Is it worth it?

[rulefan]

Just to be pedantic.
A player cannot declare a ball lost. It becomes (ie is deemed) to be lost after one of a number of things has happened. (see below).

In the case of a 5 minute search being fruitless, the ball is lost by definition, whatever the player may say or do. Declaring it lost is redundant an irrelevant.

[h=4]Lost Ball[/h]A ball is deemed “lost” if:
a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or
b. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place (see Rule 27-2b); or
c. The player has put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance under Rule 26-1a, 27-1 or 28a; or
d. The player has put another ball into play because it is known or virtually certain that the ball, which has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (see Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (see Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (see Rule 25-1c) or is in a water hazard (see Rule 26-1b or c); or
e. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball.

 

[rulefan]

No, card was already shot to pieces by then (think it was on the 6th as well!!)

am I right in saying then that the ball has to be declared lost before the lonely walk back,

Not quite. The ball is automatically lost after the five minutes has expired. You don't have to declare or say anything.

If the 5 minutes has not expired, you cannot just declare it lost. Something has to happen to make it lost. ie any of the things in the list above.

 

[atticusfinch]

I think the rules require the player to "declare" only four things. 1. his intention to play a provisional, 2. his intention to lift a ball for identification, 3. his intention to play a second ball under R.3-3 (including naming the ball to count.)and 4. a concession.

Courtesy make make other declarations desirable, but the rules do not require it. (I'm sure I have left something out,)

 

[nemicu]

I think the rules require the player to "declare" only four things. 1. his intention to play a provisional, 2. his intention to lift a ball for identification, 3. his intention to play a second ball under R.3-3 (including naming the ball to count.)and 4. a concession.

Courtesy make make other declarations desirable, but the rules do not require it. (I'm sure I have left something out,)

He may declare a ball unplayable at any time (except in a hazard).

 

[Spuddy]

He may declare a ball unplayable at any time (except in a hazard).

Water hazard... You can declare it unplayable in a bunker

 

[rulefan]

He may declare a ball unplayable at any time (except in a hazard).

Not quite. He may deem it unplayable. He doesn't have to declare anything. Subtle difference.

Deem
To have as an opinion; judge: regard as; consider:

Declare
To announce; make known formally or officially; state emphatically or authoritatively;

 

[nemicu]

Water hazard... You can declare it unplayable in a bunker

but you must also drop it in the bunker under clause b and c of rule 28.

 

[nemicu]

Not quite. He may deem it unplayable. He doesn't have to declare anything. Subtle difference.

Deem
To have as an opinion; judge: regard as; consider:

Declare
To announce; make known formally or officially; state emphatically or authoritatively;

Thanks:whoo:. See? everybody could do with a bit of rules knowledge.

 

[atticusfinch]

Actually, to continue the pedantic nature of these posts, rules knowledge did not lead rulefan to his statement, a literal reading of the rules did.

 

[nemicu]

Actually, to continue the pedantic nature of these posts, rules knowledge did not lead rulefan to his statement, a literal reading of the rules did.

With respect, a "literal" reading of the rules is not an easy task and clearly leads to many discussions about their interpretation and application.
However, judging by some of the responses in this thread, it does tend to uphold the OP's concerns about "know-it-all" busybodies and the like.

 

[Foxholer]

No, card was already shot to pieces by then (think it was on the 6th as well!!)

am I right in saying then that the ball has to be declared lost before the lonely walk back, and the op's pp was trying to generate a best of both worlds scenario? Therein breaking the rule?

Thanks again :thup:

You're right in saying that the ball has to be declared as lost if you can't find it within a 5 minute search. Then the walk back to the tee is your only option.
I'm not sure what you're saying about your opponents though. It's up to you to decide if your ball is findable from the tee - if you have any doubt, you are perfectly entitled to put a provisional ball into play. None of your opponents actions were against the rules of golf.

Aargh!!!! This chestnut myth (perhaps 2!) again!

Declaring a ball lost has no meaning in relation to Rules of Golf. A ball is either lost - by deeds or time - or it isn't (yet)!

In the case of going back to play another, provided the 5 minutes since searching started hasn't elapsed, if another ball has not been put in play - by dropping if not from tee; by stroke if from the tee - then ball is not lost and is still the ball in play. If it is found, then player may go back up to it, identify it and play it. Once he has put a substitute ball into play, the original ball is deemed lost - even if found within the 5 minutes.

Here's the definition of 'Lost Ball'.

Lost Ball
A ball is deemed “lost” if:

a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or

b. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place (see Rule 27-2b); or

c. The player has put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance under Rule 26-1a, 27-1 or 28a; or

d. The player has put another ball into play because it is known or virtually certain that the ball, which has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (see Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (see Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (see Rule 25-1c) or is in a water hazard (see Rule 26-1b or c); or

e. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball.

Time spent in playing a wrong ball is not counted in the five-minute period allowed for search.

 

[Foxholer]

With respect, a "literal" reading of the rules is not an easy task and clearly leads to many discussions about their interpretation and application.
However, judging by some of the responses in this thread, it does tend to uphold the OP's concerns about "know-it-all" busybodies and the like.

Actually, it's the interpretation that causes the problems! Reading them literally works fine!

Of course, there's always the issue of whether the rule being read is appropriate to the situation and whether there's another Rule that is appropriate too!

 

[rulefan]

if all parties are in agreement (but not in agreement knowingly to waive the rules) equity should prevail.

Do you understand what 'equity' means in the Rules of Golf?

 

[rulefan]

With respect, a "literal" reading of the rules is not an easy task and clearly leads to many discussions about their interpretation and application.
However, judging by some of the responses in this thread, it does tend to uphold the OP's concerns about "know-it-all" busybodies and the like.

So if referees and other rules knowledgeable people are to be denigrated as 'know it all' busybodies and decide to keep out of rules questions, who will answer the questions correctly and/or officiate at tournaments? Why bother with rules if they are not to be applied correctly?

 

[chrisd]

So if referees and other rules knowledgeable people are to be denigrated as 'know it all' busybodies and decide to keep out of rules questions, who will answer the questions correctly and/or officiate at tournaments? Why bother with rules if they are not to be applied correctly?

My original post was really about this particular issue, if I were a qualified referee ( Id like to do that) people wouldn't question my knowledge of the rules and decisions, and would be wholly accepting that I would point out, or answer questions on, rules transgressions during a game, I might however choose to turn a blind eye to things in a bounce game where guys have their own quirks and customs.

If, like me, and many on here, we are seen as "barrack room lawyers" where we tell people the rules we know (or think we do) which aren't necessarily what they want to hear and they sometimes can't be sure we are correct, then are we just seen as busy body, think we know it alls, or are the majority of players happy to be helped to palsy the game to the rules even if the result in my OP a disqualification?

 

[rulefan]

My original post was really about this particular issue, if I were a qualified referee ( Id like to do that) people wouldn't question my knowledge of the rules and decisions, and would be wholly accepting that I would point out, or answer questions on, rules transgressions during a game, I might however choose to turn a blind eye to things in a bounce game where guys have their own quirks and customs.

If, like me, and many on here, we are seen as "barrack room lawyers" where we tell people the rules we know (or think we do) which aren't necessarily what they want to hear and they sometimes can't be sure we are correct, then are we just seen as busy body, think we know it alls, or are the majority of players happy to be helped to palsy the game to the rules even if the result in my OP a disqualification?

I see your point now.

 

[atticusfinch]

My original post was really about this particular issue, if I were a qualified referee ( Id like to do that) people wouldn't question my knowledge of the rules and decisions, and would be wholly accepting that I would point out, or answer questions on, rules transgressions during a game, I might however choose to turn a blind eye to things in a bounce game where guys have their own quirks and customs.

If, like me, and many on here, we are seen as "barrack room lawyers" where we tell people the rules we know (or think we do) which aren't necessarily what they want to hear and they sometimes can't be sure we are correct, then are we just seen as busy body, think we know it alls, or are the majority of players happy to be helped to palsy the game to the rules even if the result in my OP a disqualification?

You can achieve your goal without an official blessing. Just make sure your answer to a question is right. and then you will get a reputation as a rules maven/guru. That requires some training but mostly requires study and careful reading...of both the question and the rule and then spotting the rules issue avoiding the red herrings caused by reading into something that is not there. you shouldn't be afraid of mistakes, even the sharpest guy in here makes them. Just admit when you have and learn.

Nobody was born understanding the rules, they are all a learned skill.

 

[chrisd]

You can achieve your goal without an official blessing. Just make sure your answer to a question is right. and then you will get a reputation as a rules maven/guru. That requires some training but mostly requires study and careful reading...of both the question and the rule and then spotting the rules issue avoiding the red herrings caused by reading into something that is not there. you shouldn't be afraid of mistakes, even the sharpest guy in here makes them. Just admit when you have and learn.

Nobody was born understanding the rules, they are all a learned skill.

I believe that I'm known as someone who is studying rules and more knowledgeable than many. My post was more about other peoples attitudes to guys who know the rules and whether it's a disadvantage to know more than a few basic rules

 

[rulefan]

My post was more about other peoples attitudes to guys who know the rules and whether it's a disadvantage to know more than a few basic rules

I believe it is better to know as many rules as possible and to recognise and admit when you don't the rule for a specific situation.

It's how and when you use that information that may get you friends or enemies.

 

[atticusfinch]

I believe that I'm known as someone who is studying rules and more knowledgeable than many. My post was more about other peoples attitudes to guys who know the rules and whether it's a disadvantage to know more than a few basic rules

You seem to take offense at my posts as criticism. Far from it, I applaud any effort to master the rules and do not belittle anyone who makes mistakes during the process. I'm just terse, like the rules.

One quality a rules person must have or develop is a thick skin.