Rules Quiz Question I couldn't Answer

[mikejohnchapman]

I was asked the following at the weekend and couldn't answer it definitively or find an answer in the decisions. Any idea what the answer is?

Two players are playing on adjacent holes and both hit tee shots into an area of casual water between the fairways. Both see a big splash so it's known or virtually certain both balls are in the casual water. When the balls are retrieved they are both have the same markings - make and number but nothing unique. How do you proceed - drop at point of entry or treat as a lost ball?

 

[chrisd]

I was asked the following at the weekend and couldn't answer it definitively or find an answer in the decisions. Any idea what the answer is?

Two players are playing on adjacent holes and both hit tee shots into an area of casual water between the fairways. Both see a big splash so it's known or virtually certain both balls are in the casual water. When the balls are retrieved they are both have the same markings - make and number but nothing unique. How do you proceed - drop at point of entry or treat as a lost ball?

Drop as normal, you don't have to identify which ball was which as you can substitute a ball in a water hazard

go on, tell me I'm wrong 😁

 

[clubchamp98]

Drop as normal, you don't have to identify which ball was which as you can substitute a ball in a water hazard

go on, tell me I'm wrong 

op never said it was a hazard.
but I think the rest is right as you don't need to find a ball in casual water.

 

[rulefan]

As neither ball can be identified, they are both considered to be lost. ie not found. Decision 27/10

Rule 25-1(c) para two applies.

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition, the player may take relief under this Rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

As I think everyone has said...

The balls are lost in abnormal ground conditions so the player proceeds with relief from that in the same way as if he had found his ball in the AGE, except that his option to play the ball as it lies no longer exists!

The reference point for a drop doesn't change as it's unrelated to the final position of the ball.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

op never said it was a hazard.
but I think the rest is right as you don't need to find a ball in casual water.

Both balls were found in the casual water so not "lost". Point of entry could be estimated but not possible to decide where the final resting place was as both balls have the same markings hence not possible to play as it lies.

 

[rulefan]

Did you read post #4? In particular decision 27/10.

Both balls are lost. But they are lost in an abnormal ground condition.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Did you read post #4? In particular decision 27/10.

Both balls are lost. But they are lost in an abnormal ground condition.

Yes I did.

I thought your first point was overruled by the second.

So to be clear are you saying it's a stroke and distance penalty rather than a drop at point of entry?

(neither player had played a provisional ball as they were both certain itwas in the casual water).

 

[rulefan]

Yes I did.

I thought your first point was overruled by the second.

So to be clear are you saying it's a stroke and distance penalty rather than a drop at point of entry?

(neither player had played a provisional ball as they were both certain itwas in the casual water).

No. Each player's ball was lost in an abnormal ground condition. The specific rule (ie 25-1c) overrides the general rule.

My first point was overruled by the second.

The drop is of course within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief from the estimated point of entry.

 

[atticusfinch]

Just to be my usual pedantic self, it is not the "point of entry" that needs to be determined but the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition. R25-1c.:blah:

 

[rulefan]

Just to be my usual pedantic self, it is not the "point of entry" that needs to be determined but the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition. R25-1c.:blah:

Yes I agree. I'm usually accused of being the pedant. But I wonder in what circumstances they would in fact differ.

 

[Foxholer]

Yes I agree. I'm usually accused of being the pedant. But I wonder in what circumstances they would in fact differ.

Pedants-R-Us! (or in AF's case US!)

There's certainly potential for there to be a ifference in 'normal' WHs, but probably not so much in AGC!

 

[duncan mackie]

Yes I agree. I'm usually accused of being the pedant. But I wonder in what circumstances they would in fact differ.

The situation here i would have thought?

The ball might enter the casual water at a point significantly different from where it last crosses the margin of it unless it rolls in.

 

[rulefan]

The situation here i would have thought?

The ball might enter the casual water at a point significantly different from where it last crosses the margin of it unless it rolls in.

Hmmm. Casual water hasn't got a defined margin, so is entering the airspace above the water really the same as crossing the outermost limit? CW has no upward dimension. Its limits are bounded by the surface and its depth.

 

[Crazyface]

As neither ball can be identified, they are both considered to be lost. ie not found. Decision 27/10

Rule 25-1(c) para two applies.

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition, the player may take relief under this Rule.

But...if one player makes a claim to one of the balls with a confident "That's mine cheers"....they can both take a drop?

 

[rulefan]

But...if one player makes a claim to one of the balls with a confident "That's mine cheers"....they can both take a drop?

But why? There is no penalty involved. They both get a free drop. There is no penalty for not finding your ball.