Ball lost?

[palindromicbob]

It was wearing denim.


Just out of interests where does it state in 25-1c that it must be a particular type of casual water?

"In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition."

An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

In my example it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in an area that met the definition of casual water. This is the only information required to apply the ruling.

 

[duncan mackie]

It was wearing denim.


Just out of interests where does it state in 25-1c that it must be a particular type of casual water?

"In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition."

An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

In my example it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in an area that met the definition of casual water. This is the only information required to apply the ruling.

The issue I would have with the situation you outlined relates to whether there is any possibility that the ball is lost in an area that doesn't meet the necessary definition.
Unfortunately such areas (where a ball could plug and disappear but that doesn't meet the definition of casual water) tend to co-exist with those that do - so it becomes difficult to establish the necessary virtual certainty in practice.
It doesn't help that a ball landing in standing water will rarely embed in the ground beneath.

 

[rulefan]

In my example it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in an area that met the definition of casual water. This is the only information required to apply the ruling.

The size of the area was unspecified. If an area 50 yards by 20 is not initially showing water and water only appears in some patches where a stance is simulated but not in others, how do you know the nature of the unidentified patch where the ball may be embedded?
If the whole area shows surface water without anyone standing on it, then OK. But as has been said the deeper the water, the less likely an embedded ball.

 

[rulefan]

That's the thing. It a case of applying all the relevant information to establish it. But then the made up example I gave had already established this yet still leads to arguments about the ruling. It's no wonder so many arguments can happen when the rules are involved.

See above re all

But how many questions on this forum are not answered fully once all the information is gathered and the right rule identified.
Most arguments/debates (not this one) are either about identifying the appropriate rule or decision or whether a rule should exist, be changed or is fair.