Bryson’s lost ball / spectator

[jimbo123]

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/bryson-dechambeaus-aggressive-line-tee-results-fan-snatching-ball-tour-champ
 

By all accounts he failed to find his ball in 3 minutes, and after that, learned from an official that his ball was picked up by a spectator.  He got free relief from his ball being moved by an outside influence.  This seems directly in contradiction to 

 

Interpretation Known or Virtually Certain/2 - Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires

 

Anyone know why he got relief? 

[Wendy123]

And why a drop? Ball should be replaced on the estimated spot.

[jimbo123]

5 minutes ago, Wendy123 said:

And why a drop? Ball should be replaced on the estimated spot.

Good point.  I can’t find any video of whether he dropped or placed but there is a video where you can hear a ref saying to place it.  That article might just be reporting sloppily.  

[Shilgy]

7 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

Good point.  I can’t find any video of whether he dropped or placed but there is a video where you can hear a ref saying to place it.  That article might just be reporting sloppily.  

I believe that since the referee saw the incident on video the location of the ball was know, so he places.  If it was unknown exactly where the ball had been it would be dropped.

 

 

I think…lol

[TerpFangolfer]

It should be placed no matter what...placed on the spot, which if not known is estimated. (Per 9.6) - there is nothing that says you drop it if the spot is unknown. 

 

So I assume, as jimbo says, the ball was placed...and the article just mistakenly said he dropped it.

[Augster]

29 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I believe that since the referee saw the incident on video the location of the ball was know, so he places.  If it was unknown exactly where the ball had been it would be dropped.

 

 

I think…lol

Since 2019, ball accidentally moved is placed. Even if moved by yourself. 
 

There is no more drop for an accidentally moved ball that I can find. 

[sui generis]

"Placed" and "replaced" are not the same. 🙂

[jimbo123]

Anyone know about the timing?  Incorrect or ruling, or is there something I’m missing about the interpretation of KVC?

[TwistedSister]

1 hour ago, jimbo123 said:

Anyone know about the timing?  Incorrect or ruling, or is there something I’m missing about the interpretation of KVC?

No KVC at all.  It is definitely known that it was picked up by someone else.  ON VIDEO.

[bnperrone]

1 hour ago, jimbo123 said:

Anyone know about the timing?  Incorrect or ruling, or is there something I’m missing about the interpretation of KVC?

Commentary clarified that timing is irrelevant once it was determined that the ball wasn't available to be found.

 

Look at it this way: If you immediately walk to the exact spot the ball landed but it had been picked up and carried away by somebody else, is it your fault you can't find it?

 

No.

[jimbo123]

28 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

Commentary clarified that timing is irrelevant once it was determined that the ball wasn't available to be found.

 

Look at it this way: If you immediately walk to the exact spot the ball landed but it had been picked up and carried away by somebody else, is it your fault you can't find it?

 

No.

Do you know what rule supports that commentary?  
 

The interpretation of KVC says:

 

“Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.”

 

It goes on to give this example of a player who must take S&D:

 

“A player cannot find his or her ball and believes it may have been picked up by a spectator (outside influence), but there is not enough evidence to be virtually certain of this. A short time after the three-minute search time expires, a spectator is found to have the player's ball.”

[bnperrone]

1 hour ago, jimbo123 said:

Do you know what rule supports that commentary?  
 

The interpretation of KVC says:

 

“Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.”

 

It goes on to give this example of a player who must take S&D:

 

“A player cannot find his or her ball and believes it may have been picked up by a spectator (outside influence), but there is not enough evidence to be virtually certain of this. A short time after the three-minute search time expires, a spectator is found to have the player's ball.”

Well, I suspect that the video was determined to exist during the 3-minute search. And it isn't a matter of a player believing something. It was being communicated between the broadcast folks and the officials.

 

You know what supports it, though? The rules officials making the determination, which is within their rights. You aren't debating my interpretation, you're debating theirs.

[TwistedSister]

4 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

Well, I suspect that the video was determined to exist during the 3-minute search. And it isn't a matter of a player believing something. It was being communicated between the broadcast folks and the officials.

 

You know what supports it, though? The rules officials making the determination, which is within their rights. You aren't debating my interpretation, you're debating theirs.

He is obviously another Bryson hater.  The rules don't apply  when they benefit HIM.

[jimbo123]

12 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

. And it isn't a matter of a player believing something.

 

Why do you say this?  I even bolded the bit of the words that disproves this to help you out.

 

Here it is again:

 

 “Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.”

 

 

[jimbo123]

11 minutes ago, dhacker56 said:

He is obviously another Bryson hater.  The rules don't apply  when they benefit HIM.

Which rule? 

[bnperrone]

1 minute ago, jimbo123 said:

Why do you say this?  I even bolded the bit of the words that disproves this to help you out.

 

Here it is again:

 

 “Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.”

 

 

Because if it was being discussed with onsite rules officials before being relayed to the player, I suspect that would supersede your point, whether in bold, italics, underlined, or whatever.

 

Let me say it again. The rules officials, who ultimately control the application of the rules, made the determination. I guess look to their statements.

[jimbo123]

1 minute ago, bnperrone said:

Because if it was being discussed with onsite rules officials before being relayed to the player, I suspect that would supersede your point, whether in bold, italics, underlined, or whatever.

 

Let me say it again. The rules officials, who ultimately control the application of the rules, made the determination. I guess look to their statements.

Thanks for that powerful argument 

[bnperrone]

In the end, I believe they made their decision after taking the fan's intent into account. I believe the rules officials felt that the fan intentionally picked up the ball to affect the tournament and concealed the fact, as opposed to somebody just randomly finding a ball and then seeing dozens of people searching in that exact spot and coming over to say "oh shoot, I picked up a ball. My bad."

[jimbo123]

1 minute ago, bnperrone said:

In the end, I believe they made their decision after taking the fan's intent into account. I believe the rules officials felt that the fan intentionally picked up the ball to affect the tournament and concealed the fact, as opposed to somebody just randomly finding a ball and then seeing dozens of people searching in that exact spot and coming over to say "oh shoot, I picked up a ball. My bad."

I suspect so too and think the ruling was obviously very “fair” in some moral sense, especially if the fan did it deliberately.   
 

But the written rules still matter.   They can be improved over time as examples like this highlight flaws. 

[TwistedSister]

10 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Which rule? 

The one that has been quoted. 

[bnperrone]

Just now, jimbo123 said:

I suspect so too and think the ruling was obviously very “fair” in some moral sense, especially if the fan did it deliberately.   
 

But the written rules still matter.   They can be improved over time as examples like this highlight flaws. 

Yes, but the written rules of golf fit into a small booklet, whereas the decisions on the rules of golf are massive books. Intent matters in some applications and not in others, and I suspect that's the main issue here.

[TwistedSister]

I think rule 9 applies.  and it does not make any mention of intent of the "outside force" as I read. 

[jimbo123]

1 minute ago, bnperrone said:

Yes, but the written rules of golf fit into a small booklet, whereas the decisions on the rules of golf are massive books. Intent matters in some applications and not in others, and I suspect that's the main issue here.

The official Interpretation gives this exact situation as an example of where you need to take S&D.  Hard to question the intent of it. 
 

Thought I’d raise this to see if I’d learn something, I didn’t, no worries, it’s been fun, see you next time lol 

[bnperrone]

2 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

The official Interpretation gives this exact situation as an example of where you need to take S&D.  Hard to question the intent of it. 
 

Thought I’d raise this to see if I’d learn something, I didn’t, no worries, it’s been fun, see you next time lol 

It's not the same exact situation if video evidence was recorded in real time and reviewed before time expired.

 

Suppose two players do the same thing, and video evidence records it. In both cases the walking officials radio the shotlink reviewers and ask for evidence. In one case they provide it right away and the search concludes well before three minutes. In the second case they don't provide it right away and time expires. But the same thing happened. Wouldn't that be a mistake?

 

Technology blurs the line. When the video recorded the fan picking up the ball and walking away it became known. If the officials felt that that information could've reasonably been provided well before they got there and searched for 3 minutes then it would be fully appropriate to do what they did.

 

The example given doesn't consider video technology providing evidence that existed during the search, so it isn't exactly the same as this.

 

Sorry you didn't find anything new to consider here.

[jimbo123]

12 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

It's not the same exact situation if video evidence was recorded in real time and reviewed before time expired.

 

Suppose two players do the same thing, and video evidence records it. In both cases the walking officials radio the shotlink reviewers and ask for evidence. In one case they provide it right away and the search concludes well before three minutes. In the second case they don't provide it right away and time expires. But the same thing happened. Wouldn't that be a mistake?

 

Technology blurs the line. When the video recorded the fan picking up the ball and walking away it became known. If the officials felt that that information could've reasonably been provided well before they got there and searched for 3 minutes then it would be fully appropriate to do what they did.

 

The example given doesn't consider video technology providing evidence that existed during the search, so it isn't exactly the same as this.

 

Sorry you didn't find anything new to consider here.

Thanks.  Agreed with what you’re saying in spirit.   But the interpretation as currently written doesn’t care; if the player doesn’t have the required evidence within 3 minutes, tough luck.  Again, it’s not about being a stickler; rules can improve over time (eg to account for technology) but only if people agree on what they say in the first place. 

[bnperrone]

1 minute ago, jimbo123 said:

Thanks.  Agreed with what you’re saying in spirit.   But the interpretation as currently written doesn’t care; if the player doesn’t have the required evidence within 3 minutes, tough luck.  Again, it’s not about being a stickler; rules can improve over time (eg to account for technology) but only if people agree on what they say in the first place. 

And I believe that's exactly why the "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" is such a lengthy book. Because it contemplates issues that arise and may be right on the leading edge of rules needing to be adapted.

 

Again, the example cited in that section does not take into account the existence of absolute video evidence and whether it should have or could have reasonably been shared with the player in time. It is different than simply discovering after the fact that somebody picked the ball up.

 

We'll probably hear more about this and get information from the officials as to exactly what was known and when and why they handled it how they did.

[jimbo123]

3 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

And I believe that's exactly why the "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" is such a lengthy book. Because it contemplates issues that arise and may be right on the leading edge of rules needing to be adapted.

 

Again, the example cited in that section does not take into account the existence of absolute video evidence and whether it should have or could have reasonably been shared with the player in time. It is different than simply discovering after the fact that somebody picked the ball up.

 

We'll probably hear more about this and get information from the officials as to exactly what was known and when and why they handled it how they did.

It’s an interesting idea, that officials might have some responsibility to convey information, and if they fail to do so in a timely manner, the rules act as though they did do so in a timely manner.   I would be happy if the tour came out and elaborated along those lines, but won’t hold my breath.  
 

It’s also clear to me that this would be some as-yet-unwritten exception to the rule, contrary to everyone’s insistence here that the ruling was obvious under Rule 9 / 18.  

[Quasimoto]

13 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/bryson-dechambeaus-aggressive-line-tee-results-fan-snatching-ball-tour-champ
 

By all accounts he failed to find his ball in 3 minutes, and after that, learned from an official that his ball was picked up by a spectator.  He got free relief from his ball being moved by an outside influence.  This seems directly in contradiction to 

 

Interpretation Known or Virtually Certain/2 - Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires

 

Anyone know why he got relief? 

Because the ROG are dynamic on the PGA.

 

[bnperrone]

5 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

It’s an interesting idea, that officials might have some responsibility to convey information, and if they fail to do so in a timely manner, the rules act as though they did do so in a timely manner.   I would be happy if the tour came out and elaborated along those lines, but won’t hold my breath.  
 

It’s also clear to me that this would be some as-yet-unwritten exception to the rule, contrary to everyone’s insistence here that the ruling was obvious under Rule 9 / 18.  

Looking through rule 9 re; ball being moved by outside forces and known/virtually certain, I think it's here:

 

"In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonably delaying play."

 

If he asked the rules official if there is video or anything to that effect then it's a reasonable effort made and doesn't unreasonably delay play. That information being withheld from him would be a mitigating factor. Shotlink had it from contact, and video existed in real time. That's reasonable information for the player to access by asking the official with the group.

 

I can't actually find where you got your quotes from when reading through the rules on this topic, but I'd be happy to look at in context if you can point me to it.

 

Then there's this, which is within the context of the specific rule on outside influence which became known or virtually certain when video existed:

9.6 Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence (including another player in stroke play or another ball) lifted or moved a player’s ball:

• There is no penalty, and

• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

This applies whether or not the player’s ball has been found.

But if it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was lifted or moved by an outside influence and the ball is lost, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief under Rule 18.2.

[sui generis]

Just now, Quasimoto said:

Because the ROG are dynamic on the PGA.

 

 

The "PGA" has nothing to do with the TV golf circus called the PGA Tour. 🙄