Lost Ball?

[davep043]

4 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

So if I hit my drive in the middle of the fairway, see it there 100 yards ahead, I cannot stop and help a friend look for a ball without first walking up to identify my ball? That's ridiculous. The clarification you link assumes I am looking for what I believe may be my lost ball. I was doing no such thing.

If your ball is typically within 30 yards of his, and it was hit on a very similar line, over a hill so you couldn't discern any difference at all as to the relative locations, that Clarification indicates your search time and his search time run concurrently, not consecutively.  I realize you posted here to find advice to tell you differently, I just believe the Rules are not on your side here.

[Hawkeye77]

I’m not sure I agree with @Schulzmcgetting a little triggered by frustration BUT I see his point. 
 

The clarification applies to a ball found during the search, which is a search for the other player’s ball. 
 

It seems like “concurrent” is being used to make something analogous which at the core really isn’t?

 

[Mr. Bean]

26 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

The clarification applies to a ball found during the search, which is a search for the other player’s ball. 

 

 

Don't understand where you got that from.

 

18.2a

When Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds

(1) When Ball Is Lost. A ball is lost if not found in three minutes after the player or their caddie begins to search for it. If a ball is found in that time but it is uncertain whether it is the player’s ball:

• The player must promptly attempt to identify the ball (see Rule 7.2) and is allowed a reasonable time to do so, even if that happens after the three-minute search time has ended.

 

This does not say anything about searching for another player's ball but about search for the player's ball.

 

Now, it seems to be in order to define "search". You search something if you do not know it's location. The way I see it this applies to any situation when you cannot see your ball and it may be in a terrain a ball may be lost in. Once you approach the area and you see a ball it is your duty to go and identify it (if you are searching for your own ball). If you fail to do that and the time elapses your ball is lost.

 

I have no idea what is difficult about this.

[davep043]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I’m not sure I agree with @Schulzmcgetting a little triggered by frustration BUT I see his point. 
 

The clarification applies to a ball found during the search, which is a search for the other player’s ball. 
 

It seems like “concurrent” is being used to make something analogous which at the core really isn’t?

 

The Title of the Clarification is "Search Time When Searching for Two Balls".  The two balls were expected to be relatively close to one another, based on everything presented in the OP.  I'd say the Clarification fits the situation, Yes, Lost/2 talks about a provisional and an original ball, but it applies the same way to . 

However, if we look at the basic Rule, the outcome is still the same.  If @Schulzmc saw a ball there, and believed it to be his, 18.2a(1) says:

Quote

If a ball is found in that time but it is uncertain whether it is the player’s ball:

The player must promptly attempt to identify the ball (see Rule 7.2) and is allowed a reasonable time to do so, even if that happens after the three-minute search time has ended.

This includes a reasonable time to get to the ball if the player is not where the ball is found.

If the player does not identify their ball in that reasonable time, the ball is lost.

They found a ball, they hadn't identified it, so neither could be certain it was his ball.  He doesn't get to wander around looking for other golf balls, he doesn't get to intentionally delay the beginning of his own search, he has to promptly go to identify what he believes is his ball.  Again, its less than 15 seconds to walk the 20 yards or so to promptly identify the ball.  Its not 75 or 100 yards, as some of the other posts have mentioned, its less than 30 yards.   He didn't do that, therefore his ball is lost.  And the Opponent's ball is lost as well, as he didn't find it within the 3 minute search time.    

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I do not know what else to do but link this Clarification for your reading. It says in plain English that if you see a ball you think might be your ball you MUST go and identify it.

 

The clarification (very interesting, BTW) that you linked refers to a "found ball". Is any ball in sight a "found ball"? This is a particular issue here on the 'golf ball colored' dormant bermuda fairways that we play on right now. I don't know how many times that I have gone up to 'a ball' only to find that it is something else. But my vision is really crummy. 

 

And using this clarification to apply to the difference between looking for your ball and not looking for your ball when the clarification addresses the difference between looking for your ball and identifying your ball seems (maybe) a stretch. 

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

27 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

The clarification (very interesting, BTW) that you linked refers to a "found ball". Is any ball in sight a "found ball"?

 

If you read what I wrote about search an hour ago you have you an answer. IMO you cannot "find" a ball if you have not "searched" for it, from this Rule point of view. Thus you cannot "find" your ball you see landing on the fairway and you see it all the time.

 

I hope this helps because it is really not that difficult.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[betarhoalphadelta]

Is this similar to a KVC determination?

 

Quote

 

Rule 18.2a(1) provides that a player must promptly attempt to identify a ball that is found when it is believed that the found ball could be the player’s ball. And, when attempting to do so, the player is allowed a reasonable amount of time to identity it.

 

 

Emphasis added. Words like "believe" and "could" are important here. 

 

In this case the player typically outdrives his buddy, but it was a blind landing area and the ball in plain sight could reasonably belong to either player. 

 

This would be different than what @Schulzmc suggested where he piped a drive straight down the fairway well beyond the search area for a fellow competitor's ball short in the left rough, at which point it would not be reasonable to believe that he could find his own ball anywhere in the search area. In fact, if this is the case, if a ball that was not their fellow competitor's ball was found in the left rough, it wouldn't even be incumbent on @Schulzmc to identify it because it isn't reasonable to believe that his ball could have ended up there (especially when a ball is in plain sight in the middle of the fairway in the place where he believes his shot should have finished). 

 

But in a case where both balls were hit left into a blind landing area, both players should reasonably believe that the ball in plain sight COULD BE their own ball, and are thus required to promptly identify any ball "found" in that area. Failure to do so doesn't offer the second player an additional 3 minutes to search for their ball based on a poor assumption that the ball in sight is not their own. 

 

And in this case, identifying the ball first would have helped @Schulzmc because with the typical disparity in driving distance between him and his fellow competitor, it would have made it more likely that they would have chosen the correct search area for his ball. 

[Naptime]

As a practical matter just go identify your own ball first (unless you clearly saw it come to rest in the fairway) and don’t hang beck helping the presumed ball loser look for his ball. Let him search by himself unless you don’t trust him not to surreptitiously drop a ball and claim it was the original.  In that case why play with him at all?  If he still hasn’t found it after you ID your ball help him for the remainder of his 3 mins. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Naptime

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

The Title of the Clarification is "Search Time When Searching for Two Balls".  The two balls were expected to be relatively close to one another, based on everything presented in the OP.  I'd say the Clarification fits the situation, Yes, Lost/2 talks about a provisional and an original ball, but it applies the same way to . 

However, if we look at the basic Rule, the outcome is still the same.  If @Schulzmc saw a ball there, and believed it to be his, 18.2a(1) says:

They found a ball, they hadn't identified it, so neither could be certain it was his ball.  He doesn't get to wander around looking for other golf balls, he doesn't get to intentionally delay the beginning of his own search, he has to promptly go to identify what he believes is his ball.  Again, its less than 15 seconds to walk the 20 yards or so to promptly identify the ball.  Its not 75 or 100 yards, as some of the other posts have mentioned, its less than 30 yards.   He didn't do that, therefore his ball is lost.  And the Opponent's ball is lost as well, as he didn't find it within the 3 minute search time.    

 

I guess I'm not seeing it yet.

 

He only has an obligation to identify per the rule cited if he encounters a ball in the search for his ball, not someone he is trying to help. The "player" is the person whose ball is being searched for.  Whether it was a wrong assumption doesn't change his obligations in this case.

 

It seems a stretch to me to take the rule that talks about provisional vs. original (still "the" player) and impose a duty upon someone searching for another person's ball to settle any questions about his own ball first if, and this was the case:  there was no reasonable belief at that point his ball is lost or even contemplated as lost.  

 

I don't think any rule required the OP to head to the visible ball and rule it in or out as his ball, so imposing that duty after the fact by invoking a rule related to the other person's search and the other person's obligations seems to take it too far, IMO.

 

This one is interesting!

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If you read what I wrote about search an hour ago you have you an answer. IMO you cannot "find" a ball if you have not "searched" for it, from this Rule point of view. Thus you cannot "find" your ball you see landing on the fairway and you see it all the time.

 

I hope this helps because it is really not that difficult.

 

 

 

The concept of seeing a ball from the tee to where it ends is new WRT this thread (AFAIK). This is not simple because there is no clear definition of the extent of the area where you think you ball is, the difference between where you think your ball is and where it might possibly be, etc. 

 

If helping a playing partner search for his ball when there another 'white blob' (that is what I see) 40 (or 50 or 60 or ..) yards up the fairway that might be my ball causes my 'search clock' to start ticking, then the RB's have been unusually deficient in defining the limits of this rule. 

 

dave

 

ps. Back to my scenario of having helped a playing partner search for his ball in an area that he defined and that I believe would not contain my ball, but being 'charged' for this search time, the conversation would go like 

 

RO: Your 3 minutes expired

 

Me: I searched for my partner's ball in the area where he told me to search. I am KVC that my ball is not in this area and believe that it might be that ball up there, but I did not know at the time of the search for my partner's ball. 

 

RO: The ruling is that your 3 minutes expired

 

Me: I would be exploring my appeal options

 

[Mr. Bean]

Dave, you sure are lost with the entire concept and I am afraid there is nothing I can say to make you understand it. You do not seem to understand what I have written but just build your bizarre situations that shed no light to the actual concept.

 

I am done.

[Mr. Bean]

50 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

I guess I'm not seeing it yet.

 

He only has an obligation to identify per the rule cited if he encounters a ball in the search for his ball, not someone he is trying to help.

 

 

Exactly!!! But...

 

You cannot say you are not searching for your ball if your ball may be visible close by and you need to find it in due course as well. That is what 18.2a(1) is all about.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Dave, you sure are lost with the entire concept and I am afraid there is nothing I can say to make you understand it. You do not seem to understand what I have written but just build your bizarre situations that shed no light to the actual concept.

 

I am done.

If you do not agree you "don't get it" and have "built bizarre situations". Got it. Thanks.

[antip]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

We discussed this some time ago (I believe it was on this very forum) and it was you who said that the search time does not stop while the player is walking /driving to the ball if he may continue their search at the same time. Then the time taken to identify a wrong ball is NOT part of the search time, just as said in the Definition. If the ball is the player's ball then it does not matter as the ball has been found and identified within the given time.

 

Do you disagree with this? Or have I misunderstood something?

 

I really don't know what that early discussion was or the context - happy to revisit that if you know where it is - but once a search has commenced, any time taken to identify a found ball (wrong or otherwise) is counting as part of the search time. Whether you can continue to search on the way there does not have direct relevance to that so that angle is not germane to our current discussion.

 

I'm not understanding how you are interpreting the definition of Lost to say otherwise. As the rule itself notes, the clock is still running when you go to identify, but you get the special dispensation to let the clock run an extra minute for the 'identification' phase providing the 'found' stage is pre-3 minutes.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Exactly!!! But...

 

You cannot say you are not searching for your ball if your ball may be visible close by and you need to find it in due course as well. That is what 18.2a(1) is all about.

 

 

He doesn't have to declare anything about whether he is searching for his ball, and you can't presume/imply/mandate/create a fantasy that he is when the facts are that only one search was taking place, the search for the other player's ball.  18.2a(1) doesn't apply to disallow the OP an opportunity to commence a search for his ball.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Dave, you sure are lost with the entire concept and I am afraid there is nothing I can say to make you understand it. You do not seem to understand what I have written but just build your bizarre situations that shed no light to the actual concept.

 

I am done.

Maybe if I better understood what you mean when you say "your ball may be visible close by" we might even agree here (I don't know if you mean 'might well be there' or 'I cannot rule out that it is there'). But to think that the scenario that I brought up is bizarre - now THAT is bizarre. 

 

dave

[antip]

There's been a large number of posts since I was here last, and there's been a bit of unintentionally talking at cross purposes and, I think, some misunderstanding of the context of clarification 18.2a(1)/3.

Specifically, that clarification, and the rule itself, is about when a search is underway for the player's ball. It does not impose an obligation on a player that believes they see their ball 30 yards ahead and commences helping someone else to search for their ball to identify that ball before proceeding to search (even though it may be sensible to do so). Put differently, that first para of the clarification is not a declaration that the search time clock has commenced for any player that sees what they think is their ball 30 yards ahead. That is simply not the purpose of the clarification, and it is not the context of Rule 18.2a.

 

 

 

[Augster]

Can we please, please, please stop with the “100 yards” further ahead BS? 
 

If a player routinely hit it 75-100 yards past their opponent, the players would have walked straight to the visible ball and assumed it was the opponent ball before ID’ing it. 

 

400 yard hole, one guy hits it 300 routinely, other guy hits it 225. Ball in the fairway at 175. 225 guy would just walk to the ball and ID and play it. If they can’t see the other guys ball, they aren’t going to look for at at 175. Or 150. They’ll go to 100 and look for it. 
 

It is only because the OP and his opponent drive it very similar distances that they need to ID that ball to decide which ball they are searching for. 

[davep043]

17 minutes ago, antip said:

There's been a large number of posts since I was here last, and there's been a bit of unintentionally talking at cross purposes and, I think, some misunderstanding of the context of clarification 18.2a(1)/3.

Specifically, that clarification, and the rule itself, is about when a search is underway for the player's ball. It does not impose an obligation on a player that believes they see their ball 30 yards ahead and commences helping someone else to search for their ball to identify that ball before proceeding to search (even though it may be sensible to do so). Put differently, that first para of the clarification is not a declaration that the search time clock has commenced for any player that sees what they think is their ball 30 yards ahead. That is simply not the purpose of the clarification, and it is not the context of Rule 18.2a.

If the two players could clearly see that there were two clearly different areas in which to search for their respective balls, I'd agree completely.  But the only ball they COULD see was on a line and at a distance where it could have belonged to either of them.  Consequently, my interpretation was that BOTH players were searching for the "other" ball, which could have belonged to either of them.  If they don't KNOW they saw ball B, they can't claim they were exclusively looking only for ball A.

I realize that "fairness" isn't a primary concern, but I don't like the claim made here.  Player A claims they were both looking only for Player B's ball, even though the two balls might be only 10 yards apart, and that B's ball was lost when the 3-minute time elapsed.  He then claims that he deserves a new 3 minutes to search for his ball once they determine that the "visible" ball was B's Original (now Lost) Ball all along.  They were both looking in an area where either ball could be, so I'd say they were both looking for both balls, a single 3-minute search is allowed.

[Hawkeye77]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

If the two players could clearly see that there were two clearly different areas in which to search for their respective balls, I'd agree completely.  But the only ball they COULD see was on a line and at a distance where it could have belonged to either of them.  Consequently, my interpretation was that BOTH players were searching for the "other" ball, which could have belonged to either of them.  If they don't KNOW they saw ball B, they can't claim they were exclusively looking only for ball A.

I realize that "fairness" isn't a primary concern, but I don't like the claim made here.  Player A claims they were both looking only for Player B's ball, even though the two balls might be only 10 yards apart, and that B's ball was lost when the 3-minute time elapsed.  He then claims that he deserves a new 3 minutes to search for his ball once they determine that the "visible" ball was B's Original (now Lost) Ball all along.  They were both looking in an area where either ball could be, so I'd say they were both looking for both balls, a single 3-minute search is allowed.

In the context of the facts presented they weren’t looking for some other ball, they were looking for one ball and it wasn’t the OP’s ball. Not a question of “fair”, IMO, just a question of the facts.  No rule says OP was obligated to identify the visible ball on arrival or when setting off to help the other guy. He is not the “player” subject to the rule sought to be applied and he isn’t part the situation that rule applies to. Just seems pretty straightforward given the actual rules without injecting the after the fact discovery into it but we aren’t going to agree and not claiming we should. 

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, davep043 said:

If the two players could clearly see that there were two clearly different areas in which to search for their respective balls, I'd agree completely.  But the only ball they COULD see was on a line and at a distance where it could have belonged to either of them.  Consequently, my interpretation was that BOTH players were searching for the "other" ball, which could have belonged to either of them.  If they don't KNOW they saw ball B, they can't claim they were exclusively looking only for ball A.

I realize that "fairness" isn't a primary concern, but I don't like the claim made here.  Player A claims they were both looking only for Player B's ball, even though the two balls might be only 10 yards apart, and that B's ball was lost when the 3-minute time elapsed.  He then claims that he deserves a new 3 minutes to search for his ball once they determine that the "visible" ball was B's Original (now Lost) Ball all along.  They were both looking in an area where either ball could be, so I'd say they were both looking for both balls, a single 3-minute search is allowed.

 

You are saying that B's ball "could have been there". Could have been there is not some objective thing. B's ball was not there, B did not think it was there (B seemed to know within a yard or two where his ball actually was). Obviously if B had set out to look for his ball that is not where it would have looked. On what basis do you make the judgement that B's ball could have been there (beyond the obvious that on occasion balls show up about anywhere)?

 

Just sayin'

 

dave

[antip]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

If the two players could clearly see that there were two clearly different areas in which to search for their respective balls, I'd agree completely.  But the only ball they COULD see was on a line and at a distance where it could have belonged to either of them.  Consequently, my interpretation was that BOTH players were searching for the "other" ball, which could have belonged to either of them.  If they don't KNOW they saw ball B, they can't claim they were exclusively looking only for ball A.

I realize that "fairness" isn't a primary concern, but I don't like the claim made here.  Player A claims they were both looking only for Player B's ball, even though the two balls might be only 10 yards apart, and that B's ball was lost when the 3-minute time elapsed.  He then claims that he deserves a new 3 minutes to search for his ball once they determine that the "visible" ball was B's Original (now Lost) Ball all along.  They were both looking in an area where either ball could be, so I'd say they were both looking for both balls, a single 3-minute search is allowed.

Dave

I agree the lay of the land is critical and a judgement call is required. But I think some posts were reading stuff into 18.2a(1)/3 which is not intended - that was my key point immediately above.
I agree, as I put in my earliest posts above, there is a point where the players cannot simply assume they are looking for only one ball. The "facts" here bounced around a bit, mentions of 30 yards, OP at one point mentioned 20 yards and so on. But I also suggest it is more than simply the number of yards (eg 20 yards can be completely opposite side of fairway) - all the other available facts can be relevant - terrain, perceived flights of the ball, trees involved etc... Which makes the correct ruling a bit of a challenge - there is not a one size fits all answer. This is also affirmed in the last couple of bullet points in Lost/2.

[Hawkeye77]

46 minutes ago, antip said:

There's been a large number of posts since I was here last, and there's been a bit of unintentionally talking at cross purposes and, I think, some misunderstanding of the context of clarification 18.2a(1)/3.

Specifically, that clarification, and the rule itself, is about when a search is underway for the player's ball. It does not impose an obligation on a player that believes they see their ball 30 yards ahead and commences helping someone else to search for their ball to identify that ball before proceeding to search (even though it may be sensible to do so). Put differently, that first para of the clarification is not a declaration that the search time clock has commenced for any player that sees what they think is their ball 30 yards ahead. That is simply not the purpose of the clarification, and it is not the context of Rule 18.2a.

 

 

 

Yes, have indicated that a few times! 
 

If the OP isn’t searching for his ball that rule doesn’t enter into it - you can’t “deem” him to be looking for his ball if he in fact isn’t. 

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, antip said:

Dave

I agree the lay of the land is critical and a judgement call is required. But I think some posts were reading stuff into 18.2a(1)/3 which is not intended - that was my key point immediately above.
I agree, as I put in my earliest posts above, there is a point where the players cannot simply assume they are looking for only one ball. The "facts" here bounced around a bit, mentions of 30 yards, OP at one point mentioned 20 yards and so on. But I also suggest it is more than simply the number of yards (eg 20 yards can be completely opposite side of fairway) - all the other available facts can be relevant - terrain, perceived flights of the ball, trees involved etc... Which makes the correct ruling a bit of a challenge - there is not a one size fits all answer. This is also affirmed in the last couple of bullet points in Lost/2.

I think you and I agree more than we disagree.  I believe important info was presented in the first post.  Typical driving distance was 10 to 30 yards different, balls were on similar lines over the crest of the hill, neither ball's location was known.  If two balls might be within 10 yards of one another, and the location of neither one is known with any certainty at all, its hard for me to divide this search into two separate searches in two separate areas.  There's no question that being on site might result in a different opinion, but those initial facts lead me to a simultaneous search.  

[antip]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Yes, have indicated that a few times! 
 

If the OP isn’t searching for his ball that rule doesn’t enter into it - you can’t “deem” him to be looking for his ball if he in fact isn’t. 

The definition of Lost tells you a search has started even if the player is nowhere near their ball if they are delaying getting there and starting searching. Lost/2 also gets into the principle of more than one ball not identified and whether search times overlap although, of course, that has features of difference with the OP. In sum, I don't think the statement you make above holds in any situation, eg, I get close to a ball in light rough believing it is mine but don't check, yet search all around this area for three minutes thinking I'm only helping the other player in the group that hit it here. 

[Hawkeye77]

8 hours ago, antip said:

The definition of Lost tells you a search has started even if the player is nowhere near their ball if they are delaying getting there and starting searching. Lost/2 also gets into the principle of more than one ball not identified and whether search times overlap although, of course, that has features of difference with the OP. In sum, I don't think the statement you make above holds in any situation, eg, I get close to a ball in light rough believing it is mine but don't check, yet search all around this area for three minutes thinking I'm only helping the other player in the group that hit it here. 

 

That's convoluted.

 

No search has started for the OP's ball in any sense of the word.  

 

The OP isn't delaying searching for his ball he is engaged in a search for another ball.  So delay has nothing to do with this situation.

 

Search times can't overlap if there is only one search, that has nothing to do with this situation.

 

Which rule of golf says if I think I see my ball ahead of me I have an obligation to go check and make sure other than if I am engaged in a search for my ball? I don't even have to check it before I hit it, but if I hit the wrong ball the rules impose consequences.

 

Rule 18 doesn't apply.  "Lost/2" doesn't preclude the OP from commencing a search for his ball when the other search has concluded.  

 

You are trying to have it both ways now.  

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, davep043 said:

I think you and I agree more than we disagree.  I believe important info was presented in the first post.  Typical driving distance was 10 to 30 yards different, balls were on similar lines over the crest of the hill, neither ball's location was known.  If two balls might be within 10 yards of one another, and the location of neither one is known with any certainty at all, its hard for me to divide this search into two separate searches in two separate areas.  There's no question that being on site might result in a different opinion, but those initial facts lead me to a simultaneous search.  

 

The problem with this is you don't take into account the facts as presented - there was a definite search for one player's ball and both were purposefully engaged in that search.  The Rule sought to be applied only applies to the player whose ball is being searched for. It's only difficult, IMO, if you want to deem someone to have searched after the fact because of things that don't matter to the rule (i.e., whether someone thought he was 10, 20 or 30 yards ahead, or the balls simply being in the same general area).  A wrong assumption was made at the time and the fact the situation would have been more easily "resolved" had either player checked the ball lying there seems to be driving an interpretation, stretching the rules where they don't go and adversely to the OP, because the OP didn't go look at the ball.  

 

Still think it's an interesting discussion, but, lol, I think we are at "yes it is", "no it isn't" and I'll quit first!

Edited March 24, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[limegreengent]

9 hours ago, antip said:

The definition of Lost tells you a search has started even if the player is nowhere near their ball if they are delaying getting there and starting searching. Lost/2 also gets into the principle of more than one ball not identified and whether search times overlap although, of course, that has features of difference with the OP. In sum, I don't think the statement you make above holds in any situation, eg, I get close to a ball in light rough believing it is mine but don't check, yet search all around this area for three minutes thinking I'm only helping the other player in the group that hit it here. 

antip 

 comments on the following  appreciated but -

 

defintion - know or virtually /3 includes an example of the old decision 27/6 and this decision states that the player is not regarded as beginning the search for his own ball ( even when  both balls were originally struck in the same general location ) - when it is clear that they are clearly searching for another player’s ball  and not searching for the player’s ball.

In our scenario the facts provided  - which  we are discussing — clearly  establish that both players are searching for one ball only .

 

I therefore agree with Hawkeye - the player is not regarded as starting a search for his ball because it was already regarded as having  been found - whether it had been already played or was awaiting to be played and fall  in line with principles laid down in the above defintion.

 

(An important aspect of this scenario is that the players believed that one of the drives was left of the other drive , and upon arrival  only one ball was visible  on the fairway which provided the search for  the “opponent’s ball only”  in the left hand rough )

 

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Edited March 24, 2023 by limegreengent

[Colin L]

The differing views on whether in the OP's situation there was a concurrent search going on simply illustrates that you can't really make a judgment without being on the spot and seeing the lie of the land and the relative positions of where each ball was likely to be.

[Hawkeye77]

15 minutes ago, Colin L said:

The differing views on whether in the OP's situation there was a concurrent search going on simply illustrates that you can't really make a judgment without being on the spot and seeing the lie of the land and the relative positions of where each ball was likely to be.

Why?

 

The relevant information is OP and the other player were engaged in a search for the other player's ball.  That's all that matters in the context of whether the OP can search for his ball when time is up on the first search.

 

There is no rule that allows you to say under these circumstances, "no fellas, I've determined, despite the undisputed facts, you were searching for both balls."  

 

Now, if the other guy is claiming they were searching for both balls and there is a difference of opinion on that between the players, then you've got a puzzle, but that isn't what has been presented.