. So ultimately my question is is anyone able to find the ball at which point the player has to play the ball. Mark omearas ball was found by a spectator so I am sure that our situation was bona fide. ???

That (the bold bit) is a quite widespread myth! Or at least the 'official' designation of 'lost' doesn't apply (yet).

You/He acted perfectly correctly!

However, had he made a swing at a re-teed ball, then (by the definition in Rules of Golf) the original ball IS lost - even if someone has it in their hand! That's as per DelC's story. And he's also correct that it's not a 'provisional' in this situation!

Another clarification...If the ball is found within the 5 minutes, but the player is back on the tee, or heading that way, then he is allowed to return and identify it, even if it takes more than 5 minutes overall to identify it. It is the fact that it was FOUND within the 5 minutes tht's important.

It's worthwhile to browse the Decisions section of USGA or R&A Rules as there's lots of different situations covered - including this one - and it can be an interesting (an amusing) read!

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks for all the replies My overriding precedent was always the fact that omeara won the open in that situation. But good to get clarification

such precedents are very dangerous because the rules change! There is also the problem that it's rare for the ruling to fit the situation exactly.

I stayed out of the thread earlier because you had been given the correct answer, and I didn't want to confuse things. However you have raised the 1998 incident again so it's worthy of a little clarification.

In Mark's case the issue related to timing, and the wording of rule 27-1c, rather than the issue of walking back, potentially teeing, then playing another ball. 27-1/1 covers that latter issue.

Mark's ball was found but he wasn't given the opportunity to identify it until after the 5 minutes were up. The on course ruling took time over and above the time already taken due to a lot of telephone discussion over how to interpret 27-1c. We now have decision (rule) 27/5.5 against which future ruling can be made instantly ie a ball found within 5 minutes doesn't need to be identified within that period to avoid being ruled lost - "As a ball was found within five minutes of beginning search, the player is allowed enough time to reach the area in order to identify it. If the player identifies the ball as his, it is not a "lost ball" even though the identification takes place after the five-minute search period has elapsed." I don't have a 1996 decisions available to me to be categorical, but I'm reasonably certain this came in after that incident.

Hope this helps.

 

[woody69]

At the time we thought the original ball was lost, so assumed that this would not become an issue!

Well you could have said, "it's not a provisional. You go back and play another it's the ball in play whether you like it or not". He then may have continued looking rather than going back.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

such precedents are very dangerous because the rules change! There is also the problem that it's rare for the ruling to fit the situation exactly.

I stayed out of the thread earlier because you had been given the correct answer, and I didn't want to confuse things. However you have raised the 1998 incident again so it's worthy of a little clarification.

In Mark's case the issue related to timing, and the wording of rule 27-1c, rather than the issue of walking back, potentially teeing, then playing another ball. 27-1/1 covers that latter issue.

Mark's ball was found but he wasn't given the opportunity to identify it until after the 5 minutes were up. The on course ruling took time over and above the time already taken due to a lot of telephone discussion over how to interpret 27-1c. We now have decision (rule) 27/5.5 against which future ruling can be made instantly ie a ball found within 5 minutes doesn't need to be identified within that period to avoid being ruled lost - "As a ball was found within five minutes of beginning search, the player is allowed enough time to reach the area in order to identify it. If the player identifies the ball as his, it is not a "lost ball" even though the identification takes place after the five-minute search period has elapsed." I don't have a 1996 decisions available to me to be categorical, but I'm reasonably certain this came in after that incident.

Hope this helps.

Good one to know that.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

That's as per DelC's story. And he's also correct that it's not a 'provisional' in this situation!
!

Nothing to add to the story, but just wanted to highlight for posterity, Foxholer agreeing with Delc!

 

[Robbo123]

Appreciate all the comments

 

[anotherdouble]

such precedents are very dangerous because the rules change! There is also the problem that it's rare for the ruling to fit the situation exactly.

I stayed out of the thread earlier because you had been given the correct answer, and I didn't want to confuse things. However you have raised the 1998 incident again so it's worthy of a little clarification.

In Mark's case the issue related to timing, and the wording of rule 27-1c, rather than the issue of walking back, potentially teeing, then playing another ball. 27-1/1 covers that latter issue.

Mark's ball was found but he wasn't given the opportunity to identify it until after the 5 minutes were up. The on course ruling took time over and above the time already taken due to a lot of telephone discussion over how to interpret 27-1c. We now have decision (rule) 27/5.5 against which future ruling can be made instantly ie a ball found within 5 minutes doesn't need to be identified within that period to avoid being ruled lost - "As a ball was found within five minutes of beginning search, the player is allowed enough time to reach the area in order to identify it. If the player identifies the ball as his, it is not a "lost ball" even though the identification takes place after the five-minute search period has elapsed." I don't have a 1996 decisions available to me to be categorical, but I'm reasonably certain this came in after that incident.

Hope this helps.

If a ball is found after 2 minutes is the clock then stopped until identified. If it turns out it is not the 'lost ball' does the player still have 3 minutes to look no matter how long it has taken to identify it or is the 5 minute clock still going.

 

[rulefan]

If a ball is found after 2 minutes is the clock then stopped until identified. If it turns out it is not the 'lost ball' does the player still have 3 minutes to look no matter how long it has taken to identify it or is the 5 minute clock still going.

The clock is put on hold.

 

[anotherdouble]

Thanks rule fan