Declaring a ball lost

[Val]

Provisional is interesting, I have a friend who hit a ball onto the green in 2, you can't see the surface of the green from the fairway but it looked ok, anyway when they walked up they couldn't find his ball, they searched and decided the ball was lost so he went back to the fairway and hit another onto the green lying 4. So after all this when all on the green someone pulls the flag and low and behold there was the original.

Much discussion about should it be a 2, that ball is lost blah blah blah, so he holed out his 2nd ball anyway and asked the committee who again debated for an age until they came to the conclusion it's a 2.

Long and short of it, once holed thats it, it doesnt matter whether you hole your first for a 2 from the fairway or hole your provisional for a 4, when it's in it's in.

 

[Colin L]

Del. I assume you informed your FCs that you were going to proceed to play both balls under Rule 3-3 and told them which one you wanted to count - the second one you put into play, no doubt? Thus you have your original ball which your FCs (wrongly) say is in play and your second ball which you (rightly) say is your ball in play. You play the original ball to cater for their argument of its being the ball in play because the second one was a provisional. You play the second ball in accordance with your argument that it is the ball in play under Rule 27-1. An easy one for the Committee to decide. The second ball was not a provisional, was holed out in accordance with the rules and was the ball whose score you chose to count.

Now, while it must have been an impressive sight, why on earth were you galloping up to the green to play your second ball nearer the hole than the original?

 

[Colin L]

Provisional is interesting, I have a friend who hit a ball onto the green in 2, you can't see the surface of the green from the fairway but it looked ok, anyway when they walked up they couldn't find his ball, they searched and decided the ball was lost so he went back to the fairway and hit another onto the green lying 4. So after all this when all on the green someone pulls the flag and low and behold there was the original.

Much discussion about should it be a 2, that ball is lost blah blah blah, so he holed out his 2nd ball anyway and asked the committee who again debated for an age until they came to the conclusion it's a 2.

Long and short of it, once holed thats it, it doesnt matter whether you hole your first for a 2 from the fairway or hole your provisional for a 4, when it's in it's in.

May I tidy this up a wee bit? It's quite right that the hole was finished whenever the original ball was holed and that playing another ball in the belief the original was lost does not count for anything. It must have taken your committee a remarkable time to find Decision 1-1/2. You mention a provisional in the last sentence, but just to be clear, when your friend went back and played another ball, it wasn't a provisional. It would have been the ball in play had the original not been holed.

Now, think about that statement that when a provisional ball is holed, the hole is over. Let us say you play to a blind green and think you have hit the ball far enough to be pin high but pulled it such that it might have reached some rough and could be lost. You declare and play a provisional which ends up some 20 yards short of the green. Knowing that where the original ball is likely to be is nearer the hole, you play the provisional again. You reach the green and find a) your original ball sitting on the apron of the green and b) your provisional ball in the hole. Is the hole over because your provisional was holed, or is your original ball in play because it has been found in bounds within five minutes and you have not played the provisional ball from nearer the hole?

 

[backwoodsman]

Good - and in truth pretty obvious and straightforward.

Strikes me the only issue is simply the player who plays a good provisional and doesn't want to take S&D and play the short again as he may not play as good a shot as his provisional. The only way he can get to play his provisional is by his original being lost and so he so wants to just declare it lost. But he can't

But he can cause the original ball to be lost just by walking up to his provisional and playing it . Play it just once if it's nearer the hole than the original's likely location or more than once if the original is likely to be the nearer to the hole.

 

[delc]

Del. I assume you informed your FCs that you were going to proceed to play both balls under Rule 3-3 and told them which one you wanted to count - the second one you put into play, no doubt? Thus you have your original ball which your FCs (wrongly) say is in play and your second ball which you (rightly) say is your ball in play. You play the original ball to cater for their argument of its being the ball in play because the second one was a provisional. You play the second ball in accordance with your argument that it is the ball in play under Rule 27-1. An easy one for the Committee to decide. The second ball was not a provisional, was holed out in accordance with the rules and was the ball whose score you chose to count.

Now, while it must have been an impressive sight, why on earth were you galloping up to the green to play your second ball nearer the hole than the original?

See explanation in post number 104, or read rule 27.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

See explanation in post number 104, or read rule 27.

I imagine colin already knows that rule i think his point is that your 2nd ball is already the one in play by the rules, so no need to follow that rule - that rule refers to a provisional, which you hadn't hit.

 

[Foxholer]

Now, while it must have been an impressive sight, why on earth were you galloping up to the green to play your second ball nearer the hole than the original?

It was just as well that he did, otherwise there'd be penalties for playing a wrong ball - as he certainly doesn't seem to have complied with 3-3's requirements!

Good story though!

 

[sawtooth]

This link should help

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-A...n-Focus/Archive/2010/September/Lost-ball.aspx

I had a thought, if by any chance the FC goes ahead and finds the ball in the clag and the player may not fancy playing it (because he hit his provisional into a great position). The ball is not lost (assuming the player identifies his own ball) but the player can still decide not to play it if he deems it unplayable. The subtle difference though (i think) is that the provisional he hit cannot be used right? He has to go back to hit another (assuming 2 club, go back in line with pin options are discounted).

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

It was just as well that he did, otherwise there'd be penalties for playing a wrong ball - as he certainly doesn't seem to have complied with 3-3's requirements!

Good story though!

Why do you say that Foxholer?

 

[Colin L]

See explanation in post number 104, or read rule 27.

Rule 27? Is that one with the bit in it that says if a player makes a stroke at a ball from the spot at which the original ball was last played, he is deemed to have proceeded under penalty of stroke and distance..

You knew that. You knew that your second ball was not a provisional. You holed out with it legitimately even though you no doubt played out of turn to do so.

Your FCs wrongly thought your original ball was in play. You had the choice of saying no it wasn't, picking it up and carrying on to leave your marker to raise an objection for the committee to rule on before you. You chose, however, to invoke Rule 3-3 and play out also with the original ball. Let's leave out whether you correctly followed the procedure or not and at the right time.

I understand what you thought you were doing and and can guess why you thought it the sensible thing to do, but busting a gut by racing off at a vast rate of gazelles to hole the second ball had no relevance to the 3-3 situation. You had two balls on the go for the committee to decide between. Had your FCs been correct (they weren't as we know), your original ball was known to be in play the moment it was found and identified. Had you then broken a speed record to play the second ball, you would have been playing a wrong ball as Foxholer points out.

I can understand what you thought you were doing but it looks like a bit of confused thinking in the heat of the moment.

Now, go on, tell us all. Did you go through the 3-3 procedure correctly?

 

[chrisd]

I think that the easy one for these sort of guys is to hand them the rule book that you have in your bag (you do, don't you?) and just ask them to show you the rule. Often the fact that you actually carry a rule book is enough to convince them that you probably know what your talking about and they then back off

 

[North Mimms]

I think that the easy one for these sort of guys is to hand them the rule book that you have in your bag (you do, don't you?) and just ask them to show you the rule. Often the fact that you actually carry a rule book is enough to convince them that you probably know what your talking about and they then back off

Interestingly, when Delc retold the exact same tale on HDID forum, he said he showed them the relevant rule in his book, so no need to run to green and back to play both balls...

 

[delc]

M

Interestingly, when Delc retold the exact same tale on HDID forum, he said he showed them the relevant rule in his book, so no need to run to green and back to play both balls...

I was just trying to cover all bases, as once again my FCs were absolutely adamant that I had to play the original ball if found in bounds!

 

[CMAC]

M
I was just trying to cover all bases, as once again my FCs were absolutely adamant that I had to play the original ball if found in bounds!

And what then happened after they read the rule?

 

[delc]

And what then happened after they read the rule?

I showed them the relevant rule but they didn't seem to believe it! At the end of the day I had to get my marker to sign my card, which is why I completed the hole with both balls in accordance with rule 3-3 (doubt as to correct procedure).

 

[Colin L]

It was just as well that he did, otherwise there'd be penalties for playing a wrong ball - as he certainly doesn't seem to have complied with 3-3's requirements!

Why do you say that Foxholer?

If he had not invoked 3-3 at the right time and instead of going forward to hole out his second ball had played the original ball, the latter would have been a wrong ball as it was out of play.

My brain hurts.

Come on Del, before I break down and lie quivering in a dark corner, 'fess up. Did you trounce them with the Rule Book; did you invoke 3-3 correctly and at the right time; or did you just charge around the course at high speed hitting balls in the hope that in the end some sense could be made out of the muddle on a rules forum?

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

If he had not invoked 3-3 at the right time and instead of going forward to hole out his second ball had played the original ball, the latter would have been a wrong ball as it was out of play.

My brain hurts.

Come on Del, before I break down and lie quivering in a dark corner, 'fess up. Did you trounce them with the Rule Book; did you invoke 3-3 correctly and at the right time; or did you just charge around the course at high speed hitting balls in the hope that in the end some sense could be made out of the muddle on a rules forum?

To add to the confusion/attempt to clear it up, could we forget what Del did/didn't do, and could you please advise us of what exactly (and in what order) we should do things, should we find ourselves in the same situation? I'm getting a little confused, and don't want to get it wrong!

 

[duncan mackie]

To add to the confusion/attempt to clear it up, could we forget what Del did/didn't do, and could you please advise us of what exactly (and in what order) we should do things, should we find ourselves in the same situation? I'm getting a little confused, and don't want to get it wrong!

you probably need to read the rule rather than these posts then.....

"3-3. Doubt as to Procedure
a. Procedure

In stroke play, if a competitor is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, he may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls.

After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit.

The competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee before returning his score card. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.

Note: If the competitor takes further action before dealing with the doubtful situation, Rule 3-3 is not applicable. The score with the original ball counts or, if the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the score with the first ball put into play counts, even if the Rules do not allow the procedure adopted for that ball. However, the competitor incurs no penalty for having played a second ball, and any penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball do not count in his score.
b. Determination of Score for Hole

(i) If the ball that the competitor selected in advance to count has been played in accordance with the Rules, the score with that ball is the competitor’s score for the hole. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts if the Rules allow the procedure adopted for that ball.

(ii) If the competitor fails to announce in advance his decision to complete the hole with two balls, or which ball he wishes to count, the score with the original ball counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules. If the original ball is not one of the balls being played, the first ball put into play counts, provided it has been played in accordance with the Rules. Otherwise, the score with the other ball counts if the Rules allow the procedure adopted for that ball.

Note 1: If a competitor plays a second ball under Rule 3-3, the strokes made after this Rule has been invoked with the ball ruled not to count and penalty strokes incurred solely by playing that ball are disregarded.

Note 2: A second ball played under Rule 3-3 is not a provisional ball under Rule 27-2. "

EDIT

Colin's point is that Derek is required to announce that he will proceed under 3-3 at the time the first ball is found and his playing partners insist it's still in play; if he play's the second ball from in front of the place his ball was believed to be and it's subsequently found the original argument/dispute is already dead because his subsequent actions have rendered that ball lost. Now there's a different dispute (and no doubt they got the rule book out again )
If he completed the hole with both balls he must report the matter to the committee before returning his card; it's not acceptable to subsequently agree with the marker and then return the card. If this wasn't done he is DQ.

 

[delc]

I think that part of the problem is that Rule 27 refers to the ball being lost or out of bounds. I think that my opponents/FCs doubts came from the fact that in neither of the events I related to was this the case. However Rule 27-1a seems to be pretty definitive.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Interesting read this. I was sure that you only had to report things to the committee if the score with each ball was different. Did a bit of digging and found that the 2000-2004 rule said......
"The competitor shall report the facts to the Committee before returning his score card unless he scores the same with both balls; if he fails to do so, he shall be disqualified."
......any idea why this was changed? Seems to be overkill if the scores were the same but there must be some reasoning behind it and I would certainly have misquoted this on the course over the last 10 years. Subtle change but one that could lead to DQ so quite a serious one.