Ruling please

[TerryA]

I was playing yesterday and hit a ball which we all agreed had gone over a red hazard and I played my third shot from two club lengths outside the red hazard. One of my playing partners then spotted a ball on the fairway and picked it up. I then identified it as mine - it had hit something in the hazard and bounced out. As we had all originally agreed that my ball was in the hazard and I had played on as well f this was correct was my playing partner correct in picking the original ball up and not letting me play it?

 

[louise_a]

If you were all virtually certain that your ball had landed in the hazard and you had played on adding a penalty stroke then that is the ball in play.

 

[louise_a]

Here is the decision

26-1/3 Ball Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found Outside Hazard

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.

There is also another decision that says once the ball has been dropped, then the original is found before a stroke has been made, then the dropped ball is the ball in play.

 

[rulie]

Here is the decision

26-1/3 Ball Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found Outside Hazard

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.

There is also another decision that says once the ball has been dropped, then the original is found before a stroke has been made, then the dropped ball is the ball in play.

IMO, if you're going to post a Decision, you should post all of it.

26-1/3
Ball Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found Outside Hazard
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.

 

[louise_a]

I was just posting the relevant bit, the OP said that they all agreed, the rest of the decision relates to when it is unsure whether the ball was in the hazard.

 

[Foxholer]

I was just posting the relevant bit, the OP said that they all agreed, the rest of the decision relates to when it is unsure whether the ball was in the hazard.

All of it was relevant!

Your abridged version missed out the additional 2SP for playing from the wrong place! A failure to do that would (could) cause a DQ - if not applied before card signed and handed in!

The answer to the question though was 'Yes'!

 

[rulie]

All of it was relevant!

Your abridged version missed out the additional 2SP for playing from the wrong place! A failure to do that would (could) cause a DQ - if not applied before card signed and handed in!

The answer to the question though was 'Yes'!

Again, IMO, "everyone agreeing" is not the same as "known or virtually certain". "Known or virtually certain" is a conclusion reached after an evaluation of all of the facts of the situation - see Decision 26-1/1. A common question to consider is "could the ball be anywhere else than in the water hazard?" If the answer is yes, then it is probably not known or virtually certain, and the player must proceed under stroke and distance (as indicated in Decision 26-1/3).

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

The OP stated they had "hit a ball which we all agreed had gone over a red hazard and I played my third shot from two club lengths outside the red hazard". If it was believed the ball went "over" the hazard as opposed to believing the ball came to rest IN the hazard, then the drop should never have been an option.

 

[rulie]

The OP stated they had "hit a ball which we all agreed had gone over a red hazard and I played my third shot from two club lengths outside the red hazard". If it was believed the ball went "over" the hazard as opposed to believing the ball came to rest IN the hazard, then the drop should never have been an option.

Therein lies the doubt and thus the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty."

 

[atticusfinch]

The OP stated they had "hit a ball which we all agreed had gone over a red hazard and I played my third shot from two club lengths outside the red hazard". If it was believed the ball went "over" the hazard as opposed to believing the ball came to rest IN the hazard, then the drop should never have been an option.

Or the poster may have been casual with his language not expecting the Alan Turing treatment.

 

[rulie]

Or the poster may have been casual with his language not expecting the Alan Turing treatment.

It is a Rules forum where we must deal with the real facts; opinions may be considered secondary.

 

[backwoodsman]

It is a Rules forum where we must deal with the real facts; opinions may be considered secondary.

I think we all know what he meant - ie that ball went over (the margin of and into) a red hazard. If he had meant all the way over to the far side - ie that it completely cleared the hazard - then he wouldn't have been asking the question now would he?

However, the real point of my post is to say that I think that PPs agreeing that a ball went into a hazard is too common a mis-use or misunderstanding of "virtual certainty". It's all too frequent that you hear something like "Did that go in?" "Yep", "Yep" and "I think so too" when all that happened is that 4 people saw a ball go somewhere close to a hazard with no real "evidence" that it actually went in.

And the looks you get given if you say something like "I don't think you can be sure it's in. If we can't find it you'll have to play another from here" ...

 

[Colin L]

I reckon we need to ease up a bit. Someone asks a straightforward question looking, one would expect, for a straightforward answer.

The straightforward question was what do you do if you know* your ball went into a lateral water hazard, proceed correctly on that basis and then discover your original ball outside the hazard. That got a straightforward answer with a reference to the relevant part of a Decision. In my view, it cannot be helpful to the questioner then to complicate the issue with a number of ifs and buts that may make him wonder if he did the right thing after all.

I used “know” quite deliberately. So much time is taken up on “virtual certainty” in many forums that it is easy to forget that as often as not a player will know that his ball has gone into a water hazard. Take Terry’s description of events at its face value without picking over this word or that. Just work on the basis that he is describing a situation in which he knew his ball went into the hazard and that he got confirmation from the others who also knew. He just wanted to find out, unsurprisingly, what to do when his ball was unexpectedly found outside the hazard.

I feel we should be more sensitive to what questioners like Terry are - fellow golfers looking for a straight answer to a situation they encountered. If something isn’t clear from what they say, we can ask for clarification but I don’t think putting their words to forensic examination is helpful or welcoming.

That’s just how I feel!

 

[bobmac]

I reckon we need to ease up a bit. Someone asks a straightforward question looking, one would expect, for a straightforward answer.

The straightforward question was what do you do if you know* your ball went into a lateral water hazard, proceed correctly on that basis and then discover your original ball outside the hazard. That got a straightforward answer with a reference to the relevant part of a Decision. In my view, it cannot be helpful to the questioner then to complicate the issue with a number of ifs and buts that may make him wonder if he did the right thing after all.

I used “know” quite deliberately. So much time is taken up on “virtual certainty” in many forums that it is easy to forget that as often as not a player will know that his ball has gone into a water hazard. Take Terry’s description of events at its face value without picking over this word or that. Just work on the basis that he is describing a situation in which he knew his ball went into the hazard and that he got confirmation from the others who also knew. He just wanted to find out, unsurprisingly, what to do when his ball was unexpectedly found outside the hazard.

I feel we should be more sensitive to what questioners like Terry are - fellow golfers looking for a straight answer to a situation they encountered. If something isn’t clear from what they say, we can ask for clarification but I don’t think putting their words to forensic examination is helpful or welcoming.

That’s just how I feel!

Couldn't agree more.
Louise answered the question in posts 2 and 3, even quoting the decision.
End of thread, or at least it should have been.

 

[TerryA]

Thanks guys.
There were trees in the hazard so what must have happened is the ball hit a tree and came out. It definitely went in in the first place.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

This situation, as described by the OP, suggests that there was an absence of "virtual certainty". The ball was found on the fairway. Not hidden in rough or a bush outside the hazard. On the fairway! I agree this may be justified if the hazard is in the form of a lake or similar but now the OP has indicated trees were there which surely should give rise to some doubt as to whether the ball came to rest in the hazard. At the very least the OP and the PP's should have had a look around to see if it was in fact still in play.

So, No the question was not answered by Louise in posts 2 and 3 and furthermore it is not a question of KNOWING your ball went into a lateral water hazard, it's knowing (or being virtually certain) the ball came to rest in it.

 

[bobmac]

So, No the question was not answered by Louise in posts 2 and 3

It was answered with the information provided in the original post