Poulter V the rules official

[Simbo]

So poulter v the rules official yesterday, who was right and who was wrong.
For those that never seen it, poulter claimed his ball had gone into a water hazard, his line of flight and shot shape suggests it did, he said he seen it bounce right outside the line of the hazard and was taking a drop from the water. The rules official disagreed and said he had to play it as a lost ball. Jordan spieth agreed with poulter. The rules guy then backed down and let him play a drop from the side of the water.
Personally in the instance I think poulter was quite right to argue his case. All the evidence seemed to back him up.
Then someone found the ball 1 foot outside the hazard. Does anyone know exactly where it was found? Further back? Further down?
The point where it enetered the water hazard looked to me like it could have gone in the hazard then out the other side.

 

[FuzzyDuck]

Further along according to this video snippet, so I think it did enter the hazard and then exit again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckt7YGR0Hg

 

[r0wly86]

As I have never played with a ref in tow, I can only suggest an aswer from my own experince. That is if all playing partners agree the ball went into the hazard then that's what you play. Once the new ball has been played that's the one that is in play so if you find the previous ball you just pick it up and chalk it up to experience.

Of course I could be totally wrong

 

[Maninblack4612]

You have to be "virtually certain" that the ball entered the hazard. This suggests a small element of doubt, so if the players acted in good faith he's done nothing wrong.

 

[jim8flog]

[h=2]26-1/3[/h] [h=4]Ball Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found Outside Hazard[/h] Q.A player believed his original ball had come to rest in a water hazard. He searched for about a minute but did not find his ball. He therefore dropped another ball behind the hazard under Rule 26-1 and played it. He then found his original ball outside the hazard within five minutes of having begun to search for it. What is the ruling?

A.When the player dropped and played another ball behind the hazard, it became the ball in play and the original ball was lost.

If it was known or virtually certain that the original ball was in the water hazard, the player was entitled to invoke Rule 26-1. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that the original ball was in the water hazard, the player was required to put another ball into play under Rule 27-1. In playing the ball dropped under Rule 26-1, the player played from a wrong place.

In match play, he incurred a penalty of loss of hole (Rule 20-7b).

In stroke play, he incurred the stroke-and-distance penalty prescribed by Rule 27-1 and an additional penalty of two strokes for a breach of that Rule (Rule 20-7c). If the breach was a serious one, he was subject to disqualification unless he corrected the error as provided in Rule 20-7c.

This is the rule for us mortals, however when a referee is involved the referee's ruling prevails.

 

[bobmac]

You have to be "virtually certain" that the ball entered the hazard. This suggests a small element of doubt, so if the players acted in good faith he's done nothing wrong.

Apparently, "virtually certain" means 99% certain

 

[williamalex1]

The referee's first decision was correct, and IMO he should not been influenced by the players.
This would never happen in the SPL or PremierLeague :rofl:

 

[Pathetic Shark]

You would think that with Ian Poulter being an Arsenal fan, he would be used to someone in authority telling him that he didn't see it.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Well as nobody saw the ball enter the hazard I don't see how he could say it was "known or Virtually Certain" it was in.

He could claim it was KoVC it was heading towards the hazard but that's not the point.

I think he got away with one here.