Failing to Identify your own Ball

[mikejohnchapman]

This happened this week in a singles scratch match.

Player hits his ball towards some trees and fears it may be lost so he plays a provisional ball.

Searches for the original and finds a Titleist 2 but it has a yellow mark on it which his doesn't so he pockets the ball. Can't find the original so completes the hole with his provisional and manages to halve the hole.

As he walks to the next tee he looks at the ball he found and lo and behold it's his original ball. It must have hit a tree and the mark was put onto the ball.

Does the score stand?

(I stress there was no intention to cheat as the original ball was lying quite well and definately playable)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This happened this week in a singles scratch match.

Player hits his ball towards some trees and fears it may be lost so he plays a provisional ball.

Searches for the original and finds a Titleist 2 but it has a yellow mark on it which his doesn't so he pockets the ball. Can't find the original so completes the hole with his provisional and manages to halve the hole.

As he walks to the next tee he looks at the ball he found and lo and behold it's his original ball. It must have hit a tree and the mark was put onto the ball.

Does the score stand?

(I stress there was no intention to cheat as the original ball was lying quite well and definately playable)

How does he know for sure that it is his?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

How does he know for sure that it is his?

There was a mark on the ball but it was underneath so when he saw the yellow mark he just picked it up assuming it wasn't his and didn't examin it.

He is suitably embarassed!

 

[Colin L]

When he found his original ball, his provisional should have been abandoned. When he played the provisional, he played a wrong ball and should have lost the hole.

How this actually affects the outcome of the hole depends on what happened when he realised his error. Did he tell his opponent? Did his opponent claim the hole?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

When he found his original ball, his provisional should have been abandoned. When he played the provisional, he played a wrong ball and should have lost the hole.

How this actually affects the outcome of the hole depends on what happened when he realised his error. Did he tell his opponent? Did his opponent claim the hole?

He told his opponent and lost the hole. His opponent obviously chose not to ignore the penalty.

 

[backwoodsman]

When he found his original ball, his provisional should have been abandoned. When he played the provisional, he played a wrong ball and should have lost the hole.

How this actually affects the outcome of the hole depends on what happened when he realised his error. Did he tell his opponent? Did his opponent claim the hole?

How about decision 27/5 which concerns a broadly similar situation? ie a player finds a ball which he fails to identify as his (he thinks it is his opponents but it's actually is his own). Ruling in that case was that although he had opportunity to identify the found ball, the player failed to do so and because he didn't identify his ball within 5 minutes, the ball was lost - which surely in OP situation would make the provisional the ball in play. Even if 5 minutes did not get completed, the original was not found and identified prior to the provisional being played from nearer the hole - which would also make the original lost. I think in OPs situation the player was legitimately able to finish the hole with the provisional?

I can only see that the player might be penalised for moving his ball - which would have been the first offence committed, albeit unknowingly. But can you commit such an offence against a ball that is not identified as yours? Presumably until it is identified, it is not technically yours?

 

[Colin L]

I was assuming that the provisional was played before a 5 minute search was completed (searches very rarely go to the full 5 minutes). Mike can clarify that.

As I understand it>
Within the 5 minute search period, your original ball is the ball in play. In my view, Rule 27-2c is clear: if the original ball is neither lost nor out of bounds the provisional ball must be abandoned. In OP's case the ball is not lost if the 5 minutes were not up when he played the provisional; he has had the opportunity to identify it; he must abandon the provisional. When he played the provisional, it was a wrong ball.

If he had realised his mistake before 5 minutes were up and had not played the provisional he could have replaced the original with a one stroke penalty and carried on.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I was assuming that the provisional was played before a 5 minute search was completed (searches very rarely go to the full 5 minutes). Mike can clarify that.

The original was found within the 5 minutes but they continued to search thinking it was still lost. The provisonal was played after a full 5 minute search failed to find the missing ball,

 

[rulefan]

How about decision 27/5 which concerns a broadly similar situation?

I agree. 27/5 covers it.
It doesn't matter whose ball it is, he hasn't identified it as his.

 

[backwoodsman]

I was assuming that the provisional was played before a 5 minute search was completed (searches very rarely go to the full 5 minutes). Mike can clarify that.

As I understand it>
Within the 5 minute search period, your original ball is the ball in play. In my view, Rule 27-2c is clear: if the original ball is neither lost nor out of bounds the provisional ball must be abandoned. In OP's case the ball is not lost if the 5 minutes were not up when he played the provisional; he has had the opportunity to identify it; he must abandon the provisional. When he played the provisional, it was a wrong ball.

If he had realised his mistake before 5 minutes were up and had not played the provisional he could have replaced the original with a one stroke penalty and carried on.

As you say, if the original ball was neither lost nor out of bounds, then the provisional must be abandoned. But what I'm thinking is that the original did meet the definition of lost under either of two counts. One would be that it was not found or identified within 5 mins (if 5mins had elapsed), or the other would be that a provisional was played from nearer the hole without the original being found and identified (italics my own words) if the 5mins hadn't.

Now if the player deliberately did not identify his ball, that's one thing (cheating essentially) but effectively in the OP he is operating under a legitimate procedure ie "I can't find my ball, I'll have to continue with the prov'".

Decision 27/5 seems to back this up in by saying that if you "find" your ball without knowing or realising that you've found it - then you haven't and it's going to be lost.

Interested to see what others think?

 

[backwoodsman]

Ok - Rulefan got in while l was typing ...

 

[Colin L]

Deleted

 

[Colin L]

Thanks to Mike' clarification that the provisional was played more than 5 minutes after the search for the original began, then clearly 27/5 applies. The original is lost and the provisional can be played.

However, I'm still thinking through the situation if the provisional is played after the original is found but before the 5 minutes are up. The original is by Definition, the ball in play since it has not been lost. D27/5 seems to me primarily about making clear that the player cannot say after 5 minutes that his ball is not lost because he had it in his pocket. If not identified, it is lost after 5 minutes, again by Definition and that is straightforward. But I'm not managing to work backwards from that and apply the Decision to a ball that is found within 5 minutes although not identified. The player has the chance to identify it as his, fails to do so and plays his provisional when his original ball is found and is by Definition the ball in play because it is not lost. I'm still seeing the provisional as a wrong ball. How would you rule the player who, when another player finds a ball during a search, does not go and check whether it is his, plays his provisional and it is then established that the found ball was in fact his original?

Open to persuasion that this is wrong - but meanwhile off actually to play this wonderful game of ours.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks to Mike' clarification that the provisional was played more than 5 minutes after the search for the original began, then clearly 27/5 applies. The original is lost and the provisional can be played.

However, I'm still thinking through the situation if the provisional is played after the original is found but before the 5 minutes are up. The original is by Definition, the ball in play since it has not been lost. D27/5 seems to me primarily about making clear that the player cannot say after 5 minutes that his ball is not lost because he had it in his pocket. If not identified, it is lost after 5 minutes, again by Definition and that is straightforward. But I'm not managing to work backwards from that and apply the Decision to a ball that is found within 5 minutes although not identified. The player has the chance to identify it as his, fails to do so and plays his provisional when his original ball is found and is by Definition the ball in play because it is not lost. I'm still seeing the provisional as a wrong ball. How would you rule the player who, when another player finds a ball during a search, does not go and check whether it is his, plays his provisional and it is then established that the found ball was in fact his original?

Open to persuasion that this is wrong - but meanwhile off actually to play this wonderful game of ours.

I'm afraid I think your logic backwards here Colin.

The definition of a lost ball says found or identified (for the additional situation you raise the rules cover the players responsibility to go over and identify).

When the player fails to identify the ball as his and plays his provisional from a point beyond etc within 5 mins the ball can no longer be found by correctly identifying it, it's now lost by the same definition.

If the player had looked again at the ball he picked up within 5 mins and before playing the provisional he could have continued with it after identifying it (provisions of 18-2 etc).

 

[rulefan]

Colin

Take the answer to 27/5 only and apply it to the question in hand (no pun intended).

Once a ball has been found a player has an opportunity to identify it as his. In this case, the player had every opportunity to identify the ball as his within the five-minute search period and failed to do so. Therefore, the ball is, by definition, "lost."

 

[Foxholer]

I'm afraid I think your logic backwards here Colin.

The definition of a lost ball says found or identified (for the additional situation you raise the rules cover the players responsibility to go over and identify).

When the player fails to identify the ball as his and plays his provisional from a point beyond etc within 5 mins the ball can no longer be found by correctly identifying it, it's now lost by the same definition.

If the player had looked again at the ball he picked up within 5 mins and before playing the provisional he could have continued with it after identifying it (provisions of 18-2 etc).

Er....Hasn't the ball actually been 'found' though - even if not 'identified'? The highlighted 'or' seems quite important to me!

There is no definition of 'Found' in The Rules, so either one needs to be added, or the wording of clause 'a' of 'Lost' needs to be amended appropriately (perhaps by replacing the 'or' with 'and').

Of course, D27/5 does specify how this situation should be handled, but there's still something slightly askew about it! I believe, but could be totally wrong, that some Decisions are documented' retrospectively' to cover tournament incidents and rulings that may not have been made absolutely correctly - but Rules updates (to bring everything into line) are scheduled.

 

[rulefan]

Er....Hasn't the ball actually been 'found' though -

A ball has been found but the player's ball has not as yet.

 

[Foxholer]

A ball has been found but the player's ball has not as yet.

Are you saying that 'recognition' that it is the players ball is implicit - by the word 'it' in the definition of 'Lost'?

 

[backwoodsman]

Expanding on Rulefans #15 I suppose a ball that has been found is still only a ball until it is identified as the player's ball. Ok, in hindsight we now know that the ball found was the players ball being searched for, but at the time it was not identified as such and so was still just a ball.

Er....Hasn't the ball actually been 'found' though - even if not 'identified'? The highlighted 'or' seems quite important to me!

There is no definition of 'Found' in The Rules, so either one needs to be added, or the wording of clause 'a' of 'Lost' needs to be amended appropriately (perhaps by replacing the 'or' with 'and').

Of course, D27/5 does specify how this situation should be handled, but there's still something slightly askew about it! I believe, but could be totally wrong, that some Decisions are documented' retrospectively' to cover tournament incidents and rulings that may not have been made absolutely correctly - but Rules updates (to bring everything into line) are scheduled.

I was pondering this precise point - but in the end decided the "or" was the correct word.

If it was "found and identified" it would close the door on those situations where a ball is found at say, 4min 50 sec and the player is 50 yards away. (Or it would for me; I can't do 50yd in 10secs these days...). If the ball is identified within 5 min then it presupposes the ball has been found. But if a ball is only found, then additional time is allowable for identification - and the decisions give guidance on the allowable parameters. So I think "found or identified" is correct. (Am now pondering whether just "identified" would suffice?)

 

[Foxholer]

Expanding on Rulefans #15 I suppose a ball that has been found is still only a ball until it is identified as the player's ball. Ok, in hindsight we now know that the ball found was the players ball being searched for, but at the time it was not identified as such and so was still just a ball.



I was pondering this precise point - but in the end decided the "or" was the correct word.

If it was "found and identified" it would close the door on those situations where a ball is found at say, 4min 50 sec and the player is 50 yards away. (Or it would for me; I can't do 50yd in 10secs these days...). If the ball is identified within 5 min then it presupposes the ball has been found. But if a ball is only found, then additional time is allowable for identification - and the decisions give guidance on the allowable parameters. So I think "found or identified" is correct. (Am now pondering whether just "identified" would suffice?)

That's precisely the situation that made me use the word 'perhaps' in the potential change! I don't believe simply doing that would cover all the possible scenarios. That's was my reasoning for suggesting possibly adding the 'Found' definition!