Lost Ball?

[DaveLeeNC]

32 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

 

I am in the one lost ball camp here. But you cannot allow the situation where the initial search area for two balls is the same (unlike this case) and the two guys decide "let's look for B's ball first, then we'll look for A's ball". That is not case here, but should not be allowed (IMHO). 

 

dave

[Hawkeye77]

14 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am in the one lost ball camp here. But you cannot allow the situation where the initial search area for two balls is the same (unlike this case) and the two guys decide "let's look for B's ball first, then we'll look for A's ball". That is not case here, but should not be allowed (IMHO). 

 

dave

“Search area” has nothing to do with this -  nothing in the rules allows you to deem someone looking for his ball when he in fact is not and there is no “search area” aspect of the rules that disqualifies the OP from commencing a search for his ball, period. 
 

If the concern (which it is undisputed does not exist here) is somehow OP is using the search for the other player’s ball to gain another 3 minutes and looking for his own ball at the same time, the fact  both players would attest they thought his ball was the ball they could see disposed of that concern. 

Forest/trees. 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[davep043]

42 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

This is where you get into Match Play dynamics, and the rights of a Player to ask for a Ruling on his Opponent's actions.  If a Referee is assigned to that Match, this situation would not happen, that visible ball of unknown ancestry would have been identified quickly.  But without an assigned Referee, someone will need to make a Ruling on B's claim that the search was indeed concurrent, and that both balls were Lost.  This appeal for a Ruling could only occur if A went on to play the Original Ball and win the hole with it, if he takes S&D the matter is closed.  Or if A concedes the hole, as he says he did, the matter is finished, no Ruling will be made.  And yes, the Referee DOES have the authority to look at the area and listen to the accounts of the two players and determine that A is NOT entitled to additional search time.  It doesn't necessarily matter that A doesn't realize this possibility at the time.  

 

A noted Rules authority with the USGA, David Stabler, has often said "The Rules are easy, the facts are often difficult".  In this case, the difficult fact to determine is whether the two balls were expected to be close enough that a single search time was appropriate, or whether two separate searches were justified.

 

[antip]

Right the way through this, I have seen arguments on both sides. I think another argument under the current published words suggesting only one ball search is happening - even if both balls are in precisely the same area - hasn't been mentioned yet. It is the issue covered in 18.2a(1)/1, first bullet: even if a search has commenced - if a player assumes a ball is theirs, the search has ceased.
The current paucity of guidance in the Official Guide on when a search commences, and on examples of cases that fall on either side of the line, is one of my biggest bugbears in the current book. 

I hope to get some official input on the issue.

[davep043]

8 minutes ago, antip said:

It is the issue covered in 18.2a(1)/1, first bullet: even if a search has commenced - if a player assumes a ball is theirs, the search has ceased.

In that example, the player went on to play that Wrong Ball, so he was actively doing "something" regarding that ball.  I do see a conflict between the requirement to promptly identify a "found ball", as compared with the search time stopping while this mis-identified "found ball" is played.  

 

I have a question for the group.  If our OP, Player A, kicks his ball in the rough during the initial search (for Player B's ball only), what will he do?  Has he moved his ball while searching for it, or has he moved his ball while walking towards the area he intends to search later?

[antip]

21 minutes ago, davep043 said:

In that example, the player went on to play that Wrong Ball, so he was actively doing "something" regarding that ball.  I do see a conflict between the requirement to promptly identify a "found ball", as compared with the search time stopping while this mis-identified "found ball" is played.  

 

I have a question for the group.  If our OP, Player A, kicks his ball in the rough during the initial search (for Player B's ball only), what will he do?  Has he moved his ball while searching for it, or has he moved his ball while walking towards the area he intends to search later?

On your first para, yes there is a conflict and we all got very excited about that in late 2018-early 2019 when we were poring over the new book. RBs also took some time to get used to it and issued some bad rulings that were subsequently corrected. But we are all now more familiar - and any circumstance of the player assuming some other ball is theirs ceases a search that is underway - it doesn't matter whether the wrong ball is played or if the player wakes up to the error and avoids playing the wrong ball.

 

But as you point out in para 2, there can be consequences of not being in search - accidental movement of your ball gets the 9.4b penalty (outside of the Exceptions) and the ball must be replaced.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, limegreengent said:

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.

 

Yes, the Mapping Document refers 27/6 to KVC/3 and it is clear that "Player A’s ball was not lost even though both players searched for more than three minutes because Player A did not start searching for their ball; the searching was for Player B’s ball". 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Newby

[davep043]

41 minutes ago, Newby said:

Yes, the Mapping Document refers 27/6 to KVC/3 and it is clear that "Player A’s ball was not lost even though both players searched for more than three minutes because Player A did not start searching for their ball; the searching was for Player B’s ball". 

In this example, there was no expectation that there would be two balls in the same general area.  To me, this is analogous to a situation where two balls are believed to be on opposite sides of the fairway, or one was expected to be substantially longer than the other, so that two separate searches would be appropriate.  That differs a bit from the OP, in which the two balls were expected to be close to one another, perhaps within 10 yards.  

Having read the entire thread, and reading of the rather numerous Rules and Clarifications that might be applied, I've sent an email to the USGA.  I'll let everyone know their response when I get it.

[rogolf]

It's a ruling for a referee on the scene, not a hypothetical with unclear observations (no facts) several hundred miles away.  Any answer obtained will be based only on the information provided, and may not be applicable to any other situation.  I doubt that it will resolve the current debates.

[davep043]

17 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It's a ruling for a referee on the scene, not a hypothetical with unclear observations (no facts) several hundred miles away.  Any answer obtained will be based only on the information provided, and may not be applicable to any other situation.  I doubt that it will resolve the current debates.

I agree completely.  I really asked whether certain specific rules could apply, as well as whether any other rules and/or clarifications should also be considered.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

I agree completely.  I really asked whether certain specific rules could apply, as well as whether any other rules and/or clarifications should also be considered.  

Thanks for doing that! Anxious to read whatever the take is.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Thanks for doing that! Anxious to read whatever the take is.

The response, the Opponent's ball is lost, after the 3 minutes of searching.  The OP didn't begin to search for his ball, and Lost/2 doesn't apply here.  I've asked a couple of follow-up questions, I'll post again if I get a response.

I'll be honest, I believe that the application of Lost/2 to two different players (as opposed to a single player with original and provisional) came up at a USGA Workshop, and I believe the answer is that it can, depending on specific circumstances.  That was my basis for my views earlier in the thread, but I didn't want to cite a "official interpretation" if I didn't have it in writing somehow.  So I live and learn.

Edited March 24, 2023 by davep043

[Hawkeye77]

20 minutes ago, davep043 said:

The response, the Opponent's ball is lost, after the 3 minutes of searching.  The OP didn't begin to search for his ball, and Lost/2 doesn't apply here.  I've asked a couple of follow-up questions, I'll post again if I get a response.

I'll be honest, I believe that the application of Lost/2 to two different players (as opposed to a single player with original and provisional) came up at a USGA Workshop, and I believe the answer is that it can, depending on specific circumstances.  That was my basis for my views earlier in the thread, but I didn't want to cite a "official interpretation" if I didn't have it in writing somehow.  So I live and learn.

They want to roll back the ball so we can always take any answer with a grain of Surlyn if we choose!
 

Kidding, of course, enough noise about that elsewhere. 

 

But still interested in anything else you get in follow up you want to share. 

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

They want to roll back the ball so we can always take any answer with a grain of Surlyn if we choose!

I know you know, and I know you were joking but the Rules people and the Equipment people are completely separate groups.  My experience with the Rules people has been very good.  

[Hawkeye77]

Just now, davep043 said:

I know you know, and I know you were joking but the Rules people and the Equipment people are completely separate groups.  My experience with the Rules people has been very good.  

Haha, mine has been very limited but always positive and yes, my low hanging fruit attempt at humor would probably fly in any other sub-forum but this one! 😀

[Mr. Bean]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:46 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

No. If there are two balls in an essentially same area you have 3 minutes in total to search for both balls.

 

I am amazed how long this thread has been going on as I thought this post of mine would be clear enough (bolded is mine). But no, after that there have been presented 30, 50, 75 and 100 yds scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

 

Alas, as it has been told by others and myself many times, you would know if you were there. If you knew the Rules, of course, that is...

 

Spring is coming around here, slowly but steadily.

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

“Search area” has nothing to do with this -  nothing in the rules allows you to deem someone looking for his ball when he in fact is not and there is no “search area” aspect of the rules that disqualifies the OP from commencing a search for his ball, period. 

 

 

Wow... IMO it has everything to to with it. And if you stop and think about it for a while you will also realize it has everything to do with it.

 

Unless your "search area" refers to something else than the "area where the player's ball is assumed to be".

[DaveLeeNC]

I just got back from the course today and had a scenario that is closely related to this discussion.  A guy on our team hit two identical tee shots (first ball them provisional) wild right and they were indistinguishable from the perspective of 'where did they end up'. 

 

Had the first ball been wild right and the 2nd been wild left then he would get 3 minutes each to find those balls (looking for the first ball first). Since the search areas are identical it was not obvious to me how the rules would have you proceed here. In reality it did not matter as we were a tad behind so we were not going to spend 6 minutes looking for those balls and we found the first one in about 10 seconds anyway (never found the 2nd ball but did not look long). 

 

How would one proceed if you wanted your 'full search time' and you wanted to avoid (if possible) one or more lost balls? Do you get 3 minutes to search for the first and then you are searching for the 2nd (as the first is now lost)? Or are you limited to 3 minutes total in this case?

 

dave

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I just got back from the course today and had a scenario that is closely related to this discussion.  A guy on our team hit two identical tee shots (first ball them provisional) wild right and they were indistinguishable from the perspective of 'where did they end up'. 

 

Had the first ball been wild right and the 2nd been wild left then he would get 3 minutes each to find those balls (looking for the first ball first). Since the search areas are identical it was not obvious to me how the rules would have you proceed here. In reality it did not matter as we were a tad behind so we were not going to spend 6 minutes looking for those balls and we found the first one in about 10 seconds anyway (never found the 2nd ball but did not look long). 

 

How would one proceed if you wanted your 'full search time' and you wanted to avoid (if possible) one or more lost balls? Do you get 3 minutes to search for the first and then you are searching for the 2nd (as the first is now lost)? Or are you limited to 3 minutes total in this case?

 

dave

This is where Clarification Lost/2 definitely applies:

"If the balls are in the same vicinity where they can be searched for at the same time, the player is allowed only three minutes to search for both balls."

There's more to read there, but that's the meat.  

[DaveLeeNC]

37 minutes ago, davep043 said:

This is where Clarification Lost/2 definitely applies:

"If the balls are in the same vicinity where they can be searched for at the same time, the player is allowed only three minutes to search for both balls."

There's more to read there, but that's the meat.  

 

Thanks - just got off the course and have not yet had a chance to catch up on this thread. 

 

dave

[davep043]

11 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Thanks - just got off the course and have not yet had a chance to catch up on this thread. 

 

dave

You didn't miss much, beyond the USGA confirming that my opinion was wrong🤣  But what better way to learn than being wrong in public!

[Augster]

48 minutes ago, davep043 said:

You didn't miss much, beyond the USGA confirming that my opinion was wrong🤣  But what better way to learn than being wrong in public!

In the context of the OP, you weren’t all wrong. The ruling they gave you said the opponent should have taken a lost ball even though his ball was sitting in the fairway. 
 

So you got that part correct. And, honestly, there’s no way to know if they “should” have both been searching at the same time unless you were on site. 
 

Given the ruling, and new info, the OP conceded the hole. What should have happened is his opponent should have either conceded the hole to the OP or gone back to the tee hitting 3 while the OP plays his second shot from the found ball in the rough. 
 

I’m glad that played either way, it ended up not mattering for the match. 

[antip]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

Yes, the Mapping Document refers 27/6 to KVC/3 and it is clear that "Player A’s ball was not lost even though both players searched for more than three minutes because Player A did not start searching for their ball; the searching was for Player B’s ball". 

But just to complicate the mapping summary reference, it also says the outcome is changed from 2019.

[IndyArcher]

I think it’s worth giving kudos where due to @davep043 for following through and posting a conclusion that differed from his own original thoughts and arguments. The very definition of integrity. 

[antip]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Wow... IMO it has everything to to with it. And if you stop and think about it for a while you will also realize it has everything to do with it.

 

Unless your "search area" refers to something else than the "area where the player's ball is assumed to be".

For me, the key issue emerging is Lost/2 does not apply here, because no search commences for the ball that is simply assumed to be a certain player's ball - and this does not change even if both balls are thought to be in the same area.
And 18.2a(1)'s reference to the player must promptly identify the ball refers only to a situation of search having commenced.

[Mr. Bean]

17 hours ago, davep043 said:

In this example, there was no expectation that there would be two balls in the same general area.  To me, this is analogous to a situation where two balls are believed to be on opposite sides of the fairway, or one was expected to be substantially longer than the other, so that two separate searches would be appropriate.  That differs a bit from the OP, in which the two balls were expected to be close to one another, perhaps within 10 yards.  

Having read the entire thread, and reading of the rather numerous Rules and Clarifications that might be applied, I've sent an email to the USGA.  I'll let everyone know their response when I get it.

 

What exactly did you ask and what was the answer?

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, antip said:

For me, the key issue emerging is Lost/2 does not apply here, because no search commences for the ball that is simply assumed to be a certain player's ball - and this does not change even if both balls are thought to be in the same area.
And 18.2a(1)'s reference to the player must promptly identify the ball refers only to a situation of search having commenced.

 

Maybe we are talking of two different things but let me put this down into words.

 

If two balls of two players are assumed to be lost on the same area there is no way IMHO that one player could commence their search only when the "first" 3 min time has elapsed even in the case when one of the balls is visible once the players arrive to that area.

 

Agree or disagree?

[antip]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Maybe we are talking of two different things but let me put this down into words.

 

If two balls of two players are assumed to be lost on the same area there is no way IMHO that one player could commence their search only when the "first" 3 min time has elapsed even in the case when one of the balls is visible once the players arrive to that area.

 

Agree or disagree?

Two balls unsighted and estimated to be in the same area? Then I agree, simultaneous search times are the order of the day.

[DaveLeeNC]

Someone (I think it was Newby) brought up the "mapping document". I had no idea that such a thing existed, so here is a link for those of you (like me) who were uninformed WRT this. 

 

MappingSummaryChart.pdf (usga.org)

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

18 minutes ago, antip said:

Two balls unsighted and estimated to be in the same area? Then I agree, simultaneous search times are the order of the day.

And without some guidance on what 'same area' means we are back to square one. 

 

dave