Couldn't positively identify ball

[Rufuss Thoo]

Unusual Covid times. Stake are now being classed as Immoveable.

The hazard marker on this particular hole is a timber beam running along the top of the gully. It is an 'immovable obstruction' from which we get free relief. And what I didn't mention before is that it was resting on a drain grate too ...

 

[Rufuss Thoo]

It's a belter of a query, is this.

Something which I think is relevant is this.
On the previous round, when the ball was concluded to be in the hazard, was it possible that there could be a ball where the second ball was found but it could have evaded someone looking for a ball
( bearing in mind, there would have been a search , if cursory, in the first round)
Or,
was the location such that any ball there would have been seen.? E. g. Open, short grass...

if the second option, it is logical that the first ball was not the one played in the second round.

So, he has played the correct ball in the second round.?

Good point Swingslow. The ball from the first round was in long grass resting against the hazard barrier under tree cover (in a location we wouldn't even thought to have looked for it in that round. The ball found in the 2nd round was resting on a drain grate overgrown with grass but was found quickly.

 

[Rufuss Thoo]

I use 3 different colour sharpies on each sleeve - 1 red 1 black 1 blue - so I don’t often end up with same numbered balls in the same colour (apart from potentially when starting a new dozen before the previous ones have all been lost)
this means my provisional is always has different colour markings to my first ball even though they might both be a Vice 2.
it’s highly unlikely would find myself in the OP situation due to this

If I play a provisional, which I didn't in this case, I use an entirely different ball and announce the new ball id details to my PPs.

 

[salfordlad]

Thanks for the detailed response salfordlad. Yes, at the time I was 'sure' but became less so when I considered all the factors. I suspect being 'sure' was in part wishful thinking at the time.
Because I like understanding and having clarity around the rules, can you explain the last bit of your advice? Is my misunderstanding a timing issue (because the DQ results from the first offence), or is my belief that submitting an incorrect card results in a DQ wrong?
You probably won't have to wait long - I seem to have a few, although this is the most unusual to date.

Submitting an incorrect card may or may not attract further penalty, and it only attracts a DQ in defined circumstances - for example, the submitted score is lower than actually taken for any reason other than failing to include a penalty that the player did not know about (see Rule 3.3b(3) and 20.2e(2) for further details. If the player submits a lower score than actual because they failed to include a penalty they were not aware of, then that penalty is simply added to the submitted score by the Committee if the facts come to light before the competition is closed. An incorrect submitted card with the score too high simply counts as the correct score. In sum, submitting an incorrect card comes in a variety of flavours with varied implications, not always involving further penalty.

 

[rulie]

If you played a wrong ball and did not correct that mistake by proceeding correctly before playing from the next tee, you are DQ'd regardless of what it says on the scorecard. Rule 6.3c(1).

 

[salfordlad]

If you played a wrong ball and did not correct that mistake by proceeding correctly before playing from the next tee, you are DQ'd regardless of what it says on the scorecard. Rule 6.3c(1).

While that is a true statement in general, it is not applicable here. Rufuss has concluded that he could not identify the original ball, so he proceeded under an inapplicable rule without being aware of the location of the original ball. Only one rule can be allocated in that situation, stroke and distance, which required returning to the location of previous stroke. Therefore (under the guidance in 6C(9)) the correct ruling allocation is 14.7/18.1, a wrong place situation (and likely serious breach), not 6.3c(1)'s wrong ball.

 

[Colin L]

I'm sure those that don't put any mark on their ball at all should dq themselves as well.

Imagine how many Titleist 1 are in play on a course at any given time without any identifying marking on them.

Be fair, now. Many of them will be identifiable by the two dots marked on them.

 

[rulie]

While that is a true statement in general, it is not applicable here. Rufuss has concluded that he could not identify the original ball, so he proceeded under an inapplicable rule without being aware of the location of the original ball. Only one rule can be allocated in that situation, stroke and distance, which required returning to the location of previous stroke. Therefore (under the guidance in 6C(9)) the correct ruling allocation is 14.7/18.1, a wrong place situation (and likely serious breach), not 6.3c(1)'s wrong ball.

Agree with that analysis, but the end result will be the same, serious breach, not corrected, DQ. It's not a scorecard issue.

 

[Colin L]

While that is a true statement in general, it is not applicable here. Rufuss has concluded that he could not identify the original ball, so he proceeded under an inapplicable rule without being aware of the location of the original ball. Only one rule can be allocated in that situation, stroke and distance, which required returning to the location of previous stroke. Therefore (under the guidance in 6C(9)) the correct ruling allocation is 14.7/18.1, a wrong place situation (and likely serious breach), not 6.3c(1)'s wrong ball.

In the first instance Rufus did not conclude that he could not identify his ball in play. He correctly identified a ball as his own and played it. Subsequently, another ball identifiable as his own was found giving him concern that it could be his ball in play. If it was, then he had played a wrong ball. It has to be determined, if possible, which was his ball in play from other evidence than the ball make, number, identifying marks or condition. (As an aside, Rufus's growing anxiety about doing the right thing isn't evidence.). If it is determined that he played his ball in play, all is well. If it is determined that the ball he hit was not his ball in play, then he played a wrong ball. If that determination cannot be made then the conclusion is that he played a ball which he had not adequately identified as his ball in play - in other words a wrong ball. It's the fact that he had played a ball that makes this different from finding two identical balls and having to decide what to do.

 

[salfordlad]

Agree with that analysis, but the end result will be the same, serious breach, not corrected, DQ. It's not a scorecard issue.

I agree it is immaterial to the scorecard.

 

[Rufuss Thoo]

Submitting an incorrect card may or may not attract further penalty, and it only attracts a DQ in defined circumstances - for example, the submitted score is lower than actually taken for any reason other than failing to include a penalty that the player did not know about (see Rule 3.3b(3) and 20.2e(2) for further details. If the player submits a lower score than actual because they failed to include a penalty they were not aware of, then that penalty is simply added to the submitted score by the Committee if the facts come to light before the competition is closed. An incorrect submitted card with the score too high simply counts as the correct score. In sum, submitting an incorrect card comes in a variety of flavours with varied implications, not always involving further penalty.

Thanks

 

[rulefan]

Thanks

See also WHS Rule 2.1b/1

 

[jim8flog]

I use 3 different colour sharpies on each sleeve - 1 red 1 black 1 blue - so I don’t often end up with same numbered balls in the same colour (apart from potentially when starting a new dozen before the previous ones have all been lost)
this means my provisional is always has different colour markings to my first ball even though they might both be a Vice 2.
it’s highly unlikely would find myself in the OP situation due to this

I do something similar. I empty all twelve balls into a box and ensure there are no balls in a box of 3 with the same number or colour.

 

[salfordlad]

I do something similar. I empty all twelve balls into a box and ensure there are no balls in a box of 3 with the same number or colour.

For provisionals, I use a different make of ball.

 

[Neilds]

I do something similar. I empty all twelve balls into a box and ensure there are no balls in a box of 3 with the same number or colour.

All good, but doesn’t help in this situation when it was a different day when the ‘original’ ball was found. ?

 

[jim8flog]

For provisionals, I use a different make of ball.

I am one make of ball person. Particularly when playing in a comp.

 

[jim8flog]

All good, but doesn’t help in this situation when it was a different day when the ‘original’ ball was found. ?

Yes true but I probably only lose about 10 balls a year and most of them have gone so far in to the boonies that I do not even bother to search in them first place.

There is a famous incident with Gary Player hitting in to the same place rough on consecutive days in one of the Opens and the question was raised about him hitting a wrong ball after not finding the one in the practice round.

 

[salfordlad]

I am one make of ball person. Particularly when playing in a comp.

Whatever works for you is good. I've been intrigued by the spate of reviews becoming accessible online by the equipment guru sites (eg TXG, Rick Shiels) where different balls are compared - key conclusions being there is virtually no difference between many of the balls that are out there despite significant differences in price/marketing. Another huge difference is where you are on the planet, the big sellers in some places are markedly different in other parts. I've been working through a rotation of over a dozen different balls and find no discernible difference across brands. Conclusion: the monkey swinging the club is the key variable.

 

[rulefan]

Conclusion: the monkey swinging the club is the key variable.

Are you sure about that? All the balls I've ever played with produce different results confirming the manufactures claims. It seems to be the same with clubs.

 

[salfordlad]

Are you sure about that? All the balls I've ever played with produce different results confirming the manufactures claims. It seems to be the same with clubs.

I'm not suggesting all balls are the same, some target very different market niches. I'm saying I can find many balls by different manufacturers that produce highly consistent results with those of other manufacturers, despite very different price points, with no one ball standing out. But of course each player is the customer and can choose whatever they wish.
As to manufacturer's claims relating to clubs, that is a joke. I recently spent hours with an experienced professional fitter and multiple settings for a wide range of the current 2021 drivers for the fitter to conclude that they could not improve on the stats I get from my battered 2009 driver. That said, I'm happy for anyone that wants to spend 500 quid on a new driver.