Ball identified but not retrievable.

[delc]

Quick question. A fellow competitor hit a ball into the middle of a large gorse bush this morning. He found and identified his ball, but it was jammed in a root and under some low branches. We did with a lot of difficulty manage to get it out for a penalty drop, but would he be entitled to substitute another ball if this hadn't been possible, and if so under which rule?

 

[chrisd]

No problem as he identified his ball

Rule 28 When proceeding under this Rule, the player may lift and clean his ball or substitute a ball.

 

[duncan mackie]

Quick question. A fellow competitor hit a ball into the middle of a large gorse bush this morning. He found and identified his ball, but it was jammed in a root and under some low branches. We did with a lot of difficulty manage to get it out for a penalty drop, but would he be entitled to substitute another ball if this hadn't been possible, and if so under which rule?

that would be the rule he's using to take a drop.....or am I missing the obvious?

so Q to you - which rule is he taking a drop under? if so he is permitted to substitute another ball if that rule permits.

lol chris typed faster....

 

[chrisd]

lol chris typed faster....

that's cos I've got youth on my side you old duffer!! :thup:

 

[delc]

that would be the rule he's using to take a drop.....or am I missing the obvious?

so Q to you - which rule is he taking a drop under? if so he is permitted to substitute another ball if that rule permits.

lol chris typed faster....

Obviously an unplayable lie, taking the option of dropping back down the line in this case.

 

[duncan mackie]

Obviously an unplayable lie, taking the option of dropping back down the line in this case.

so rule 28 clearly states that a ball may be substituted
decision 28/1 clarifies that a ball must be found and identified in order to establish the reference point and proceed under 28b or 28c

 

[Gary Love]

So decide 28 obviously expresses that a ball may be substituted choice 28/1 illuminates that a ball must be discovered and distinguished keeping in mind the end goal to build up the reference point and continue under 28b or 28c.

 

[Fyldewhite]

I was a bit puzzled by this one as to why rule 28 allows a ball to be substituted. I can't really see the logic in allowing this as it may give a player an advantage (however slight) and the rules normally don't like that. In the normal course of events it would hardly ever be really necessary to substitute a ball so why the need? I checked back and it looks like it was only changed in 2004. I can see it probably got rid of a decision covering the type of situation in the OP but anyone know why this was changed to allow it any time a ball is unplayable? Or am I missing something?

 

[Spuddy]

I was a bit puzzled by this one as to why rule 28 allows a ball to be substituted. I can't really see the logic in allowing this as it may give a player an advantage (however slight) and the rules normally don't like that. In the normal course of events it would hardly ever be really necessary to substitute a ball so why the need? I checked back and it looks like it was only changed in 2004. I can see it probably got rid of a decision covering the type of situation in the OP but anyone know why this was changed to allow it any time a ball is unplayable? Or am I missing something?

How can changing ball give an advantage? I can think of plenty of scenarios where a ball can be identified but not retrievable (up a tree/down a hole/in a thorn bush etc) so it's only fair that having identified a ball you can proceed under rule 28 using another.

 

[duncan mackie]

I was a bit puzzled by this one as to why rule 28 allows a ball to be substituted. I can't really see the logic in allowing this as it may give a player an advantage (however slight) and the rules normally don't like that. In the normal course of events it would hardly ever be really necessary to substitute a ball so why the need? I checked back and it looks like it was only changed in 2004. I can see it probably got rid of a decision covering the type of situation in the OP but anyone know why this was changed to allow it any time a ball is unplayable? Or am I missing something?

it was actually changed in the 2008 edition

given the wording in the 2004, which stated 'a player may lift....' when proceeding under this rule - when it would have been impossible to proceed under it without lifting! - they probably tidied that up and asked themselves the question as to whether a substitution made sense as well (to be consistent with other similar situations) and concluded yes

I don't know when 28/1 was introduced but that would also require the ability to substitute to be in place! I suspect that ws in the 2008 edition as well and was the real driver.

 

[BTatHome]

Have refused a case 'like' this before as the guy in question hadn't identified his ball, just a ball similar to the one he used. Basically he'd made no markings on the ball so the ball found (but not retrieved) was simply a ball that shared the same brand & number as his. As there was no way to get the ball and he couldn't positively identify it then the ball ended up being lost.

 

[duncan mackie]

Have refused a case 'like' this before as the guy in question hadn't identified his ball, just a ball similar to the one he used. Basically he'd made no markings on the ball so the ball found (but not retrieved) was simply a ball that shared the same brand & number as his. As there was no way to get the ball and he couldn't positively identify it then the ball ended up being lost.

clearly you and I could have a long debate about that

I'm quite comfortable with the premise that if we are looking for a Bridgstone B330-RX no 3 and find one in the area expected then that's sufficient to identify it in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. In exactly the same way as the above with a single red ring round the number on both sides, or any marking (except a time and date stamp for that day and tee time - and even that fails absolute identification if one has been lost earlier i the round!) is only one more element in any ID issue.

Such evidence might include 2 balls the same found or obvious differences in condition.

 

[Fyldewhite]

How can changing ball give an advantage? I can think of plenty of scenarios where a ball can be identified but not retrievable (up a tree/down a hole/in a thorn bush etc) so it's only fair that having identified a ball you can proceed under rule 28 using another.

I'm not saying that in the circumstances of the OP or any of the situations you describe it shouldn't be substituted, just that as you can't do it in normal play of a hole it seems strange that the rules simply allow it at any time a ball is unplayable. Especially when in 99% of cases the original ball can easily be retrieved. Seemed to me a bit generous (something the rules are not really renowned for!).......and, fair or not the rule didn't say you could until 2008 (thanks Duncan - my mistake 2004 was obviously the first one with the old wording!).

As for an advantage, I was thinking that would be the main reason (however slight) why you can't simply substitute at any time. Having thought a bit more about it though, I think it's more to do with not getting your hands on the ball when you don't need to that's the main factor. In this case that's a given so I guess it's simpler to just allow substitution rather than have to cover when it can't be retrieved. So, as Duncan says it was probably just tidying up the previous wording.

 

[Robobum]

Have refused a case 'like' this before as the guy in question hadn't identified his ball, just a ball similar to the one he used. Basically he'd made no markings on the ball so the ball found (but not retrieved) was simply a ball that shared the same brand & number as his. As there was no way to get the ball and he couldn't positively identify it then the ball ended up being lost.

Wow. You sound like fun to play with!

 

[Kellfire]

Wow. You sound like fun to play with!

Presumably he means as a rules official and I'd argue that he has a case. A marking should be used.

 

[Slab]

Presumably he means as a rules official and I'd argue that he has a case. A marking should be used.

For the purpose of this thread I'm not sure I'd go along with it, doesn't refusing his case mean in effect that anytime a player played a shot that went out of sight for a moment or longer (even if on the fairway) he'd have to be hit with a penalty because he only had manufactures markings

 

[Robobum]

Presumably he means as a rules official and I'd argue that he has a case. A marking should be used.

Wow again.

Unbelievable

 

[Kellfire]

Rule 6-5 is clear and easy to follow.

 

[chrisd]

Rule 6-5 is clear and easy to follow.

Not so easy, as it only says a player "should" mark the ball and that it's the players responsibility to play the correct ball - therefore, if he hasn't marked the ball but clearly states that it's his ball and the evidence (eg no other similar ball to where his went), supports his view, then non marking it is not a rule breaker!

 

[rulefan]

I checked back and it looks like it was only changed in 2004.

In 2000 the Rule said "play/drop 'a' ball".