Can you declareca ball lost?

[Swango1980]

Just for fun...

You're playing a course where all the rough is pretty thick and finding a ball that goes in is no better than 50/50.

One on particular hole, you connect well with your drive but tug it ever so slightly, so you're in the rough but 250 yards along the hole. Based on the thickness of the rough you hit a provisional to be safe.

You top the provisional 10 yards off the tee, then hack at it and move it another 20 yards, then hit it again and you're now getting level with or slightly past the point you think your original tee shot is likely to be.

You then begin the search for your original, which you find but in a really horrible lie, so you decide it's unplayable and head back to the tee and play from there under penalty of stroke and distance, and crush one 250 yards back down the fairway.

You've therefore "played" three strokes, even though you'd have actually been lying five if you hadn't found your original ball and had to proceed with the provisional.

All added up correctly and perfectly in keeping with the rules?

Yes

 

[salfordlad]

Just for fun...

You're playing a course where all the rough is pretty thick and finding a ball that goes in is no better than 50/50.

One on particular hole, you connect well with your drive but tug it ever so slightly, so you're in the rough but 250 yards along the hole. Based on the thickness of the rough you hit a provisional to be safe.

You top the provisional 10 yards off the tee, then hack at it and move it another 20 yards, then hit it again and you're now getting level with or slightly past the point you think your original tee shot is likely to be.

You then begin the search for your original, which you find but in a really horrible lie, so you decide it's unplayable and head back to the tee and play from there under penalty of stroke and distance, and crush one 250 yards back down the fairway.

You've therefore "played" three strokes, even though you'd have actually been lying five if you hadn't found your original ball and had to proceed with the provisional.

All added up correctly and perfectly in keeping with the rules?

Yes, nothing to discuss here.

 

[Maninblack4612]

I must say, this statement is absolute nonsense. If it was true, it would be in the rules.

When people think such things, do they completely forget that there are many rules that give players an so called "advantage"? Next we will hear people demanding players take dozens of shots to hack it out of the jungle, as playing fairly is playing the ball as it lies, and the Unplayable Rule gives players an unfair advantage.

To operate any rule fairly, it should simply be done so following the wording within the Rules of Golf.

Its not nonsense, but if it was in the rules it would be impractical & unenforceable. The rule is there in case you can't find your ball, not for if you don't fancy where it might be, having already seen what the alternative is. It gives an advantage not intended by the rules. It's imperfect but then, who is?

 

[Swango1980]

Its not nonsense, but if it was in the rules it would be impractical & unenforceable. The rule is there in case you can't find your ball, not for if you don't fancy where it might be, having already seen what the alternative is. It gives an advantage not intended by the rules. It's imperfect but then, who is?

It is nonsense.

And, what frustrates me about your view is that there are many club golfers out there that have limited knowledge of the rules, to the extent they wouldn't automatically be confident what their rights are when something happens. Your view strikes me as someone that, if you were playing with such a golfer and they hit a provisional, you would inform them that they should look for their original. You would do it in such a way that would sound convincing, and they would go along with it. However, your information would be completely misleading, and could cost the player. Whereas, another player who did not play with you could quite happily ignore the original and "benefit" from continuing with the provisional, all perfectly within the rules.

And, before anyone says,, yes, golfers SHOULD know the rules and only have themselves to blame. However, most golfers learn the rules through the golfers they play with. Hopefully they get good guidance on the rules over the years, as they play with many different others that have good knowledge, or at least know how to find a definitive answer when something arises and they are willing to say they do not know the answer off hand (compared to those that just make an answer up on the spot). However, it doesn't help when they are fed bogus rules by players that sound like they know what they are talking about.

 

[Maninblack4612]

It is nonsense.

And, what frustrates me about your view is that there are many club golfers out there that have limited knowledge of the rules, to the extent they wouldn't automatically be confident what their rights are when something happens. Your view strikes me as someone that, if you were playing with such a golfer and they hit a provisional, you would inform them that they should look for their original. You would do it in such a way that would sound convincing, and they would go along with it. However, your information would be completely misleading, and could cost the player. Whereas, another player who did not play with you could quite happily ignore the original and "benefit" from continuing with the provisional, all perfectly within the rules.

And, before anyone says,, yes, golfers SHOULD know the rules and only have themselves to blame. However, most golfers learn the rules through the golfers they play with. Hopefully they get good guidance on the rules over the years, as they play with many different others that have good knowledge, or at least know how to find a definitive answer when something arises and they are willing to say they do not know the answer off hand (compared to those that just make an answer up on the spot). However, it doesn't help when they are fed bogus rules by players that sound like they know what they are talking about.

I think you've missed the point.

And I have never, ever, in my entire life said anything to anyone on the course about this. In fact I'm ashamed to confess I've actually abused this rule myself. What a massive Hippo Crate I am, I should be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I feel like giving up the game & taking up tiddlywinks, except I find the provisional wink rule for a wink that may be out of bounds can be misused & I'd probably receive abuse for pulling people up about it.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I must say, this statement is absolute nonsense. If it was true, it would be in the rules.

When people think such things, do they completely forget that there are many rules that give players an so called "advantage"? Next we will hear people demanding players take dozens of shots to hack it out of the jungle, as playing fairly is playing the ball as it lies, and the Unplayable Rule gives players an unfair advantage.

To operate any rule fairly, it should simply be done so following the wording within the Rules of Golf.

MiB didn't say it was true, it was an opinion as to how the rule should be -
To avoid the manipulation of an advantage..personally, I would like to see a requirement to look for the ball, if it is reasonably possible that it could be found.
In some situations it is obvious that it would not be found. In some it would be obvious that it might be.in some it would be obvious it probably would be.

Players deciding which , is workable, just as it is workable that players can decide to be virtually certain that a ball has gone into a Water penalty area.

Do you really think it fair that a par 3 provisional shot finishing on a green can be used because someone "chooses " not to search for a ball which he has the intelligence to know is likely findable , at the same time as being in such a horrible place that another off the tee is his only option?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

It is nonsense.

And, what frustrates me about your view is that there are many club golfers out there that have limited knowledge of the rules, to the extent they wouldn't automatically be confident what their rights are when something happens. Your view strikes me as someone that, if you were playing with such a golfer and they hit a provisional, you would inform them that they should look for their original. You would do it in such a way that would sound convincing, and they would go along with it. However, your information would be completely misleading, and could cost the player. Whereas, another player who did not play with you could quite happily ignore the original and "benefit" from continuing with the provisional, all perfectly within the rules.

And, before anyone says,, yes, golfers SHOULD know the rules and only have themselves to blame. However, most golfers learn the rules through the golfers they play with. Hopefully they get good guidance on the rules over the years, as they play with many different others that have good knowledge, or at least know how to find a definitive answer when something arises and they are willing to say they do not know the answer off hand (compared to those that just make an answer up on the spot). However, it doesn't help when they are fed bogus rules by players that sound like they know what they are talking about.

So, saying that MiB is probably the sort of person who would say.......etc, are you the sort of person who , if playing with this fellow,would go to look for his ball?
If not, why not.
Or , if not, but some other pp with you, went to look....- what would your opinion of such a person be..
Someone ensuring the field has a level playing field.... or some sort of rules mad busybody.?

 

[Imurg]

The Rules ensure a level playing field
If a Rule allows me to not look for a ball then, if I think I'm better off not finding it, I won't look for it.
Many a time, walking off a tee box, I've said to playing partners " Are we looking for that?"..giving them the option to say yes or no.
If they say no and go on to their provisional then that's the end of it.
I'm not looking for their ball if they don't want me to.
It's within the Rules
End of story.

 

[Swango1980]

So, saying that MiB is probably the sort of person who would say.......etc, are you the sort of person who , if playing with this fellow,would go to look for his ball?
If not, why not.
Or , if not, but some other pp with you, went to look....- what would your opinion of such a person be..
Someone ensuring the field has a level playing field.... or some sort of rules mad busybody.?

I wouldn't, simply out of courtesy of the player not wishing to look, and probably keeping game flowing. And, the rules do not ask me to look for him either, so there is no reason for me to look.

If someone happens to find it, and it is not in a favourable position, that is just his bad luck.

 

[Swango1980]

Th

I think you've missed the point.

And I have never, ever, in my entire life said anything to anyone on the course about this. In fact I'm ashamed to confess I've actually abused this rule myself. What a massive Hippo Crate I am, I should be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I feel like giving up the game & taking up tiddlywinks, except I find the provisional wink rule for a wink that may be out of bounds can be misused & I'd probably receive abuse for pulling people up about it.

That is a relief, as I can only judge based on your comments here. My frustrations were aimed more generally, as I've known several people, one in particular, who has penalised people before on bogus rules.

 

[Crazyface]

You hit a ball into the trees and tee up another ball saying ''that ball is lost'' and you hit the second ball down the middle.
Which ball is in play?

The second

 

[JSims]

The Rules ensure a level playing field
If a Rule allows me to not look for a ball then, if I think I'm better off not finding it, I won't look for it.
Many a time, walking off a tee box, I've said to playing partners " Are we looking for that?"..giving them the option to say yes or no.
If they say no and go on to their provisional then that's the end of it.
I'm not looking for their ball if they don't want me to.
It's within the Rules
End of story.

It's also 'within the rules' to do the opposite, most likely in a match, and go looking for your opponent's first ball. If you find your opponent's ball before he has played another shot with his provisional, then he must check it and, possibly, play it if it is actually his first.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's also 'within the rules' to do the opposite, most likely in a match, and go looking for your opponent's first ball. If you find your opponent's ball before he has played another shot with his provisional, then he must check it and, possibly, play it if it is actually his first.

..and I may spot another players ball in a grim place without me actually deliberately looking for it - I just happen to catch a flash of white out the side of an eye as I walk past a bush. As I know that my companions original ball was in that vicinity, even though I know he doesn’t want it found I must raise the possibility that I have spotted something that may be his ball. Oh dear…unhappy playing companion…but hardly my fault.

 

[rulefan]

I must raise the possibility that I have spotted something that may be his ball.

Which rule requires you to do that?

 

[salfordlad]

Which rule requires you to do that?

The combination of 18.3c(2)/2 and 1.2a. Here are some USGA words published in response to precisely that question - must a player (B) say they have seen a ball that may be the ball in play of another player (A) even when A doesn't want to find it?

"In Interpretation 18.3c(2)/2, a player who finds a ball but does not take efforts to identify it is not automatically penalized, but a Committee may consider it serious misconduct and disqualify the player under Rule 1.2a.

The same applies here. In stroke play, it is every player's responsibility to protect the field and apply the Rules, and the other player (B) should have alerted A because if that was A's ball he was required to play it. Even though A didn't want to find it, B's responsibility lies with the field, not player A."

 

[Slab]

The combination of 18.3c(2)/2 and 1.2a. Here are some USGA words published in response to precisely that question - must a player (B) say they have seen a ball that may be the ball in play of another player (A) even when A doesn't want to find it?

"In Interpretation 18.3c(2)/2, a player who finds a ball but does not take efforts to identify it is not automatically penalized, but a Committee may consider it serious misconduct and disqualify the player under Rule 1.2a.

The same applies here. In stroke play, it is every player's responsibility to protect the field and apply the Rules, and the other player (B) should have alerted A because if that was A's ball he was required to play it. Even though A didn't want to find it, B's responsibility lies with the field, not player A."

I was just wondering in the scenario described, would @SwingsitlikeHogan seeing " a flash of white out the side of an eye " be sufficient to fit in with the requirement to identify ownership ?

i.e Would this "flash of white" first need to be positively identified as a golf ball before we reach a point that the player is then obliged to identify it as theirs?

 

[Swango1980]

I was just wondering in the scenario described, would @SwingsitlikeHogan seeing " a flash of white out the side of an eye " be sufficient to fit in with the requirement to identify ownership ?

i.e Would this "flash of white" first need to be positively identified as a golf ball before we reach a point that the player is then obliged to identify it as theirs?

Surely this is simply about integrity, and SwingsitlikeHogan trying to do the right thing? Who is going to get penalised if one person sees another ball, which could be his competitors original, completely ignores it. Even though they see an actual ball. That player would just keep their mouth shut. So, they are not going to say "I saw a flash of white light, and I immediately looked away". The point is, they would have had a duty to recognise if there was a ball there (or at least get to the bottom of what the flash of white light was" for the rest of the field's sake).

So, I guess if a player says they do not want to look for their original, then the people he is playing with need to decide whether they are happy to accept that or not. If they are not happy, they will look for the ball, or at least glance over when walking in the area nearby. However, if they are happy for the player just to get on with playing the provisional, and are worried about their conscious if they accidentally find the original, then just try and go nowhere near where it went, and don't look over in that direction. If you do, and you do see a ball, then you need to decide if you can live with how you choose to act? Do you ignore what you saw and risk not protecting the field, or do you bring it to the players attention and risk them getting upset?

It is the same for the player who actually played the ball as well I guess. If they see a flash of light, that could be a ball, do they ignore it or investigate more to see if it is a ball? Obviously, if they see something that could be a ball, they should really continue the process to see if it is a ball, and then if it is their ball (mind you, normally you know immediately if you see a ball or not, rather than seeing a flash of white light and then some time later knowing whether or not it is a ball. I guess there are a few times you think you see a ball, only to find out it is a leaf, which can be devastating)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surely this is simply about integrity, and SwingsitlikeHogan trying to do the right thing? Who is going to get penalised if one person sees another ball, which could be his competitors original, completely ignores it. Even though they see an actual ball. That player would just keep their mouth shut. So, they are not going to say "I saw a flash of white light, and I immediately looked away". The point is, they would have had a duty to recognise if there was a ball there (or at least get to the bottom of what the flash of white light was" for the rest of the field's sake).

So, I guess if a player says they do not want to look for their original, then the people he is playing with need to decide whether they are happy to accept that or not. If they are not happy, they will look for the ball, or at least glance over when walking in the area nearby. However, if they are happy for the player just to get on with playing the provisional, and are worried about their conscious if they accidentally find the original, then just try and go nowhere near where it went, and don't look over in that direction. If you do, and you do see a ball, then you need to decide if you can live with how you choose to act? Do you ignore what you saw and risk not protecting the field, or do you bring it to the players attention and risk them getting upset?

It is the same for the player who actually played the ball as well I guess. If they see a flash of light, that could be a ball, do they ignore it or investigate more to see if it is a ball? Obviously, if they see something that could be a ball, they should really continue the process to see if it is a ball, and then if it is their ball (mind you, normally you know immediately if you see a ball or not, rather than seeing a flash of white light and then some time later knowing whether or not it is a ball. I guess there are a few times you think you see a ball, only to find out it is a leaf, which can be devastating)

It’s very rare, but I have felt compelled (my conscience and d.o.c to rest of competition) to point out to another player that (unfortunately) I have seen something that might be his ball. As it happens usually the player has been grateful as where the ball was was not as bad as he feared and he was able to recover satisfactorily, but at least once I was not popular. So be it. I felt I did the right thing.

 

[salfordlad]

It’s very rare, but I have felt compelled (my conscience and d.o.c to rest of competition) to point out to another player that (unfortunately) I have seen something that might be his ball. As it happens usually the player has been grateful as where the ball was was not as bad as he feared and he was able to recover satisfactorily, but at least once I was not popular. So be it. I felt I did the right thing.

The USGA is saying very clearly that you did and, in fact, we all should be protecting the field on issues such as this. But I don't think that is the same as saying we need to search, they were not answering that question and I don't see anything in the Rules that requires a search to occur, even if a player has kept options open somewhat through play of a provisional ball.

 

[Swango1980]

It’s very rare, but I have felt compelled (my conscience and d.o.c to rest of competition) to point out to another player that (unfortunately) I have seen something that might be his ball. As it happens usually the player has been grateful as where the ball was was not as bad as he feared and he was able to recover satisfactorily, but at least once I was not popular. So be it. I felt I did the right thing.

True. I suppose in most cases, if you happen to see a ball when you were not trying to look, it probably is not in a horrific spot anyway. The player may want to ignore their original if it is in some awful place, like deep jungle, and their provisional is safe enough. So, I cannot imagine the players they are playing with will accidentally see their ball in the deep jungle, and if they do it most likely got a lucky bounce no one was expecting.