Ball in hazard

[denrenix]

In a match on a par 5 I thinned my approach shot (3rd shot) and it shot past the hole over the raised green and out of view. After walking past the green the ball could not be seen but there was a stream (lateral hazard) about 20-30 yards away. My opponent went ahead, spotted a ball in the hazard, retrieved it and I identified it as mine, taking a penalty drop and finally losing the hole.
Q. After my 3rd shot if I'd thought about the possibility of "losing" the ball and played a provisional which had then gone in the hole, could I have claimed my score on the hole as 5 (4 plus penalty) and ignored the previous ball?
What if my opponent had then walked past the hole and found the (unidentified) ball in the hazard, could he have recovered it - or insisted that I recover it - in order to identify it, thus rendering the holed provisional as not in play?

 

[louise_a]

If you hole a provisional ball it becomes the ball in play if you remove it from the hole before the original ball is found, however you can only play a provisional if you believe the original ball is lost outside a hazard.

 

[Colin L]

To put this into sequence and tidy up a little for Louise.

If you know or are virtually certain your ball is in a water hazard you may not play a provisional ball. This applies only to water hazards not to bunkers.

The water hazard was out of view and if the OP did not know about it or knew about it but thought it possible his ball could be lost outside it, he is permitted to play a provisional. He does not have to believe the ball is lost outside the water hazard; he just has to think there is a possibility.

If he plays a provisional, holes it and, as Louise says, picks the ball from the hole before the original is found, the original ball is deemed to be lost. The hole is over at that point and it doesn't make any difference if the original ball is then found.

 

[DCB]

But, as it's matchplay, if his opponent says that there is a ball in the water before the player lifts the provisional out of the hole, does he, the player who hit it, have to identify it ?

 

[rulefan]

But, as it's matchplay, if his opponent says that there is a ball in the water before the player lifts the provisional out of the hole, does he, the player who hit it, have to identify it ?

Whether it's matchplay or stroke play, if someone spots a ball in the water before the provisional is removed from the hole, the player must identify it.

 

[Beezerk]

Whether it's matchplay or stroke play, if someone spots a ball in the water before the provisional is removed from the hole, the player must identify it.

Ouch.

 

[Slab]

Whether it's matchplay or stroke play, if someone spots a ball in the water before the provisional is removed from the hole, the player must identify it.

Must? In a practical sense... How?

Fine its easy enough to ID it if its at the edge or in a shallow stream but there are many ponds etc where you can see a ball but cant get to it to ID without getting wetter than your average otter

And if the rule is 'must identify it' how do you proceed in match play & stroke play if you've played a provisional & don't fancy a swim?

 

[rulefan]

Must? In a practical sense... How?

Fine its easy enough to ID it if its at the edge or in a shallow stream but there are many ponds etc where you can see a ball but cant get to it to ID without getting wetter than your average otter

And if the rule is 'must identify it' how do you proceed in match play & stroke play if you've played a provisional & don't fancy a swim?

If you cannot physically identify the ball, you must use the principle of 'know or be virtually certain' that your ball is in the WH.

 

[Slab]

If you cannot physically identify the ball, you must use the principle of 'know or be virtually certain' that your ball is in the WH.

thanks, I take it then the decision on whether a ball can be physically identified or not rests with the player?
(after all what's physically possible will vary from player to player and group to group, perhaps even availability of a ball retriever would make a difference)

So in this hypothetical situation the provisional could be played only because there wasn't KOVC as a circumstance that Colin alluded to (and despite the Opponent/FC subsequently seeing a ball that could be the one in play) however the very situation that allowed the player to play a provisional in the first place (no KOVC) also allows him to decide if he can physically identify a spotted ball?

 

[duncan mackie]

thanks, I take it then the decision on whether a ball can be physically identified or not rests with the player?
(after all what's physically possible will vary from player to player and group to group, perhaps even availability of a ball retriever would make a difference)

So in this hypothetical situation the provisional could be played only because there wasn't KOVC as a circumstance that Colin alluded to (and despite the Opponent/FC subsequently seeing a ball that could be the one in play) however the very situation that allowed the player to play a provisional in the first place (no KOVC) also allows him to decide if he can physically identify a spotted ball?

Ultimately it's a committee decision (on the weight of evidence) and what the player decides isn't the end of it. It's not an unusual situation, it applies the other way round when a ball if found but not recoverable and the player wishes to take an unplayable under any option other that stroke and distance as well as water hazard situation.

Put another way, the player should make a reasonable effort to identify the ball. It's only going to be an issue, and go to committee if his FC, or opponent, feels he isn't making a reasonable effort.

 

[Slab]

Ultimately it's a committee decision (on the weight of evidence) and what the player decides isn't the end of it. It's not an unusual situation, it applies the other way round when a ball if found but not recoverable and the player wishes to take an unplayable under any option other that stroke and distance as well as water hazard situation.

Put another way, the player should make a reasonable effort to identify the ball. It's only going to be an issue, and go to committee if his FC, or opponent, feels he isn't making a reasonable effort.

Cheers, so do you reckon declining to take shoes and socks off be considered not making a reasonable effort?
(just trying to see what the boundaries might be for a committee deliberation)

 

[duncan mackie]

Cheers, so do you reckon declining to take shoes and socks off be considered not making a reasonable effort?
(just trying to see what the boundaries might be for a committee deliberation)

If you could recover it by taking off shoes and socks you could also get it with a club, or ball scoop as I picture it. However, in practice in a match I suspect the opponent would kindly offer to recover it for you in the situation outlined here!