Casual water moving the ball

[Colin L]

As a postscript to the above, the recommendation that the Committee fit a mesh or something to prevent balls in a water hazard being carried OOB suggests that it is not envisaged that going OOB is a fair or desirable outcome Can we carry that across to the moving casual water and consider that your ball being swept into a hazard by casual water is not a fair or desirable outcome too?

Coming at it from the angle of a fair and desirable outcome (thinking while wielding a spade in the garden!), the provision of relief from an abnormal ground condition is presumably based on the principle that a player should not be disadvantaged by an unusual condition that is not part of the normal challenges of a golf course. So relief from casual water is absolute: the water shouldn't be there and if your ball lands in it you are entitled not to be disadvantaged by it in any way - including having your ball being swept away into a water hazard. So on that basis, I see the fairness of allowing the player to stop it and take relief from that point of reference.

Thanks for setting off that train of thought , verschup.

 

[MashieNiblick]

What a good one!

I'd be surprised if you were allowed to stop or lift the ball if it is moving in casual water.

Definitions specifically state that water is not an outside agency. It is therefore effectively the same as wind. You can't stop your ball because the wind is moving it so it would seem to me that the same should apply to water.

Analogies aside, Rule 14-6 refers specifically to a ball moving in a water hazard. I don't think you can extrapolate that any other situation.

There is nothing so far as I can see in Rule 25 or the related decisions to indicate that a ball moving in, or as a result of, an abnormal ground condition can be stopped and lifted. Here the analogy might be with a ball running down hill along a rabbit scrape or borrow. I don't think that would be allowed.

However Decision 26-1/7 Ball Moved Out of Bounds by Flow of Water in Water Hazard indicates that if the flow of water in a water hazard takes the ball OOB then you have to treat it as OOB and proceed under Rule 27 (Ball lost or OOB) not Rule 26 (Water Hazards).

I agree that that seems at odds with the provision in 14-6 about lifting a moving ball in a water hazard, which you therefore could do to prevent it going OOB, which could indeed lead to a more favourable outcome in terms of taking relief. I would have thought that if the ball goes into the WH then Rule 26 applies no matter where it subsequently ends up but clearly I would have been wrong. In most cases where this might happen you wouldn't know if a current had taken actually the ball OOB once it was hit into the WH. So that Decision seems a bit odd to me.

I am surprised there isn't a specific Decision on this one. Might be worth an e-mail to the R&A.

 

[Colin L]

As you saw, I started with the same thought that where the ball ended up is, by analogy, the deciding factor. Only after further thought did I consider that it would be inequitable to penalise a player in these extraordinary circumstances when the intention of relief from the casual water is that the player is not disadvantaged by the abnormal condition. If that view is valid, it doesn't matter whether the ball is stopped or carries on into the hazard (and is even irrecoverable): the principle would be that the player is entitled to relief as soon as his ball goes into and stays in the water even though it is then moved by the water to another place.

I quite like that since it seems equitable and the justification for it does not require any reference beyond Rule 25.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I actually think this is one of the most interesting ones to come up on here.

It seems to me it boils down to a potential conflict between 2 basic concepts.

1. Water is not an outside agency therefore you have to accept its influence on the movement of your ball.
2. Casual water is an abnormal condition which should not result in the player being penalised.

I understand the application of equity (Rule 1-4) in this case, on the basis that 2 overides 1, which seems reasonable.

I guess if the water was carrying your ball towards the hole rather than a hazard you'd just let it take its course and take it as a lucky break, just like if NPR from CW got you a lie on the fairway instead of the rough.

However I still have a gut feeling that picking up your ball when it is moving (for whatever reason) because you don't like the look of where it's going to end up doesn't seem quite right, although as indicated above Rule 14-6 potentially permits exactly that for a ball moving in a water hazard.

This one is doing my head in.

 

[duncan mackie]

I guess if the water was carrying your ball towards the hole rather than a hazard you'd just let it take its course and take it as a lucky break, just like if NPR from CW got you a lie on the fairway instead of the rough.

No - you would be subject to penalty in my book. As you say any ruling would be under 1-4, because a specific ruling isn't available but the analogy with 14-6 holds to this aspect as well in my mind.

 

[Colin L]

If my original analysis stood, and the player must wait till the ball comes to rest, then that could have an unlucky outcome or a lucky outcome - ball in water hazard as in this case, or ball in a more favourable place.

If Duncan's analogy with 14-6 is applied, the player could not wait till his ball ended up in a better position because that is prohibited in that rule.

If my later thought has merit, and the player's entitlement to relief from the casual water is immediate and unqualified by what the water might do to it subsequently, he cannot have it both ways - escape from the disadvantage of his ball ending up in the hazard and gain an advantage because it happens to end up in a favourable place.

 

[MashieNiblick]

No - you would be subject to penalty in my book. As you say any ruling would be under 1-4, because a specific ruling isn't available but the analogy with 14-6 holds to this aspect as well in my mind.

Not sure if I understand you right. Are you saying you would be penalised for allowing the casual water to carry your ball along to give you an advantage? I.e. you have to lift it. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

Ok lets think. Couple of hypothotical and unlikely but theoretically possible situations:

1. You chip onto a green that has a rivulet of casual water running across it towards the hole. Your ball rolls into this and is carried by the water towards and into the hole.

Have you holed out?

2. Ditto but your ball misses the hole and is headed for a pot bunker.

Can you nip round and pick your ball up before the water takes it into the sand?

Still feel that the fact that water isn't an outside agency dictates that in both cases the ball should be allowed to take its course for good or ill on the basis that equity works both ways and there is no specific permission to lift a ball moving in CW

Wording of 14-6 is necessary in my view because it is the only circumstance (I believe) in which you are allowed play a moving ball, so the Rule requires that if you are going to hit it you have to get on with it, and if not allows you lift it. I think that must at least in part be pragmatic. If you couldn't you might never be able to lift it if it was caught in a current.

Another issue in respect of CW which is different from a WH is that the point of reference for relief is different. WH is point of entry which is independent of subsequent movement of the ball once in the hazard. CW would be NPR from where the ball lies which to me implies the ball is at rest (although I accept that is arguable. Wish it said one way or t'other!).

As I said this one is a real good 'un - brain still hurting! Need to read about something easier like quantum physics to give the little grey cells a break. Enjoying the discussion though.

Still surprised that a ball moving in CW has not been subject to a decision. Must have another look.

 

[duncan mackie]

Not sure if I understand you right. Are you saying you would be penalised for allowing the casual water to carry your ball along to give you an advantage? I.e. you have to lift it. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

Ok lets think. Couple of hypothotical and unlikely but theoretically possible situations:

1. You chip onto a green that has a rivulet of casual water running across it towards the hole. Your ball rolls into this and is carried by the water towards and into the hole.

Have you holed out?

2. Ditto but your ball misses the hole and is headed for a pot bunker.

Can you nip round and pick your ball up before the water takes it into the sand?

Still feel that the fact that water isn't an outside agency dictates that in both cases the ball should be allowed to take its course ....................

Still surprised that a ball moving in CW has not been subject to a decision. Must have another look.

I would say that you have to lift it and get on with the game within a reasonable period of time, consistent with 14-6's principle.

I would have no issue with your first example, but would ask you in return 'how long can you wait whilst the ball is still moving?' (sorry to respond to a Q with a Q but I think this is the crux of the Q here)

With regard to the second - if you can get there then fine.

Reference points have been covered already - no issues at all to my mind as previously posted. Colin's last post sums up my view well so I won't repeat it all.

It hasn't been subject to a decision.

 

[MashieNiblick]

I would say that you have to lift it and get on with the game within a reasonable period of time, consistent with 14-6's principle.

I would have no issue with your first example, but would ask you in return 'how long can you wait whilst the ball is still moving?' (sorry to respond to a Q with a Q but I think this is the crux of the Q here)

Cheers. In answer to your question; same time as any situation where the ball is moving, - until it stops! Except of course where it is specifcally provided for in the Rules (wink)(grin).

I am struggling with why water is specfically excluded from the definition of an outside agency (just like wind) if, unlike wind, you can, without express permission of a rule, stop a ball which is being moved by it.

 

[Crow]

I was following this with interest but it seems to have stalled, did anybody send the query to the R&A? If not I think we should just to clarify once and for all.

How about something along the lines of the following:

"During very heavy rainfall a ball is played and lands on the fairway but in casual water that is flowing across the fairway due to the heavy rain. The ball is carried by the flowing water off the fairway and into a water hazard.

What are the players options/choices?
For instance:
Is the water classed as an outside agency?
Must they leave the ball to be caried by the water and then play it when it comes to a stop, even if it goes into a water hazard or even out of bounds?
May they play the moving ball?
May they pick the moving ball out of the casual water and play from the nearest point of relief?
Should they play the ball from a point one club length from where the ball first entered the casual water?

This has been causing a few furrowed brows after a similar incident and your definitve answer would be greatly appreciated."



Please add / change anything I've missed and I'll send it off.

 

[Colin L]

I was following this with interest but it seems to have stalled, did anybody send the query to the R&A? If not I think we should just to clarify once and for all.

How about something along the lines of the following:

"During very heavy rainfall a ball is played and lands on the fairway but in casual water that is flowing across the fairway due to the heavy rain. The ball is carried by the flowing water off the fairway and into a water hazard.

What are the players options/choices?
For instance:
Is the water classed as an outside agency?
Must they leave the ball to be caried by the water and then play it when it comes to a stop, even if it goes into a water hazard or even out of bounds?
May they play the moving ball?
May they pick the moving ball out of the casual water and play from the nearest point of relief?
Should they play the ball from a point one club length from where the ball first entered the casual water?

This has been causing a few furrowed brows after a similar incident and your definitve answer would be greatly appreciated."

Please add / change anything I've missed and I'll send it off.

Thanks for going to this trouble. I would take out the question about water being an outside agency: we know from the Definition that it isn't. I'd also put in the reference to the discussion we have had here. So here are a few tweaks:

During very heavy rainfall a ball is played and lands on the fairway but in casual water that is flowing across the fairway due to the heavy rain. The ball is carried by the flowing water off the fairway and into a water hazard.

The situation is a real-life one which has been under discussion in the Golf Monthly Forum
http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?44369-Casual-water-moving-the-ball/page1

There is no immediately obvious applicable Rule and no Decisions to help. What are the player's options/choices?

1. Must he leave his ball to be carried by the water and then proceed when it comes to a stop, whether it goes into a water hazard, out of bounds or into a more advantageous position on the analogy of the wind blowing a ball and the player having no sanction to stop it while in motion? In the case described, then, he would proceed under Rule 26.

2. May he play the moving ball or pick the moving ball out of the casual water and play from the nearest point of relief under Rule 25 using the place where it was stopped as reference, on the analogy of Rule 14-6?

3. May he proceed as in 2, but on the basis that relief from casual water is intended to avoid a player being disadvantaged in any way by the abnormal condition and that to have to wait till the current took his ball elsewhere from where it entered the water would be inequitable because it allowed a significant disadvantage?

This incident has been causing a few furrowed brows, and your definitive answer would be greatly appreciated.


Just some thoughts to use or not.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Thanks Crow and Colin. I think between you you have it coverd.

I would be very happy for Colin to send in the enquiry as amended.

 

[Colin L]

I think it is going by Crow Post.

 

[Crow]

I was trying to keep the options short and general rather than quote any particular rules in the hope that the R&A would consider from a fresh perspective and may look at areas we haven't even considered, such as play should be suspended if there is flowing water on the fairway!

I think linking the post is a good idea and then they can see every angle that's gone previously.

And I'm happy for somebody who has had more involvement in the discusion to email the R&A rather than me as I just stuck my nose in at the end!

 

[Colin L]

Ok, I'll send it in.

 

[Iaing]

Please let us know the outcome, as with all the rain recently this is a situation which could easily occur.

 

[Colin L]

Can't be done!

For Rules Enquires: Please note that The R&A is unable to consider any query on the Rules of Golf unless it is rendered in accordance with Rule 34-3. i.e. through the club secretary or the authorised representative of the committee in charge of the relevant competition.

But bear with me and I'll take it elsewhere for further consideration.

 

[Crow]

Can't be done!

For Rules Enquires: Please note that The R&A is unable to consider any query on the Rules of Golf unless it is rendered in accordance with Rule 34-3. i.e. through the club secretary or the authorised representative of the committee in charge of the relevant competition.

But bear with me and I'll take it elsewhere for further consideration.

That's a shame, things must have changed recently, I got a reply last year by emailing to rules@randa.org, was this the address you tried?

It's a current link on the following page under "Rules in Focuus":
http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status.aspx

 

[MashieNiblick]

That is a shame.

In the past I have had hypothetical enquiries answered. Looks like it has changed.

Maybe we could ask MikeH or JezzE to raise it on our behalf using their contacts or include it on the Rules page in the mag.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks Crow. I was trying through the R&A website where I found that note and also was unable to send an online form. I can try the address you have given. I have already a couple of responses from experienced referees - which point to the first answer, that the player must wait for the ball to come to rest wherever that might be, is correct, There might be some more comment to come, so perhaps we wait a moment for that.