Lost Ball?

[nsxguy]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

With all respect, what do you think your problem is?

 

IMO, you do not want to be honest and act with integrity. If you hit a poor shot you do not want to live with it but try to find a way to cheat.

 

I hope I am well off and very wrong, but that is the impression I got from your posts.

 

 

In my circles, and pretty much any circles around golf that I've been in, calling someone a cheat or accusing them of cheating, is very serious.

 

And accusing me of hitting a bad shot and trying to find a way to cheat is extremely offensive. And nothing could be further from the truth as you will see later on. Surely even you could have found a better way of bringing forth the facts of YOUR case without calling someone a cheat.

 

You remind me of Sheldon, of The Big Bang Theory. Brilliant, but zero social skills.

 

And your "I hope I am well off" is a pretty weak disclaimer.

 

 

Anyhow, to ME, cheating implies INTENT to break the Rules. i.e. a rule is broken on purpose with the intent to cheat; i.e. KNOWING that you're cheating.

 

Miriam-Webster would appear to agree.

"intransitive verb
1
a
: to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b
: to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test

 

So, it appears as thought there IS a way to violate rules "honestly". One simply doesn't know better.

 

While there was quite a discussion on this very thread, including some discussion on "search", I didn't know (remember ?) about this particular rule/requirement about "delaying the search".

 

I only thought about the possibility of it at the time of this incident and mentioned it today to antip.

 

Have players been called in after a round, had something pointed out to them and told they'd committed a penalty and then had their score adjusted ? Absolutely. Were they cheating. Absolutely NOT.

 

So if "cheating" is simply violating a rule one didn't know, I'm pretty confident everyone in this thread on this board has "cheated" at one time or another.

 

You'd have no reason to believe me but my former club would be collectively , as I would be the LAST person any of them would accuse of cheating.

 

Just 2 holes earlier in this same round. I was off the back of a green lying directly in front of a tree. My 2 playing partners were about 40 yards or so away, on the other side of the green, watching me try to figure out which side to hit the ball from.

 

I eventually chose lefty, took the club back and in the foreswing, nicked the tree and hit all ground; no ball.

 

I then took an unplayable, chipped onto the green and 2 putted. After the hole calling out scores I called out "6". "6 ? You made 5, didn't you ?". "Nope, I tried to hit the ball and whiffed".

 

Anyway, talking about the 2nd instance, the one you commented on (1st one I actually drove slightly forward to begin to look & thought better of it; 2nd I didn't do anything but get there),,,,,,,,,,

 

Afaics there is NO rule I can find that says I cannot think ahead. Neither is there a rule I can find that says I have to go forward in front of other players while they are just about ready to play on.

 

Therefore, in case 2, I did NOT "delay" in searching for my ball, whether for their help or not. No delay, no penalty.

 

And BTW, secondly, the "delay" is in the definition of "Lost". And I don't see any penalty for such a delay. The "penalty", afaics, is the clock starting earlier than I might think and having a fair bit less time TO actually search and the ball becoming lost sooner.

 

The only thing I see is "If a player deliberately delays the start of the search in order to allow other people to search on their behalf, the search time starts when the player would have been in a position to search had they not delayed getting to the area."

 

So, even in the 1st example, case 1, where I DID roll 10 or 20 yards forward to consider searching, where Rogolf suggested I should be penalized, I can't see where I incurred a penalty of any sort - at least at that time.

 

And, being that the "area" where the ball likely was, was about 30 yards past those other 2 balls. And since both of those gentlemen were rather quick players, it is more likely than not I would have found the ball within the original 3 minutes anyway.

 

Now, there are a lot of guys here WAY more conversant with the Rules than I am. I probably know 1/10, if that, of what you guys know, so I'm fairly sure one or more of you will point out errors in my logic and understanding of the Rules.

 

And that's OK. I love these conversations and I learn a lot.

 

THE END. (You're welcome).

 

 

 

[Colin L]

I think that in your first situation, stopping going forward with the intention to search in order to wait for others to help you with the search would be a breach.  But Mr Bean would do well to consider that the very fact that you had doubts afterwards and asked the question in this forum shows integrity.

 

If your ball is ahead of the others and you choose to wait maybe for your safety and out of consideration for them (I find it a bit worrying when a player goes ahead of me in case I endanger them with a mishit) or just out of habit,  there is no way that can be a breach in my view.

 

@Mr Bean  In case it's a language matter, I'd endorse nsxguy's

explanation of how serious it is to use the word cheat of anyone.  And, still on language, I should mention that to preface a  remark with a phrase like with all due respect is in common English usage often an empty gesture  and sometimes insincere.  At worst it's a phrase which can be taken to mean almost the opposite of what it says - one of the traps of a foreign language.  Even if genuinely meant, it doesn't work as an excuse for offending someone.  Any time I hear it used to me, I brace myself for what's coming: I'm not going to like it😟  

Edited April 3, 2023 by Colin L

[sui generis]

21 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I needed to look up a definition and that seemed the fastest way to get there

 

Fast? Yes. But, useful only if one is unconcerned with the quality of the answer. 🙄

[Halebopp]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:21 AM, Colin L said:

I think that in your first situation, stopping going forward with the intention to search in order to wait for others to help you with the search would be a breach.  But Mr Bean would do well to consider that the very fact that you had doubts afterwards and asked the question in this forum shows integrity.

 

If your ball is ahead of the others and you choose to wait maybe for your safety and out of consideration for them (I find it a bit worrying when a player goes ahead of me in case I endanger them with a mishit) or just out of habit,  there is no way that can be a breach in my view.

 

@Mr Bean  In case it's a language matter, I'd endorse nsxguy's

explanation of how serious it is to use the word cheat of anyone.  And, still on language, I should mention that to preface a  remark with a phrase like with all due respect is in common English usage often an empty gesture  and sometimes insincere.  At worst it's a phrase which can be taken to mean almost the opposite of what it says - one of the traps of a foreign language.  Even if genuinely meant, it doesn't work as an excuse for offending someone.  Any time I hear it used to me, I brace myself for what's coming: I'm not going to like it😟  

 

What I find interesting is the wording used in 18.2a(1)/2. "...delay search for their ball until everyone else can assist." It's an old Decision but the RBs could have easily changed it to "until the player can assist" if they had wanted to. And, in my opinion, the Interpretation does give a certain amount of leeway with regard to the start of a search and waiting for help.

 

That's not to say it wouldn't be an obvious breach if a player, who has no reason to not search for his/her ball won't do so just to give other people (spectators for example) more time to find the ball before the search begins.

 

https://www.randa.org/rog/interpretations/rule-18#18_2a_1_2

 

[Mr. Bean]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:21 AM, Colin L said:

@Mr Bean  In case it's a language matter, I'd endorse nsxguy's

explanation of how serious it is to use the word cheat of anyone.  And, still on language, I should mention that to preface a  remark with a phrase like with all due respect is in common English usage often an empty gesture  and sometimes insincere.  At worst it's a phrase which can be taken to mean almost the opposite of what it says - one of the traps of a foreign language.  Even if genuinely meant, it doesn't work as an excuse for offending someone.  Any time I hear it used to me, I brace myself for what's coming: I'm not going to like it😟  

 

Sad to hear you have worn out the true meaning of that phrase in English language, in Finnish language we tend to mean what we say 😉

 

Btw, which word should one use as a milder version of cheat to describe the act of a player trying to gain advantage by breaching a Rule when others do not see or acting against the spirit of a Rule in order to reach that same goal? I cannot come up with any other word in my native language, all the synonyms I can think of mean the same thing, cheating.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 4/2/2023 at 8:40 AM, rogolf said:

My opinion - you were deliberately delaying the start of the search in order to allow other people to search on your behalf.  See definition of "lost".

 

IMHO this doesn't seem right... Nobody was searching for his ball at the time. 

 

I.e. let's say a player is playing with someone that the player knows is courteous and will look for someone else's ball. His ball is in an area that it might be considered lost. Deliberately delaying would be to walk more slowly than the other player, allowing the other player to enter that area of search and start looking for the ball 30 seconds before the player arrives, and then getting there and starting the 3 minute clock because the player himself hadn't started searching. In that case it was a deliberate delay in order to allow the other player to search on his behalf. 

 

In this case, he was deliberately delaying to allow an opportunity for other people to search alongside him, not on his behalf in such a way that the 3 minute clock is potentially being extended. 

 

I think the 18.2a(1)/2 interpretation is instructive here. A player can assist another player with a search and instruct his caddie to assist another player in his search, delaying his own search until everyone else can assist. In this case you're not delaying to allow others to search on your behalf, you're delaying to allow others to assist in your search. 

[Mr. Bean]

37 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I think the 18.2a(1)/2 interpretation is instructive here. A player can assist another player with a search and instruct his caddie to assist another player in his search, delaying his own search until everyone else can assist. In this case you're not delaying to allow others to search on your behalf, you're delaying to allow others to assist in your search. 

 

That Clarification does not mean that once the other player's ball has been found the player must not start the search for his own ball regardless what the other players are doing. It is no obligation for anyone to search any ball.

 

In other words, once the "first" ball has been found it is only the player and his caddie who are interested in finding the "second" ball. He is not allowed to wait until all others will accompany him as there is no obligation for them to do it. Thus the wording in the Clarification may be construed incorrectly.

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That Clarification does not mean that once the other player's ball has been found the player must not start the search for his own ball regardless what the other players are doing. It is no obligation for anyone to search any ball.

 

In other words, once the "first" ball has been found it is only the player and his caddie who are interested in finding the "second" ball. He is not allowed to wait until all others will accompany him as there is no obligation for them to do it. Thus the wording in the Clarification may be construed incorrectly.

 

Agreed that there is no obligation that other people beyond the player and his caddie assist with the search.

 

However the question is whether it was permissible for a player to delay the start of their own search in this particular case. 

 

It was stated that the player was deliberately delaying in order to allow others to search on his behalf. I don't believe that is the case, as nobody was searching on his behalf during the delay. It seems to me that the clarification seems to allow that a delay which enables others to be available to assist with a search is permissible, even if they have no obligation to offer that assistance. 

 

Even if the players intent was to allow the other members of his group time to play their shots before he started his search, in the hopes that they would help him if he needed assistance in his search, I would state that the clarification states this is permissible. His drive was longer than those of the other players. He had not entered the search area. Nobody was searching on his behalf during his delay. 

 

I'd contend he did nothing wrong by delaying in this case.

[Mr. Bean]

58 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

It seems to me that the clarification seems to allow that a delay which enables others to be available to assist with a search is permissible, even if they have no obligation to offer that assistance. 

 

 

That would be a strange twist and I very much doubt that is the message RBs want to convey.

[betarhoalphadelta]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That would be a strange twist and I very much doubt that is the message RBs want to convey.

Might it reflect that golf is a game of etiquette? 

 

Do the ruling bodies want to have a player tell a fellow player who he outdrove by 50 yards "I'm sorry, neither my caddie nor I can help you look for your ball because I'll be penalized if I don't rush 50 yards ahead to look for mine"?

 

In the case from this thread, you're going to penalize a player who does the courteous thing and doesn't go ahead of the two balls the other players have yet to hit--which could, but it sounds like in this case wasn't a HUGE concern, be a safety issue? The player wasn't helping the other players search, but it certainly didn't sound like he was running afoul of golf courtesy to hang back until they played their shots. 

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Might it reflect that golf is a game of etiquette? 

 

Do the ruling bodies want to have a player tell a fellow player who he outdrove by 50 yards "I'm sorry, neither my caddie nor I can help you look for your ball because I'll be penalized if I don't rush 50 yards ahead to look for mine"?

 

In the case from this thread, you're going to penalize a player who does the courteous thing and doesn't go ahead of the two balls the other players have yet to hit--which could, but it sounds like in this case wasn't a HUGE concern, be a safety issue? The player wasn't helping the other players search, but it certainly didn't sound like he was running afoul of golf courtesy to hang back until they played their shots. 

 

It sounds to me that you are deliberately twisting my words.

 

Two players A and B and both of them have a caddie C and D. Player A hits a hook to left and B a draw further than A but both balls end up in the woods. After having played provisionals the groups head for to search the ball of A as that seems to be considerably closer than B's ball. After having searched for A's ball for  2 minutes they find it and A hits his ball from the woods close to the green.

 

Now, A and his caddie stop to clean A's club, plan the strategy and drink a bit of water. You say that B and his caddie may now stop and wait until A and his caddie proceed with B and his caddie towards the area where B's ball is assumed to be. I say that this is not what Rule says but B is obliged to proceed to search for his ball without waiting others to join him. If he stops and waits he is delaying the game as A and C are not obliged to search for B's ball.

 

Disagree?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[Hawkeye77]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It sounds to me that you are deliberately twisting my words.

 

Two players A and B and both of them have a caddie C and D. Player A hits a hook to left and B a draw further than A but both balls end up in the woods. After having played provisionals the groups head for to search the ball of A as that seems to be considerably closer than B's ball. After having searched for A's ball for  2 minutes they find it and A hits his ball from the woods close to the green.

 

Now, A and his caddie stop to clean A's club, plan the strategy and drink a bit of water. You say that B and his caddie may now stop and wait until A and his caddie proceed with B and his caddie towards the area where B's ball is assumed to be. I say that this is not what Rule says but B is obliged to proceed to search for his ball without waiting others to join him. If he stops and waits he is delaying the game as A and C are not obliged to search for B's ball.

 

Disagree?

 

 

 

 

In this situation “until everyone else can assist” is after A has hit - at that point they can assist and if they aren’t doing so B should get on with it.  
 

Whether that is related or applicable to previous discussion I don’t know. 
 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It sounds to me that you are deliberately twisting my words.

 

Two players A and B and both of them have a caddie C and D. Player A hits a hook to left and B a draw further than A but both balls end up in the woods. After having played provisionals the groups head for to search the ball of A as that seems to be considerably closer than B's ball. After having searched for A's ball for  2 minutes they find it and A hits his ball from the woods close to the green.

 

Now, A and his caddie stop to clean A's club, plan the strategy and drink a bit of water. You say that B and his caddie may now stop and wait until A and his caddie proceed with B and his caddie towards the area where B's ball is assumed to be. I say that this is not what Rule says but B is obliged to proceed to search for his ball without waiting others to join him. If he stops and waits he is delaying the game as A and C are not obliged to search for B's ball.

 

Disagree?

 

 

Agreed with Hawk. At that point player B is needlessly delaying, and player A could choose to assist a search but clearly is signaling that he's doing his own thing. Once A has hit, B should proceed. 

 

However, I think any additional delay by B is not "deliberately delaying in order to allow others to search on his behalf", because nobody is out there ahead of B searching on his behalf. B's problem at this point is pace of play, not a rules or search time problem. 

 

The issue would be if player C also hit a ball in the vicinity of player B, and player B needlessly waits for player A while player C is searching in the same area. In that case, I would think any deliberate delay by B would be allowing player C to search on B's behalf, as someone would be searching in his area and any delay would be seen as him trying to get more search time in that area by another player while still getting his own 3 minutes. 

[nsxguy]

7 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

IMHO this doesn't seem right... Nobody was searching for his ball at the time. 

 

I.e. let's say a player is playing with someone that the player knows is courteous and will look for someone else's ball. His ball is in an area that it might be considered lost. Deliberately delaying would be to walk more slowly than the other player, allowing the other player to enter that area of search and start looking for the ball 30 seconds before the player arrives, and then getting there and starting the 3 minute clock because the player himself hadn't started searching. In that case it was a deliberate delay in order to allow the other player to search on his behalf. 

 

In this case, he was deliberately delaying to allow an opportunity for other people to search alongside him, not on his behalf in such a way that the 3 minute clock is potentially being extended. 

 

I think the 18.2a(1)/2 interpretation is instructive here. A player can assist another player with a search and instruct his caddie to assist another player in his search, delaying his own search until everyone else can assist. In this case you're not delaying to allow others to search on your behalf, you're delaying to allow others to assist in your search. 

 

If I may.

 

Rogolf was referring to "my" situation.

 

You seem to be describing "my" situation.

 

Beanie seems to be discussing the original situation; that of 2 players hitting balls over a hill into a similar area, one being visible but NOT identified.

 

So you and Beanie seem to be discussing, at times, 2 different things.

[antip]

8 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

IMHO this doesn't seem right... Nobody was searching for his ball at the time. 

 

I.e. let's say a player is playing with someone that the player knows is courteous and will look for someone else's ball. His ball is in an area that it might be considered lost. Deliberately delaying would be to walk more slowly than the other player, allowing the other player to enter that area of search and start looking for the ball 30 seconds before the player arrives, and then getting there and starting the 3 minute clock because the player himself hadn't started searching. In that case it was a deliberate delay in order to allow the other player to search on his behalf. 

 

In this case, he was deliberately delaying to allow an opportunity for other people to search alongside him, not on his behalf in such a way that the 3 minute clock is potentially being extended. 

 

I think the 18.2a(1)/2 interpretation is instructive here. A player can assist another player with a search and instruct his caddie to assist another player in his search, delaying his own search until everyone else can assist. In this case you're not delaying to allow others to search on your behalf, you're delaying to allow others to assist in your search. 

I don't see 18.2a(1)/2 having relevance to the NSX scenario. That last sentence has meaning in the context of the clarification but it is not a policy prescription to be applied elsewhere - it is not rule-making.

I, too, read the NSX scenario as a delay of search for no identified, reasonable reason - as presented, it was to gain possible greater assistance with a delayed search. IMO, this is unreasonable delay that could be dealt with initially by shortening the available search time but also alerting the player that, if repeated, it is likely to be a breach of Rule 5.6.

I appreciated the honesty of NSX's question.

[nsxguy]

On 4/4/2023 at 6:04 AM, Mr. Bean said:

 

Sad to hear you have worn out the true meaning of that phrase in English language, in Finnish language we tend to mean what we say 😉

 

Btw, which word should one use as a milder version of cheat to describe the act of a player trying to gain advantage by breaching a Rule when others do not see or acting against the spirit of a Rule in order to reach that same goal? I cannot come up with any other word in my native language, all the synonyms I can think of mean the same thing, cheating.

 

 

"Sad to hear you have worn out the true meaning of that phrase ("No offense") in English language, in Finnish language we tend to mean what we say 😉"

 

So you say "No offense", and then call someone a cheat. So you really expect anyone to believe you meant no offense by calling someone a cheat ?

 

That's just good comedy,,,,,,

 

I gave you the M-W definition of cheating and stated, to ME, it meant a conscious effort to try to gain an advantage; just as you yourself just said -  and therefore is NOT cheating.

 

Implicit in "TRYING to gain an advantage" is INTENT to break a rule to gain an advantage. I was UNSURE of the exact rules at the time. i.e. NO intent.

 

Further, I pointed out, that afaics, delay, intentional or not, is NOT "breaking a rule" BUT only starting the clock on the search. Which, in this specific case would've more likely than not resulted in my finding my ball, with or without help, within the actual 3 minutes anyway. So, no penalty.

 

I further told you that professional players are penalized all the time AFTER the fact, even after a round, for breaking a rule they didn't realize they had broken and asked if THEY were all cheating.

 

Your response/comments ? To any of this ? Crickets (<-- that means you ignored it).

 

There's a scene near the end of "Independence Day" when the crop duster pilot, Russell Casse, flies his jet right up into the alien craft's destructive super weapon beam, and screams a phrase at the aliens as he (ends up) destroying the alien craft. I think that applies here.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

However, I think any additional delay by B is not "deliberately delaying in order to allow others to search on his behalf", because nobody is out there ahead of B searching on his behalf. B's problem at this point is pace of play, not a rules or search time problem. 

 

 

PoP can be a a rules problem, see Rule 5.6.

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

If I may.

 

Rogolf was referring to "my" situation.

 

You seem to be describing "my" situation.

 

Beanie seems to be discussing the original situation; that of 2 players hitting balls over a hill into a similar area, one being visible but NOT identified.

 

So you and Beanie seem to be discussing, at times, 2 different things.

 

Perhaps. I am trying to discuss "your" situation. I realize the topic has strayed. 

 

If there is miscommunication because Mr Bean is discussing the original situation, I apologize if my statements were unclear and led to such. 

 

45 minutes ago, antip said:

I don't see 18.2a(1)/2 having relevance to the NSX scenario. That last sentence has meaning in the context of the clarification but it is not a policy prescription to be applied elsewhere - it is not rule-making.

I, too, read the NSX scenario as a delay of search for no identified, reasonable reason - as presented, it was to gain possible greater assistance with a delayed search. IMO, this is unreasonable delay that could be dealt with initially by shortening the available search time but also alerting the player that, if repeated, it is likely to be a breach of Rule 5.6.

I appreciated the honesty of NSX's question.

 

But at the same time, I think the concern is with @rogolf who said that it was a breach because the delay allowed other people to search on NSX's behalf. In which case I would totally understand shortening the available search time, *IF* other people were actually searching for NSX's ball. But in this case, nobody was doing any such thing. 

[antip]

12 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 I think the concern is with @rogolf who said that it was a breach because the delay allowed other people to search on NSX's behalf. In which case I would totally understand shortening the available search time, *IF* other people were actually searching for NSX's ball. But in this case, nobody was doing any such thing. 

The applicable rule here is 5.6, there is unreasonable delay in the actions NSX refers to. I also think that the second paragraph in the definition of Lost is intended to cover the situation of a search commencing by others before the player (who has been intentionally delaying) gets there. However, while it is the most logical, it is not the only possible reading of those words - an official view on the alternate reading would be interesting.