Lost ball - heading back to tee ground

[MashieNiblick]

Hero played both balls to resolve with pro later - I must have misunderstood as to why his seconds score was valid.

Hmm intriguing.

In that case he should have proceeded under Rule 3-3, enabling him to play both balls legititmarely and keep his score with the first ball.

Of course he would have had to annouce his intention etc, etc, as required by the Rule but it might have saved him a couple of shots.

Is that right?

 

[Colin L]

Nothing new to add, but I hope a little tidying up will be useful as the thread has covered a few different points. So, in summary:

1. The answer to OP's original question was clear. If your ball is found within 5 minutes of starting to search it is in play. Giving up and heading back to play another ball or going to a provisional ball does not make any difference. Playing your provisional ball after your original ball is found would be playing a wrong ball. Continuing to go back and playing another ball from where you made your last stroke would be perfectly legit even though the original had been found (27-1) but somewhat wasteful.

2. Before the original is found, if you play a provisional ball from where the original ball is likely to be or from nearer the hole, the provisional is in play. So galloping down the fairway to play your provisional before anyone finds your original in deep trouble is ok. In stroke play, that's the end of the story, your provisional is in play and you carry on. In matchplay, your opponent has the option of making you cancel the stroke and play again - in which case it is the original ball you play.

3. In stroke play, the OP could have/should have proceeded under 3-3 and played both the original as it lay and another ball from where he had played his previous stroke. As mentioned, there is a procedure: he had to declare what he was doing and which ball he wanted to count if it had been played out within the rules. In this example, he would obviously have wanted his original ball to count, and provided he holed it out from there on within the rules, it would have counted.

4. The process of playing another ball under 3-3 is not available in match play. The OP would have had to decide on one course of action and his opponent, if he thought it was wrong, would have had to make a claim to be decided on by the Committee.

I think that's everything that's come up.

 

[duncan mackie]

2. Before the original is found, if you play a provisional ball from where the original ball is likely to be or from nearer the hole, the provisional is in play. So galloping down the fairway to play your provisional before anyone finds your original in deep trouble is ok. In stroke play, that's the end of the story, your provisional is in play and you carry on. In matchplay, your opponent has the option of making you cancel the stroke and play again - in which case it is the original ball you play.

my understanding is that you have made a stroke in the context of 27-1 and the original ball is lost. if the opponent requires you to 'cancel it and play again' that is what you would do.

 

[Region3]

2. Before the original is found, if you play a provisional ball from where the original ball is likely to be or from nearer the hole, the provisional is in play. So galloping down the fairway to play your provisional before anyone finds your original in deep trouble is ok. In stroke play, that's the end of the story, your provisional is in play and you carry on. In matchplay, your opponent has the option of making you cancel the stroke and play again - in which case it is the original ball you play.

Are you sure on this Colin.

Some posts above seem to me like they're saying yes your opponent can effectively cancel the stroke, but as you've hit the provisional it now becomes the ball in play.

Confused.

 

[Region3]

Beaten to it....... drat!

 

[bobmac]

The OP

can you still play your ball if found within 5 minutes even if you turned back already to tee up again ?

Nothing new to add, but I hope a little tidying up will be useful as the thread has covered a few different points. So, in summary:

1. The answer to OP's original question was clear. If your ball is found within 5 minutes of starting to search it is in play. Giving up and heading back to play another ball or going to a provisional ball does not make any difference. Playing your provisional ball after your original ball is found would be playing a wrong ball. Continuing to go back and playing another ball from where you made your last stroke would be perfectly legit even though the original had been found (27-1) but somewhat wasteful.

2. Before the original is found, if you play a provisional ball from where the original ball is likely to be or from nearer the hole, the provisional is in play. So galloping down the fairway to play your provisional before anyone finds your original in deep trouble is ok. In stroke play, that's the end of the story, your provisional is in play and you carry on. In matchplay, your opponent has the option of making you cancel the stroke and play again - in which case it is the original ball you play.

3. In stroke play, the OP could have/should have proceeded under 3-3 and played both the original as it lay and another ball from where he had played his previous stroke. As mentioned, there is a procedure: he had to declare what he was doing and which ball he wanted to count if it had been played out within the rules. In this example, he would obviously have wanted his original ball to count, and provided he holed it out from there on within the rules, it would have counted.

4. The process of playing another ball under 3-3 is not available in match play. The OP would have had to decide on one course of action and his opponent, if he thought it was wrong, would have had to make a claim to be decided on by the Committee.

I think that's everything that's come up.

So to summarise the summary, yes.

 

[Colin L]

In matchplay, your opponent has the option of making you cancel the stroke and play again - in which case it is the original ball you play.

I am certainly not certain, but I think that's right. My reasoning is that because the stroke out of turn is cancelled, it no longer exists, it didn't happen and therefore the consequence of it ie putting the provisional ball into play didn't happen either. It's like strokes that hit electricity wires, that are played with a wrong ball etc. If the original ball has not been found he could replay the stroke with the provisional, but if the original is found before that, it is the ball in play and has to be played.

Open to being convinced I'm wrong.

 

[duncan mackie]

In matchplay, your opponent has the option of making you cancel the stroke and play again - in which case it is the original ball you play.


Open to being convinced I'm wrong.

27-2b/1 enough to convince you?

 

[Colin L]

Convinced.

:thup:

Don't know how I missed that one.

I still like my reasoning though .

 

[Foxholer]

Convinced.

I still like my reasoning though .

I'm likewise.

I suspect there has been an incident and ruling (in circumstances that sets a precedent, such as Tour Matchplay tournament) that has resulted in that decision being logged - where the word 'recall' has been used rather than 'cancel' that is in the Rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

I suspect there has been an incident and ruling (in circumstances that sets a precedent, such as Tour Matchplay tournament) that has resulted in that decision being logged - where the word 'recall' has been used rather than 'cancel' that is in the Rule.

couple of points -

any ruling creates a precedent; rulings are only generally given in response to real life situations but they certainly don't have to be tour events, or even elite ones. That these tend to be high profile, or where they relate to 'tour' issues such as the recent ruling re 'phone in' events.

however, most of the rulings requested at club level (and above!) will simply reference existing decisions nowadays, or guidance on how to interpret situations that require interpretation (rule 8 being a case in point - it's always dificult for the average golfer to relate intention to a breach of the rules!)

in this particular case I don't see the use of recalling in the decision to be anything other than the use of language to highlight the fact that in the abscence of an opponent recalling a shot it stands as played; it's also entirely logical that it's you can only recall the shot itself, and not any prior situation ie the line has to be drawn somehere.

if you wish to ponder this to the extreme consider the following -

Player A tees off at a par 3, and believing his tee shot to possibly be lost or OOB he plays a provisional that rolls just past the flag into the fringe.
Player B gets into trouble with both his tee shot and second tee shot such that A feels he will quickly win the hole with a chip and a putt. He rushes off to do so whilst B rushes in the other direction to find A's first ball!
Player A chips in - B shouts over, I'm recalling that. As A goes to pick the ball out the hole B finds A's first ball - then A looks at the ball he's chipped in and it's not his.........

Discuss

 

[Colin L]

He does not replay the provisional. As the stroke has been cancelled (ie it did not happen), the original ball is still the ball in play.

I've just been looking through the thread again. I did not walk alone.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

couple of points -

any ruling creates a precedent; rulings are only generally given in response to real life situations but they certainly don't have to be tour events, or even elite ones. That these tend to be high profile, or where they relate to 'tour' issues such as the recent ruling re 'phone in' events.

however, most of the rulings requested at club level (and above!) will simply reference existing decisions nowadays, or guidance on how to interpret situations that require interpretation (rule 8 being a case in point - it's always dificult for the average golfer to relate intention to a breach of the rules!)

in this particular case I don't see the use of recalling in the decision to be anything other than the use of language to highlight the fact that in the abscence of an opponent recalling a shot it stands as played; it's also entirely logical that it's you can only recall the shot itself, and not any prior situation ie the line has to be drawn somehere.

if you wish to ponder this to the extreme consider the following -

Player A tees off at a par 3, and believing his tee shot to possibly be lost or OOB he plays a provisional that rolls just past the flag into the fringe.
Player B gets into trouble with both his tee shot and second tee shot such that A feels he will quickly win the hole with a chip and a putt. He rushes off to do so whilst B rushes in the other direction to find A's first ball!
Player A chips in - B shouts over, I'm recalling that. As A goes to pick the ball out the hole B finds A's first ball - then A looks at the ball he's chipped in and it's not his.........

Discuss

As a very much novice I would look at this like the following:

- Once he strikes the second ball, that is removing the ability to play his first.

-Usual penalty for playing the wrong ball

-Must locate second ball played. if that can't be found, back to the tee, playing 6?

Of course this all falls down, if my very first line of reasoning is wrong!

 

[Colin L]

Player A tees off at a par 3, and believing his tee shot to possibly be lost or OOB he plays a provisional that rolls just past the flag into the fringe.
Player B gets into trouble with both his tee shot and second tee shot such that A feels he will quickly win the hole with a chip and a putt. He rushes off to do so whilst B rushes in the other direction to find A's first ball!
Player A chips in - B shouts over, I'm recalling that. As A goes to pick the ball out the hole B finds A's first ball - then A looks at the ball he's chipped in and it's not his.........

Discuss

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Imurg]

if you wish to ponder this to the extreme consider the following -

Player A tees off at a par 3, and believing his tee shot to possibly be lost or OOB he plays a provisional that rolls just past the flag into the fringe.
Player B gets into trouble with both his tee shot and second tee shot such that A feels he will quickly win the hole with a chip and a putt. He rushes off to do so whilst B rushes in the other direction to find A's first ball!
Player A chips in - B shouts over, I'm recalling that. As A goes to pick the ball out the hole B finds A's first ball - then A looks at the ball he's chipped in and it's not his.........

Discuss

Call it a Half and walk on........

 

[Colin L]

Call it a Half and walk on........

You'd be losing out if you were B and did that.

 

[Foxholer]

if you wish to ponder this to the extreme consider the following -

Player A tees off at a par 3, and believing his tee shot to possibly be lost or OOB he plays a provisional that rolls just past the flag into the fringe.
Player B gets into trouble with both his tee shot and second tee shot such that A feels he will quickly win the hole with a chip and a putt. He rushes off to do so whilst B rushes in the other direction to find A's first ball!
Player A chips in - B shouts over, I'm recalling that. As A goes to pick the ball out the hole B finds A's first ball - then A looks at the ball he's chipped in and it's not his.........

Discuss

I'd say A loses hole. He's played the wrong ball. Provisional hasn't yet been played, so recall-ing isn't relevant. Likewise, A playing the (wrong) ball happened first, so finding A's first one is irrelevant too.

Complicated indeed.

What was the ruling?

WRT Precedent. If a ruling made is subsequently found to be 'defective', does it remain as a precedent?

 

[Imurg]

You'd be losing out if you were B and did that.

But my brain would still be in one piece....!

 

[rulefan]

WRT Precedent. If a ruling made is subsequently found to be 'defective', does it remain as a precedent?

A ruling made by whom?

Unless by the Ruling Bodies, no.

A ruling made by a referee only stands for that incident and may be corrected by the referee or the committee.

 

[Colin L]

My argument was that if a stroke is cancelled then any consequences of that stroke are also cancelled (like putting the PB into play). That Decision says differently which is fine. Duncan is, I expect, showing that if I applied my argument to his illustration, the stroke at the wrong ball would not result in loss of hole penalty as it too would be cancelled because it had been recalled. Yes, no?