What is the correct count?

[duncan mackie]

surely this is what should of actually happened:

Both himself and his FC's thought the ball was in the hazard, so he dropped a ball and played that after using the 5 mins you are allowed to search for a ball.
He then found his original ball not in the hazard, but can't play it as he has searched for longer than 5 mins.
Surely now that is the ball in play but can't play it?, so must go and play from the tee??? under penalty of stroke and distance.
But is he now playing 3 or 5 from the tee for the 2 shot penalty for playing an incorrect ball when he hit the one he dropped???.

I am not going interested in what happened after he found his original ball and hit it, I am more interested in what he should have done when he found his original ball as this is something that could easily come up one day when playing.

If there's a question in here I would need to understand what you mean by the words underlined.

You seem to start off with the original ball lost in a water hazard and a ball correctly put into play under 26-1...all good so far.

Original ball found but no longer in play....yes.

Then the confusion; "that is the ball in play" - the ball in play is the one dropped which he must continue to play.

At this point the tee is neither an option or relevant on the basis of your first point.

The one he dropped isn't a wrong ball on the basis of your first point.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Yeah, just one or 2 infringements I think. Now I do not declare to be the greatest of players when it comes to the rules, but surely this is what should of actually happened:

Both himself and his FC's thought the ball was in the hazard, so he dropped a ball and played that after using the 5 mins you are allowed to search for a ball.
He then found his original ball not in the hazard, but can't play it as he has searched for longer than 5 mins.
Surely now that is the ball in play but can't play it, so must go and play from the tee under penalty of stroke and distance.
But is he now playing 3 or 5 from the tee for the 2 shot penalty for playing an incorrect ball when he hit the one he dropped.

I am not going interested in what happened after he found his original ball and hit it, I am more interested in what he should have done when he found his original ball as this is something that could easily come up one day when playing.

I guess it comes down to whether they were virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard. My initial assumption was that they thought the ball was in the hazard (hence why I asked why they bothered looking for it).

If they were virtually certain the ball was in the hazard and he dropped and played another ball accordingly, that becomes the ball in play regardless of whether he subsequently finds his ball outside the hazard.

If they are not virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard but he dropped and played as though it was then he has played from the wrong place as he should have taken stroke and distance penalty.


Decisions 26-1/3 and 26-1/3.7 seem to cover it.
Decision 26-1/3.5 may also be of interest.

 

[Stuey01]

It was known or virtually certain that his ball was in the hazard when he dropped the ball under penalty, that is the ball in play. The fact that he subsequently found his ball does not matter, the dropped ball is the ball in play. I think.

 

[MadAdey]

The question that I wondered the answer to was the fact that his original ball was NOT in the hazard, so taking a drop under penalty of 1 stroke for his ball being in the hazard turned out to be wrong, didn't it?

i know that if you are certain the ball is in the hazard you can treat it as such, even if you can't find it. But if it is then found outside of the hazard what is the penalty, as now you have played an incorrect ball.

i believe he should be back at the tee playing his 5th shot. Stroke and distance for the lost ball and a 2 stroke penalty for playing an incorrect ball.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The question that I wondered the answer to was the fact that his original ball was NOT in the hazard, so taking a drop under penalty of 1 stroke for his ball being in the hazard turned out to be wrong, didn't it?

It comes down to whether it was known or virtually certain the ball was in the hazard. If it was, then as soon as a drop is made under Rule 26 it becomes the ball in play regardless of whether the original ball is subsequently found outside the hazard.

If it wasn't known or virtually certain then rule 26-13.7 says...

Q.A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard and is not found. It is neither known nor virtually certain that the player's ball is in the water hazard, but he drops a ball under Rule 26-1b. Before he plays the dropped ball, his original ball is found within the five-minute search period. What is the ruling?

A.It was neither known nor virtually certain that the player's ball was in the water hazard when he put the substituted ball into play, and, therefore, that ball was incorrectly substituted under an inapplicable Rule.

The player must correct his error under Rule 20-6 by abandoning the substituted ball and continuing play with the original ball. If the original ball was found inside the water hazard, the player may proceed under Rule 26-1.

If the player failed to correct his improper procedure and played the dropped ball, he has proceeded under an inapplicable Rule and incurred a penalty (see Decision 34-3/6). The ruling would be that the player has proceeded under Rule 27-1 (the only Rule that applied to his situation), incurring the one-stroke penalty under that Rule. Additionally, as he played the ball from a wrong place (i.e., a place not permitted by Rule 27-1), he incurred the general penalty, loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play, for a breach of Rule 27-1. In stroke play, the Committee must determine whether the player committed a serious breach when he played from the wrong place (Rule 20-7c).


Decision 26-1/1 explains the meaning of "known or virtually certain" which is the most important point when deciding how to proceed...

26-1/1
Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.

In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

The same principles would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c).

 

[duncan mackie]

The question that I wondered the answer to was the fact that his original ball was NOT in the hazard, so taking a drop under penalty of 1 stroke for his ball being in the hazard turned out to be wrong, didn't it?

i know that if you are certain the ball is in the hazard you can treat it as such, even if you can't find it. But if it is then found outside of the hazard what is the penalty, as now you have played an incorrect ball.

i believe he should be back at the tee playing his 5th shot. Stroke and distance for the lost ball and a 2 stroke penalty for playing an incorrect ball.

basically no; the issue under the rules is whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty at the time the drop is taken and subsequently establishing that the ball hadn't ended up lost in the hazard is irrelevant in this context.

 

[MadAdey]

@hawkeye

that is a great description you put up, but that is only covering the ball being found within the 5 minute period. But as the OP said, it was not found within 5 minutes, so could not be the ball in play.

 

[MadAdey]

basically no; the issue under the rules is whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty at the time the drop is taken and subsequently establishing that the ball hadn't ended up lost in the hazard is irrelevant in this context.

not trying to be devils advocate here, or trying to argue your point. But I do not understand how it is irrelevant that it turned out his ball was not in the hazard. To me it is very relevant as he has taken relief as though the ball was in the hazard.

 

[vkurup]

The question that I wondered the answer to was the fact that his original ball was NOT in the hazard, so taking a drop under penalty of 1 stroke for his ball being in the hazard turned out to be wrong, didn't it?

i know that if you are certain the ball is in the hazard you can treat it as such, even if you can't find it. But if it is then found outside of the hazard what is the penalty, as now you have played an incorrect ball.

i believe he should be back at the tee playing his 5th shot. Stroke and distance for the lost ball and a 2 stroke penalty for playing an incorrect ball.

When we tee-ed off, we saw it 'roll towards' the red stakes after it bounced among the fringes. Since it was the first time we had been on the course, no one could be sure as to where it would have ended. Also while it had red stake, we could not see any water to to all the reeds and weeds on the edges.

On approaching the area, we saw that there was a narrow ditch and it had plenty of vegetation on its side to stop any ball from rolling in. When we scanned the place, we looked in the ditch as well as the boundary weeds and did not find anything. In case we found it stuck in the weeds, it would be nearly impossible to have a place to stand and take a shot.

As I had already started walking, I did not see where he picked his original ball (Ball A) from. But it was not in the weeds and might have come to rest just short of the weeds about 20 yards down from where he dropped Ball B. He stood in the first rough about 5 feet from the red stakes and chipped sideways onto the fairway.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

@hawkeye

that is a great description you put up, but that is only covering the ball being found within the 5 minute period. But as the OP said, it was not found within 5 minutes, so could not be the ball in play.

I agree, but it still comes down to the known or virtually certain thing. If it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard, then taking a drop under rule 26 was wrong whether the original wall was found or not (and whether the 5 minute search period had expired or not). It is starting to sound to me like it was not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard which means that he took an incorrect drop using an inapplicable rule and incurs a penalty. he then played the wrong ball by hitting his original as this was no longer in play (because it wasn't found within 5 minutes) so incurs a penalty here as well. The fact that he didn't correct his errors means he was DQ'd.

I'm actually starting to doubt whether the player actually had a ball in play at all on the basis that the drop from the hazard was incorrect so that ball cannot be the one in play and the original ball found after the 5 minutes was no longer the ball in play, so there is no ball in play

 

[MadAdey]

I agree, but it still comes down to the known or virtually certain thing. If it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard, then taking a drop under rule 26 was wrong whether the original wall was found or not (and whether the 5 minute search period had expired or not). It is starting to sound to me like it was not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard which means that he took an incorrect drop using an inapplicable rule and incurs a penalty. he then played the wrong ball by hitting his original as this was no longer in play (because it wasn't found within 5 minutes) so incurs a penalty here as well. The fact that he didn't correct his errors means he was DQ'd.

I'm actually starting to doubt whether the player actually had a ball in play at all on the basis that the drop from the hazard was incorrect so that ball cannot be the one in play and the original ball found after the 5 minutes was no longer the ball in play, so there is no ball in play

So if it was you in this position what would you do? I would be walking back to the tee and playing 5 as I have hit an incorrect ball and do not have a ball in play anymore. So must take stroke and distance and a 2 shot penalty for hitting the wrong ball.

This is like a post I put up a couple of years ago regarding an obscure situation that I was told about by a Welsh Golf Union referee that my dad use to play with.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

So if it was you in this position what would you do? I would be walking back to the tee and playing 5 as I have hit an incorrect ball and do not have a ball in play anymore. So must take stroke and distance and a 2 shot penalty for hitting the wrong ball.

This is like a post I put up a couple of years ago regarding an obscure situation that I was told about by a Welsh Golf Union referee that my dad use to play with.

That sounds about right. 1st shot was the tee shot, 2 shot penalty for playing a ball from a position not allowed under rule 27 and the stroke and distance penalty for proceeding under 27 and going back to the tee so 5 off the tee and a slap from the group behind seems appropriate

 

[duncan mackie]

not trying to be devils advocate here, or trying to argue your point. But I do not understand how it is irrelevant that it turned out his ball was not in the hazard. To me it is very relevant as he has taken relief as though the ball was in the hazard.

it's not my point to argue; I am simply presenting the Rules as written. The rules leave scope for such a situation to exist (as does common law with circumstantial evidence) and then rules specifically on what happens when if it's subsequently established to be incorrect (basically the only time it impacts is if you have dropped but not played and the position of the original ball found inside the water hazard establishes a different reference point; you are required to required to correct the reference point but you still drop.

I quoted all the relevant references in post #9, and they have been posted a few times in the thread.

 

[duncan mackie]

That sounds about right. 1st shot was the tee shot, 2 shot penalty for playing a ball from a position not allowed under rule 27 and the stroke and distance penalty for proceeding under 27 and going back to the tee so 5 off the tee and a slap from the group behind seems appropriate

nope; it's completely wrong based on the rulings you have quoted!

you either have KorVC when you drop, or you don't - nothing that subsequently happens changes that.

if you didn't have it, and should be playing 3 from the tee under 27-1 in the first place, then that's already been covered in the earlier posts.

 

[vkurup]

nope; it's completely wrong based on the rulings you have quoted!

you either have KorVC when you drop, or you don't - nothing that subsequently happens changes that.

if you didn't have it, and should be playing 3 from the tee under 27-1 in the first place, then that's already been covered in the earlier posts.

Now what is a KorVC?? Is that all PP/FC should know and unrelated to HNSP or the MPA from NGT?

 

[rosecott]

Now what is a KorVC?? Is that all PP/FC should know and unrelated to HNSP or the MPA from NGT?

Known or Virtually Certain - the cornerstone of the arguments.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Known or Virtually Certain - the cornerstone of the arguments.

...and so if in a group of 4 one individual disagrees with the other 3 that the ball's position is KoVC, then by definition the balls position cannot be KorVC? Do ALL players in a group have to agree for KorVC to apply?

 

[duncan mackie]

...and so if in a group of 4 one individual disagrees with the other 3 that the ball's position is KoVC, then by definition the balls position cannot be KorVC? Do ALL players in a group have to agree for KorVC to apply?

this thread isn't about whether KorVC applied, but the answer to your question lies in the ruling already quoted, 26-1/1 as to what constitutes KorVC and, ultimately, the committee would have to rule as to whether it did. or did not, exist in any given situation against that rule.

whilst there are few absolutes I have always contended that the longer the players search for a ball outside a water hazard the less likely it is that there will be KorVC that the ball is in the hazard - rather logically if they believe it's in then why are they searching outside at all? This is of course at one extreme, and there are times when it is true that (for example) a 2 minute search establishes that a ball hasn't hung up on a small strip of semi; but it's a good starting point.

my issue in this thread is with the view that finding an original ball outside the hazard after having established KorVC somehow changes anything - it doesn't (under the rules). It also follows that, in the context of this thread, in subsequently going back to the tee after having already played a ball dropped under 26-1 isn't a valid option either - you would now be playing from a wrong place as the correct reference point under 27-1 has become the point you played the dropped ball from!

 

[vkurup]

Till about the 8th post, I thought I understood everything that was going on. It was simple.

But this is now getting more and more complicated... KoVC et al. As one of the post said, it is a simple rule and it was broken simples, why do we now need a bigger jury?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

this thread isn't about whether KorVC applied, but the answer to your question lies in the ruling already quoted, 26-1/1 as to what constitutes KorVC and, ultimately, the committee would have to rule as to whether it did. or did not, exist in any given situation against that rule.

whilst there are few absolutes I have always contended that the longer the players search for a ball outside a water hazard the less likely it is that there will be KorVC that the ball is in the hazard - rather logically if they believe it's in then why are they searching outside at all? This is of course at one extreme, and there are times when it is true that (for example) a 2 minute search establishes that a ball hasn't hung up on a small strip of semi; but it's a good starting point.

my issue in this thread is with the view that finding an original ball outside the hazard after having established KorVC somehow changes anything - it doesn't (under the rules). It also follows that, in the context of this thread, in subsequently going back to the tee after having already played a ball dropped under 26-1 isn't a valid option either - you would now be playing from a wrong place as the correct reference point under 27-1 has become the point you played the dropped ball from!

Having re-read and cross-referenced the rules, I now realise my mistake from earlier. That will serve me right for trying to apply golf rules while discussing the finer points of IPv6 deployment with my colleagues in Japan. It's probably just as well I get paid to do the IPv6 stuff and not the golf stuff