Outside agency moves ball

[backwoodsman]

Was asked my opinion on the following scenario...

Our 9th is a short, tight par 3 with high fence on the right - woods and out of bounds are beyond the fence. The woods are a popular walking location. Player hits ball high and right and it's clearly going out of bounds. However, it is not seen landing. Player thinks the ball is "gone" and plays another, somewhat optimistically calling it a provisional. A ball then materialises coming back over the 8 foot high fence and lands on the green. Ball turns out to be the players original.

Points of consideration are that the ball was seen heading out of bounds but not seen landing. Ball was not seen to be at rest. And the "method" by which the ball came to return over a high fence was not seen - ie not know whether it bounced off someones head or was thrown. Only thing was that there was a substantial time gap between the ball disappearing and then coming back.

The player claimed his "good fortune" and played out with the original ball. Should he have done so?

I think not - the ball must have been thrown, was "dead" and the the "provisional" was the ball in play. But some others in clubhouse think otherwise- he didn't see the ball thrown so can't be sure. (They quote some Nick Faldo incident?)

Your thoughts please.

 

[Colin L]

Let me get this straight. Your player's teeshot has clearly gone out of bounds over the fence. He then plays a provisional after which the original ball mysteriously comes sailing back over the fence and on to the green. So the length of time from the original ball disappearing over the fence and coming back over is the time taken to play another ball - say 1 minute? And he thinks that just because he didn't see his original ball during that time, it was magically continuing in motion with eventually enough remaining momentum to bounce off something and leap over an 8 ft fence? In that grand Scottish expression of scornful disbelief, "Aye, right." He is an admirable chancer and should simply have been pleased that someone had the courtesy to return his OOB ball to him ..... and got on with playing out with the provisional.

Thanks for starting my day with a good laugh.

 

[FaldosJumper]

I always assumed this would be OK for him to continue with his original ball... is that assumption incorrect?

 

[backwoodsman]

Colin,

You pretty much have it in a nutshell. But it seems he was not theonly one to think so. Some opinion in te clubhouse agreed quoting the Faldo thing. What was hat?

 

[duncan mackie]

don't know about the Faldo thing but as to the original question the following covers it all -

15/9
Ball Thrown into Bounds by Outside Agency and Played; Caddie Aware of Action of Outside Agency

Q.A's ball was found lying in bounds and A played a shot towards the green. Then a man appeared and said that A's ball had come to rest out of bounds in his garden. He said he had thrown it onto the course and had told A's caddie what he had done. The caddie had not reported this to A. What is the ruling?

A.Under Rule 6-1, A is responsible for his caddie's failure to tell him what the man had said.

A's ball was no longer the ball in play when it came to rest out of bounds. Therefore, it was a wrong ball - see Definitions of "Ball in Play" and "Wrong Ball." When A made a stroke with the wrong ball, he incurred the penalty prescribed in Rule 15-3 and, in stroke play, was obliged to proceed under Rule 27-1.

In this case it is clearly unreasonable to accept that the ball has continued in motion for the interveneing period between hitting it and it reappearing.

If the ball had been stationary where you found it you would have been alright playing it on the basis that it had bounced off a tree etc - there would be no penalty for playing a wrong ball (Rule 15-3). If the player discovers before playing from the next teeing ground that the original ball was out of bounds, he must go back and proceed under Rule 27-1. If the discovery is not made until later than this, the score with the wrong ball stands.

 

[backwoodsman]

Thanks so far. You're confirming what i thought about it hinging on the improbability of the ball not having come to rest.. I'm now understanding the Faldo thing to be a case of the ball going into the crowd, then reappearing on the green after a suspicious, but not implausible, delay. Ring bells with anyone?

 

[pbrown7582]

The Faldo thing was in matchplay against David Graham I think 17 at went worth and you are correct over the back of green and gets thrown back which apparently no One saw so he putted out and won match in some what dubious circumstance, I think another instance occurred at Brookline in ryder cup.

The key to the OP is the delay, and actually seeing ball come back after such a delay. If you hadn't seen ball coming back then you may put it down to a lucky bounce.

 

[Foxholer]

The Faldo incident (1st round 1983 World Matchplay against Graham Marsh on Wentorth 16th) was a matter of seconds (about 10, so still 'substantial) and there were multiple opinions about what had happened.

In this case, there as a huge delay and very little doubt as to what had happened.