Identifying an unplayable ball?

[Schulzmc]

We’ve probably all seen the issue with Patrick Reed from this weekend where it appears he identified a ball in a tree that could not have been his ball (as video evidence showed the ball was in a different tree). My question is more general, although if there are aspects of this specific case that help I’m OK discussing it.

 

Here is the question: How much responsibility does the rules official have when a player says he is sure he can identify the ball? Does that end the discussion? Or if there are questions in the official’s mind, can they press further? Could they ask to see another ball from the player’s bag that might be similarity marked? Ask a fellow competitor if they noticed the markings on the ball, or were shown them on the first tee? 

 

I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of our rules officials that post here…

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

I’d love to hear the thoughts of some of our rules officials that post here…

 

R7.2 guides us on how to identify a ball.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=7&subrulenum=2

 

If I were peering through my binoculars at a ball in a tree, I would ask, "What markings am I looking for?"

 

If the answer was, "Red dot right of the number, " and that's what I could see, I would, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, be happy to say, "You may drop it here."

 

That's how 2019 suggests that we proceed. There's some muttering that all referees are not entirely comfortable with 2019's R1.3b2.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=1&subrulenum=3

 

 

[rogolf]

28 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

R7.2 guides us on how to identify a ball.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=7&subrulenum=2

 

If I were peering through my binoculars at a ball in a tree, I would ask, "What markings am I looking for?"

 

If the answer was, "Red dot right of the number, " and that's what I could see, I would, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, be happy to say, "You may drop it here."

 

That's how 2019 suggests that we proceed. There's some muttering that all referees are not entirely comfortable with 2019's R1.3b2.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=1&subrulenum=3

 

 

It would seem that 1.3b2 does not include "reasonable judgement" for identification of the ball, and I don't think identification should be based on "reaonable judgement".  Imo, identifcation should fit into the KVC category. ie, correct 19 times out of 20.

Edited January 31, 2023 by rogolf

[sui generis]

14 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It would seem that 1.3b2 does not include "reasonable judgement" for identification of the ball, and I don't think identification should be based on "reaonable judgement".  Imo, identifcation should fit into the KVC category. ie, correct 19 times out of 20.

 Agreed, though location of the ball is a part of 1.3b2 isn't it? And, location may be a component of identification, I think. 

[rogolf]

11 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 Agreed, though location of the ball is a part of 1.3b2 isn't it? And, location may be a component of identification, I think. 

I don't believe that "location" as used in 1.3b2 can be extended to include identification as per 7.2 (and by extension, 7.2/1).

"Reasonable judgment" might be okay to say that my ball is in that tree, but that does not identify my ball in that tree.  Sort of like "reasonable judgement" that my ball is in the penalty area doesn't meet the criteria for proceeding under Rule 17.

[Newby]

I'm inclined towards Sui's view. 

The player walks down the middle of his fairway and finds a ball of the correct make etc but with no marking.

But a referee saw his ball sliced to the right towards the next fairway. He finds what he assumes is the player's ball. Same make etc, also without markings.

Wouldn't location be a determinant in identifying the correct ball?

[Schulzmc]

Let’s say the player says, “I’m pretty sure that is my ball.” You say, “Pretty sure is not enough. You need to be certain.” The player then replies, “OK - I’m certain that is my ball.”

 

How does the conversation proceed from there?

[Scooby555]

Not taking the rules into account, what makes me question the PReed situation is that he borrowed binoculars and looked into the tree before the ref.  He then says my ball is the one with the arrow at the end of the line.  This is how I understand the sequence of events but I only read one article, so I could mistaken.

 

If the ref was the first one to have access to the binoculars and looked into the tree and PReed was able to describe a mark on the ball that the ref was able to identify, i'd believe this to be much more accurate.

[Colin L]

 

54 minutes ago, Scooby555 said:

Not taking the rules into account, what makes me question the PReed situation is that he borrowed binoculars and looked into the tree before the ref.  He then says my ball is the one with the arrow at the end of the line.  This is how I understand the sequence of events but I only read one article, so I could mistaken.

 

If the ref was the first one to have access to the binoculars and looked into the tree and PReed was able to describe a mark on the ball that the ref was able to identify, i'd believe this to be much more accurate.

       Why so?  It's the player's responsibility to identify his ball and that's going to happen before a referee is called in.   To be blunt, I suspect the only reason you question the situation in this way is that you are pre-disposed  to find reasons for doubting Patrick Reed.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Colin L

[Scooby555]

1 minute ago, Colin L said:

 

       Why so?  It's the player's responsibility to identify his ball and that's going to happen before a referee is called in.   To be blunt, I suspect the only reason you question the situation in this way is that you are pre-disposed  to find reasons for doubting Patrick Reed.

Not in the least.  I would doubt any player in that situation.

[jholz]

To me, this is a place where the ROG - and "Rules" in general - always let us down. Rules can structure behavior to a certain extent, but they can never provide a complete surety against individuals who approach them with malice. Those who do approach them with malice can orchestrate situations where the rules can be manipulated to achieve their desired outcome. 

 

This, of course, is where we get into that amorphous topic of "the spirit of the game." The ROG assume that everyone will be playing "in the spirit of the game" and because of that assumption, they have an inherent weakness.

 

Now, in the P. Reed situation, and in my individual opinion, the "spirit of the game" would have dictated that Reed go back to the tee box and hit his 3rd from there.

 

No binoculars. No rules official. Just, "man, I know I hit my ball into one of those trees, but I can't find it, probably stuck up there somewhere. Guess I'll go back to the tee." That's the spirit of golf, IMHO.

 

If he'd been able to take his medicine and scrape out a bogey or double from that, I'd have way more respect for the guy.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by jholz

[QEight]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

       Why so?  It's the player's responsibility to identify his ball and that's going to happen before a referee is called in.   To be blunt, I suspect the only reason you question the situation in this way is that you are pre-disposed  to find reasons for doubting Patrick Reed.

Perhaps one of the reasons one might be doubting, is the which tree the ball actually was in... nothing to do with Reed himself.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Let’s say the player says, “I’m pretty sure that is my ball.” You say, “Pretty sure is not enough. You need to be certain.” The player then replies, “OK - I’m certain that is my ball.”

 

How does the conversation proceed from there?

I'm no official, but in the context of your hypothetical, I wouldn't say, nor would I think a responsible rules official would say, "pretty sure is not enough", etc

 

As has already been mentioned the response would likely be ferreting out the factual basis underlying the player's claim that is his ball, for example, "how was your ball marked, what kind of ball, what color and what number?"  Go from there.

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

       Why so?  It's the player's responsibility to identify his ball and that's going to happen before a referee is called in.   To be blunt, I suspect the only reason you question the situation in this way is that you are pre-disposed  to find reasons for doubting Patrick Reed.

I question the situation because video evidence showed he wasn't even looking in the right tree, and earlier in the round his ball does not show the marking that was on the ball he claimed was his.

 

But none of that evidence was available to the referee. I'm trying to discern if there was enough ambiguity in his responses to the referee to cause some suspicion, and if so, where does the responsibility begin and end for the referee in that conversation.

[Krt22]

I now carry a pair of binos in my golf bag

[Schulzmc]

Here is the conversation BTW. Transcribed from the video. There are a couple points they are talking at the same time but I think I got it mostly right:

 

Reed: I can see that one. Yeah. (something) stand right here (something) I can see a pro v with a line like the one I used on 17 right there (something) the black arrow on the pro V (as the official take the binoculars and looks)

Referee: That one is yours?

Reed: Yep. It’s right there. The left one.

Referee: so you basically take an unplayable. That is definitely your ball?

Reed: It looks like it, yeah

Referee: Well, it needs to be certain

Reed: I mean, it was right down the line it crashed he said into this tree. And it looks like it…

Referee: It looks like it is no good we need a definite…

Reed: I mean to me I’d say yes..

Referee: We need a definite marking, we need a number or rather than just a black line, because anyone can use a black line…

Reed: I can see the black arrow.

Referee: Well that’s not enough for us.

Reed: Well, my line goes and there’s a black arrow on the end and that’s where I see the arrow

Referee: (Looking back up) OK – that arrow is not part of the make of the golf ball

Reed: So that’s how I do my line, I stop my line there, and then the arrow is there.

Referee: SO you do that? I can see that arrow. OK that’s fine with me. I can see the arrow and if that is your distinctive mark… (they go on to discuss the drop point)

 

 

[Newby]

20 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

 

Reed: I mean, it was right down the line it crashed he said into this tree. 

 

I assume he was a spectator. I found this part of the conversation interesting as I had seen reported elsewhere that spectators had pointed out that the ball had finished in the second tree. The video was taken from the fairway side (left) of the trees. The spectators were to the right. Did the ball actually pass by the first tree on the side further from the camera rather than into it?

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Newby

[Krt22]

29 minutes ago, Newby said:

I assume he was a spectator. I found this part of the conversation interesting as I had seen reported elsewhere that spectators had pointed out that the ball had finished in the second tree. The video was taken from the fairway side (left) of the trees. The spectators were to the right. Did the ball actually pass by the first tree on the side further from the camera rather than into it?

 

If the ball was traveling almost horizontal that seems plausible. For a driver shot coming down from it's apex, very very unlikely. Brandel's breakdown of the video further cements it stayed in the first tree IMHO

[dmecca2]

Question: If they used video and determined to a certainty, or if they weren't very far away and they saw the ball embed into that first tree, but when they got there were not able to visibly identify the ball, would Reed have been able to drop for an unplayable? Does that fall under KVC that the ball was there?

[QEight]

53 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Question: If they used video and determined to a certainty, or if they weren't very far away and they saw the ball embed into that first tree, but when they got there were not able to visibly identify the ball, would Reed have been able to drop for an unplayable? Does that fall under KVC that the ball was there?

I guess old KVC could be only used for PA and abnormal conditions. Tree is neither.

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, dmecca2 said:

Question: If they used video and determined to a certainty, or if they weren't very far away and they saw the ball embed into that first tree, but when they got there were not able to visibly identify the ball, would Reed have been able to drop for an unplayable? Does that fall under KVC that the ball was there?

In the instance that you describe, since the position of the ball was unknown, the only option available under unplayable would be stroke and distance.

For either of the other two options under Rule 19, the precise position of the ball needs to be known.

[dmecca2]

ok good to know

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Here is the conversation BTW. Transcribed from the video. There are a couple points they are talking at the same time but I think I got it mostly right:

 

 

Reed: I can see that one. Yeah. (something) stand right here (something) I can see a pro v with a line like the one I used on 17 right there (something) the black arrow on the pro V (as the official take the binoculars and looks)

Referee: That one is yours?

Reed: Yep. It’s right there. The left one.

Referee: so you basically take an unplayable. That is definitely your ball?

Reed: It looks like it, yeah

Referee: Well, it needs to be certain

Reed: I mean, it was right down the line it crashed he said into this tree. And it looks like it…

Referee: It looks like it is no good we need a definite…

Reed: I mean to me I’d say yes..

Referee: We need a definite marking, we need a number or rather than just a black line, because anyone can use a black line…

Reed: I can see the black arrow.

Referee: Well that’s not enough for us.

Reed: Well, my line goes and there’s a black arrow on the end and that’s where I see the arrow

Referee: (Looking back up) OK – that arrow is not part of the make of the golf ball

Reed: So that’s how I do my line, I stop my line there, and then the arrow is there.

Referee: SO you do that? I can see that arrow. OK that’s fine with me. I can see the arrow and if that is your distinctive mark… (they go on to discuss the drop point)

 

 

 

To me this is where the rules official basically gave up.  The number wasn't apparently visible, nor the red dot, so it's the white of a golf ball and whatever they were seeing which still sounds like a line he draws and stops before Titleist's arrow - I think the ref talked himself in a circle and as plenty of other views showed after the fact (and not available to the ref in real time) - Reed doesn't draw any arrow.  They are looking at a black line, that's it, the same way dozens of other folks put a black line on a ball.  IMO, not enough information to determine it was the player's particular ball.  I can't blame the ref for Reed lying to him, but he didn't perform even a reasonably rudimental look into simple facts that were relevant.

[dmecca2]

Well, Reed released a statement and from what I understand, they got the rule wrong.

 

Reed's statement:

"Some people love controversy. But what happened on the 17th hole at the HDDC was a non-issue. As the DPWT confirmed, I was not asked to identify the tree my ball struck (that was done by shotlink volunteers and several marshals), I was asked to describe the distinctive markings on the ball I was playing. I am looking forward to this week's Asian Tour Flagship event at Royal Greens."

[sui generis]

19 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

they got the rule wrong.

 Who's "they" and which "rule"?

[dmecca2]

3 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 Who's "they" and which "rule"?

Patrick reed and rules official. From what I was told by rogolf, the position of the ball needs to be known to take the drop. From Patrick Reed's statement, it seems like he's implying that he never actually identified his own ball?

[Mr. Bean]

On 1/31/2023 at 3:16 PM, Newby said:

I'm inclined towards Sui's view. 

The player walks down the middle of his fairway and finds a ball of the correct make etc but with no marking.

But a referee saw his ball sliced to the right towards the next fairway. He finds what he assumes is the player's ball. Same make etc, also without markings.

Wouldn't location be a determinant in identifying the correct ball?

 

That is a poor example. Two balls were identified as same but the location was noticed by the referee thus excluding the other ball from the equation. So it was not the location but the testimony of an eyewitness that was crucial in your example. That does not mean that location in general may be used for identifying a ball without having KVC.

 

There used to be a Decision about a ball in the tree and that Dec said clearly that a ball in the tree must be identified through markings UNLESS there is a testimony of an eyewitness that it was the player's ball that stopped in that very tree. I very much doubt that outcome would be different today.

[Newby]

4 hours ago, dmecca2 said:

Patrick reed and rules official. From what I was told by rogolf, the position of the ball needs to be known to take the drop. From Patrick Reed's statement, it seems like he's implying that he never actually identified his own ball?

What did the referee do wrong? He was seemingly told by a number of people which tree the ball was in. Presumably he hadn't at that time got access to the TV coverage. Unless he saw it himself how else would he determine which tree it was in?

Reed was asked to specify the markings on his ball. The referee said he could see such markings and accepted the ball was Reed's. Given all that, what else could or should he have done? 

[dmecca2]

43 minutes ago, Newby said:

What did the referee do wrong? He was seemingly told by a number of people which tree the ball was in. Presumably he hadn't at that time got access to the TV coverage. Unless he saw it himself how else would he determine which tree it was in?

Reed was asked to specify the markings on his ball. The referee said he could see such markings and accepted the ball was Reed's. Given all that, what else could or should he have done? 

I don't believe the referee got enough clarification on how Reed's ball was marked. Based on the dialogue from above, it's clear that the referee is stating that the "arrow" was not part of the manufacturer logo, but drawn on there. And Reed is stating that the arrow he is referring to, was the one at the end of the "proV" logo. There could have been more pressing on what this marking actually was, because, in hindsight, they obviously weren't looking at Reed's ball.

[jholz]

I don't think the referees are at fault in this instance. They tried to do their job. But, they were deliberately put into a very difficult situation.

 

The person who put them in that situation was Senor Reed.