Lost Ball?

[Hawkeye77]

9 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

 

I also learned about the rules regarding a concurrent search. It often happens at our course that two balls are lost in the same general area. We do indeed consider the three minutes to apply to both searches at the same time. But if someone had suggested to me “I’m not going to look for my ball until the 3 minutes for your ball seach is over” I would not have known how to respond. Now I do.

 

And your response? 😉

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Good God man, because you said they searched for three minutes - those are the facts you posited.

 

I'm not confused, lol.

 

If they were engaged in a search as you say, that's it.  They don't get a get out of jail free card because they or someone else wants to claim they were "close" not "in".  

 

 

 

Do try to read what I wrote as you have failed big time. I never wrote they searched their balls in points 1 and 2.

 

This is getting ever too frustrating as people do not even understand what I have written let alone what I mean...

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

My other thought is that the integrity of the player is always accepted.  If A says he is searching for B's ball, that's what he's doing.  As I mentioned in another post, A's integrity would be put to the test if he moves his own ball while searching only for the other ball.  7.4 makes it clear that if the Player moves his ball before beginning his search for it, he is penalized. 

 

Bolded: Yes, if A's ball is not lost in that same area.

 

BUT, if USGA or anyone else proposes that A may search for B's ball from the same area A's ball is also to be found and A is only searching B's ball  and A will have another 3 minutes in that same area to search their own ball then I am ready to start another sport to be a referee in. That would be my 5th 😄

[Hawkeye77]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Do try to read what I wrote as you have failed big time. I never wrote they searched their balls in points 1 and 2.

 

This is getting ever too frustrating as people do not even understand what I have written let alone what I mean...

 

Yes, you did.

 

Mr. Bean:

 

"In all those scenarios they do not try to identify that visible ball but search for the other ball for 3 minutes with no success. After that 3 minutes they go and identify the visible ball as Mark's ball."  [empahsis added]

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Bolded: Yes, if A's ball is not lost in that same area.

 

BUT, if USGA or anyone else proposes that A may search for B's ball from the same area A's ball is also to be found and A is only searching B's ball  and A will have another 3 minutes in that same area to search their own ball then I am ready to start another sport to be a referee in. That would be my 5th 😄

 

Welcome to tennis! 😉 

 

"Same area" still too vague to be applied against A, and frankly can't be applied against A, when A is searching only for B's ball and there is no dispute A is only searching for B's ball.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Mr. Bean]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Yes, you did.

 

Mr. Bean:

 

"In all those scenarios they do not try to identify that visible ball but search for the other ball for 3 minutes with no success. After that 3 minutes they go and identify the visible ball as Mark's ball."  [empahsis added]

 

 

 

You are correct, my mistake. I should have written

 

They searched for the balls WHEN THEY ENTERED THE AREA WHERE THEIR BALLS WERE ASSUMED TO BE.

 

I just had the wildest idea that I am not talking to people from the 5th grade. My mistake again.

 

I have now completely had it. I have tried, tried and tried but failed. I admit it.

 

Good night.

[Hawkeye77]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You are correct, my mistake. I should have written

 

They searched for the balls WHEN THEY ENTERED THE AREA WHERE THEIR BALLS WERE ASSUMED TO BE.

 

I just had the wildest idea that I am not talking to people from the 5th grade. My mistake again.

 

I have now completely had it. I have tried, tried and tried but failed. I admit it.

 

Good night.

I got through the 6th! 😀
 

You’ll have a head start tomorrow while others are sleeping. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[antip]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Ok, we are making progress. Let us go to next level.

 

Fred and Mark both drive their balls left into the rough where balls trationally may get lost. After having played their provisionals they head towards the area they expect to find their balls. Now, three scenarios:

1. They arrive close to the area and immediately spot a ball visible within the area balls are expected to be found.

2. They arrive in the area and having arrived they spot a ball visible within that area.

3. They arrive in the area and having searched for the balls for 3 seconds they spot a ball visible within that area.

 

In all those scenarios they do not try to identify that visible ball but search for the other ball for 3 minutes with no success. After that 3 minutes they go and identify the visible ball as Mark's ball.

 

Question: In which of those scenarios Mark's ball is not lost?

There's simply not enough information here to make comparisons with the situation that Dave sent in. If these guys here are likely expecting their first balls to be lost, they clearly have no inkling that the one ball "found" believes to either of them - there is no basis for assuming it belongs to either of them. 
As to the limits of what a player can "assume", we are waiting further official guidance on that, but I suspect you are on the wrong track with your view that you can determine the answer based on your own perception of the search area - there is more to it than that. But, as I said, I'm hoping we will get more answers on this.

[antip]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So USGA assumes both balls are not lost in essentially same area. Fair enough.

I  disagree with this, I don't believe they have assumed anything.

[2bGood]

On 3/22/2023 at 7:43 AM, cassel191919 said:

First off I wouldn't play with your playing partner again unless it was a match. I would honestly like to know what the actual ruling is, because if you spent the time looking for his ball and he didn't bother checking the one sitting there I would think it was his ball that would be considered lost.

 

On 3/22/2023 at 9:34 AM, Schulzmc said:

 

2. He really wasn't being a jerk - he's a good guy and I enjoy playing with him. He just takes the rules seriously and since we were looking for a ball that went unfound in the three minutes he thought it was a legitimate rules issue. I honestly did not know if he was right or not. 

 

 

I am glad you added this to the story. It is funny how many times someone on here points out how they would not play with a guy if they did x or y. Most of the situations I have been in people are just trying to get the rule right and they are not being jerks and the conversation in not acrimonious. 

 

[davep043]

On 3/24/2023 at 2:32 PM, 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.

Back again with the USGA response to my follow-up questions.  I asked:

Quote

Can Lost/2 ever apply to two different players, who have hit balls into very close proximity?  Can one player claim to be searching only for the other player's ball?  To some extent, this goes to the integrity of the players.
In the original scenario, does A have an obligation to identify the ball they can see in a timely manner, the ball they both believe to belong to A? 

Again, I'll paraphrase the answers.  To the first question, yes, the responding USGA rep would be likely to begin the clock on both players, but it would probably remain a Committee decision in the end.  My interpretation of this response is that he agrees with what a number of the more experienced folks have said previously in this thread, this would be a "know it when you see it" situation, impossible to define exactly in the abstract.  To the second, since both players believed they were searching for B's ball, A had no obligation to identify the ball that both players believed belonged to A.  They didn't believe it belonged to B, so B didn't have the obligation to identify it, but in hindsight he probably should have done so   Again my interpretation, once the search for A's ball starts, A has an obligation to identify any ball thought to be his own, but not before the search for that balls begins.  

[st1800e]

Time to close this discussion.  The USGA has ruled.  

[Hawkeye77]

I don’t think the additional aspect is surprising. If players have two balls in the same general area and are searching it’s reasonable to assume on those facts without more each his searching for his ball and 3 minutes running on each - permutations of the facts would naturally involve the rules official surveying the situation/context “in the field”, so to speak. 
 

The original situation was already answered, but the further question posits a “claim” to be searching for the other player’s ball so this suggests there may not need to be agreement between the players as to that and one player’s claim to be helping the other player would be considered and apparently depend on the circumstances as to whether that would carry the day if challenged? Seems reasonable as well.

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Do try to read what I wrote as you have failed big time. I never wrote they searched their balls in points 1 and 2.

 

This is getting ever too frustrating as people do not even understand what I have written let alone what I mean...

 

[nsxguy]

There's only ONE Thing for certain within this entire thread.

 

NO ONE reading it will EVER NOT identify the ball they CAN see before searching for another.

 

Frankly, I can't believe ol'  Schulzy didn't do that.

 

As for outcome, I'm surprised Schulzy conceded the hole.

 

Frankly, if it was me, the other player's ball is lost for sure.

 

And, possibly (like Schulzy ?), I may have been feeling just as guilty that I hadn't identified the ball plainly in view and felt kinda sorta a responsibility for that; and suggest "Good, good ?" to my opponent and go on from there.

[st1800e]

2 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

NO ONE reading it will EVER NOT identify the ball they CAN see before searching for another.

Yes, what me and my group do every time, given the longevity of this thread, a slow play penalty is in order….

[antip]

4 hours ago, st1800e said:

Time to close this discussion.  The USGA has ruled.  

Don't read any further if you don't wish to. But I don't need your advice on what I think is worth discussing.

[antip]

6 hours ago, davep043 said:

Back again with the USGA response to my follow-up questions.  I asked:

Again, I'll paraphrase the answers.  To the first question, yes, the responding USGA rep would be likely to begin the clock on both players, but it would probably remain a Committee decision in the end.  My interpretation of this response is that he agrees with what a number of the more experienced folks have said previously in this thread, this would be a "know it when you see it" situation, impossible to define exactly in the abstract.  To the second, since both players believed they were searching for B's ball, A had no obligation to identify the ball that both players believed belonged to A.  They didn't believe it belonged to B, so B didn't have the obligation to identify it, but in hindsight he probably should have done so   Again my interpretation, once the search for A's ball starts, A has an obligation to identify any ball thought to be his own, but not before the search for that balls begins.  

Thank you Dave for the feedback on this process. It places some additional USGA views into a space not explained in any thorough way in the Rules and Clarifications. There is no definition of search and there is no detailed guidance on when a search is commenced or when has a search not commenced - but the USGA is accepting here that if both players in a match are of the view that a visible ball belongs to one of them and it is not checked, then a search for that ball has not commenced. That is very robust guidance and I am happy to have it.

 

Whether that same guidance would apply to stroke play is, IMO, a different issue - there the protect the field angles arise. I expect there would (and should!) be a much more critical consideration of whether to accept a view that a sighted but not identified ball was not part of a search process for another ball in a comparable search area. 

Another important element in the USGA view is the implicit recognition that, ultimately, this may need to be a Committee call - it is not a one size fits all answer. 

[Newby]

2 hours ago, antip said:

 but the USGA is accepting here that if both players in a match are of the view that a visible ball belongs to one of them and it is not checked, then a search for that ball has not commenced. That is very robust guidance and I am happy to have it.

 

Was there something in Davep043's question to the USGA that indicated it was specifically about matchplay?

Edited March 26, 2023 by Newby

[antip]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Was there something in Davep043's question to the USGA that indicated it was specifically about matchplay?

"The response, the Opponent's ball is lost, after the 3 minutes of searching."

 

[DaveLeeNC]

So do we now know the answer to this question for the following scenario? I am going to pretend like 'search area' is a well defined term just so the question makes sense. 

 

A's ball is lost in AreaA and B is (in his mind) helping A search for A's ball. B has not yet found his ball and the search area for B when he begins the search for his ball (unless new information arises from the search in AreaA) is nearby but the Search Area for B's ball is not the same. Assume that they overlap by 15% (again, we are pretending like search area is some well defined term). So he might find his ball while helping A but the search that he is performing is not the same search that he would perform when looking for his own ball and is unlikely to produce B's ball.

 

So is B searching for his own ball while helping A? Lost/4 (for the example of tee shot/provisional) would appear to take a pretty extreme view of when a search area is different as the example that it uses for what is a different search is opposite sides of the fairway. Is this the standard? 

 

dave

Edited March 26, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[Schulzmc]

23 hours ago, davep043 said:

B's ball is lost after 3 minutes of search.  He had the chance to go identify that visible ball, and didn't.  Lost/2 doesn't apply to Player A, as it is meant for one player who has 2 balls in the same, and A has only one ball in that area.  A's time starts when he begins to search for hos own ball.

 

23 hours ago, davep043 said:

To the second, since both players believed they were searching for B's ball, A had no obligation to identify the ball that both players believed belonged to A.  They didn't believe it belonged to B, so B didn't have the obligation to identify it, but in hindsight he probably should have done so 

Due to the comments and persistence of you all (especially @davep043) I have a clear answer to my situation. And as mentioned above have learned a ton. Many thanks!!!

[Hawkeye77]

4 hours ago, antip said:

 

Whether that same guidance would apply to stroke play is, IMO, a different issue - there the protect the field angles arise. I expect there would (and should!) be a much more critical consideration of whether to accept a view that a sighted but not identified ball was not part of a search process for another ball in a comparable search area. 

Another important element in the USGA view is the implicit recognition that, ultimately, this may need to be a Committee call - it is not a one size fits all answer. 

 

The applicable rules to this situation don't differentiate between players in a match play vs. a stroke play situation.  Although the hypothetical involved match play, a player is a player and there is no reason at all to think the answer for stroke play would be different - "protect the field" injects an element into the analysis that isn't appropriate at all, protecting the field is nothing more than properly applying the rules.  Whether in stroke play or match play if you are searching for the other person's ball under the facts presented you are not searching for your ball and not precluded from searching for your ball after the three minutes has expired (and the visible ball later determined to be the other player's). No reason to suggest the stroke play answer would be different.

 

The Committee wouldn't have leeway to rule differently than the answer provided for the hypothetical BUT yes, it is possible it could get involved, and in the situation where two players simply commence a search for balls in the same area it may be called upon, for example, to rule there was a simultaneous search but it could be called upon to get involved for other reasons or not be called upon at all. That's a matter of course isn't it?  Not really remarkable.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Mr. Bean]

15 hours ago, antip said:

There's simply not enough information here to make comparisons with the situation that Dave sent in. If these guys here are likely expecting their first balls to be lost, they clearly have no inkling that the one ball "found" believes to either of them - there is no basis for assuming it belongs to either of them. 
As to the limits of what a player can "assume", we are waiting further official guidance on that, but I suspect you are on the wrong track with your view that you can determine the answer based on your own perception of the search area - there is more to it than that. But, as I said, I'm hoping we will get more answers on this.

 

So, how does a referee (like yourself) without specific guidance from USGA / R&A makes up their mind when to start the clock if they do not know when the player enters the area where that player's ball is assumed to be?  Have you done it all wrong for years..?

 

During my 15 years of golf referee this has never been a problem for me nor any fellow referee I have worked with. I am truly bewildered why it is a problem for you and some others.

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, antip said:

Thank you Dave for the feedback on this process. It places some additional USGA views into a space not explained in any thorough way in the Rules and Clarifications. There is no definition of search and there is no detailed guidance on when a search is commenced or when has a search not commenced - but the USGA is accepting here that if both players in a match are of the view that a visible ball belongs to one of them and it is not checked, then a search for that ball has not commenced. That is very robust guidance and I am happy to have it.

 

 

So, A and B arrive to a ball that is visible but they do not check whose ball it is. They decide to search for A's ball first even though they are very sure both of their balls are close to each other in the rough. They search for 2 min 50 seconds without finding any balls and then they identify the visible ball and it belongs to player A. So, as A's ball has now been found within those 3 minutes and identified they commence another search, this time for B's ball.

 

Is it really purpose of the Rules that B may search for his ball 6 minutes because he was "not searching his own ball but A's ball" ??

 

Wow...

[Hawkeye77]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So, A and B arrive to a ball that is visible but they do not check whose ball it is. They decide to search for A's ball first even though they are very sure both of their balls are close to each other in the rough. They search for 2 min 50 seconds without finding any balls and then they identify the visible ball and it belongs to player A. So, as A's ball has now been found within those 3 minutes and identified they commence another search, this time for B's ball.

 

Is it really purpose of the Rules that B may search for his ball 6 minutes because he was "not searching his own ball but A's ball" ??

 

Wow...

 

I think you should have slept in! 😀

 

You continue to miss a key element and the facts are important and you misstate them again - they weren't very sure both of their balls were close to each other in the rough, not the case at all, they assumed the visible ball was B's ball, which was a key piece of the puzzle here.  

 

It's not the "purpose" of the Rules to allow B 6 minutes, the Rules allow him to start his 3 minute search when the other search is complete.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

I think you should have slept in! 😀

 

You continue to miss a key element and the facts are important and you misstate them again - they weren't very sure both of their balls were close to each other in the rough, not the case at all, they assumed the visible ball was B's ball, which was a key piece of the puzzle here.  

 

It's not the "purpose" of the Rules to allow B 6 minutes, the Rules allow him to start his 3 minute search when the other search is complete.

 

 

 

It seems to me that there are too many "key elements" involved including that IMO very dubious ruling by USGA.

 

I will continue as I have always done and I have no doubt in my mind that I have and will be doing it right.

 

Thank you all.

[nsxguy]

12 hours ago, antip said:

Another important element in the USGA view is the implicit recognition that, ultimately, this may need to be a Committee call - it is not a one size fits all answer. 

 

7 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

The Committee wouldn't have leeway to rule differently than the answer provided for the hypothetical BUT yes, it is possible it could get involved, and in the situation where two players simply commence a search for balls in the same area it may be called upon, for example, to rule there was a simultaneous search but it could be called upon to get involved for other reasons or not be called upon at all. That's a matter of course isn't it?  Not really remarkable.

 

Does the committee even have a role in this situation ?

 

I don't recall whether or not there was a referee available (or even if there were any at all), but once the 2 players agreed on a ruling, whether right or wrong, and played from the next tee, the decision is final, no ?

[davep043]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Does the committee even have a role in this situation ?

 

I don't recall whether or not there was a referee available (or even if there were any at all), but once the 2 players agreed on a ruling, whether right or wrong, and played from the next tee, the decision is final, no ?

First, you are right, of two Opponents agree on a Ruling, the matter is closed, as long as they are not agreeing to intentionally ignore a rule.  The OP asked what the Rules said, wanting to learn after the fact.  I think we covered that extensively.  The USGA responses are generally based on making a ruling after the fact, and in this cases, the two players apparently agreed that the search areas weren't all that close.  If the two players hadn't agreed, one would have played a shot, and the other may have formally registered intent to ask for a Ruling.  And the Committee would have rendered a Ruling based on their understanding of the situation.  In Match Play, if a Referee is assigned to a match, he might take the lead here, and tell the players that they are each searching for their own ball, they get 3 minutes and all searches are over.  Or he might agree that the two search areas are not close enough, so that two search times might be acceptable.  But if it is decided later, the ruling might be different, depending on the information available to the Committee.

Edited March 26, 2023 by davep043

[Hawkeye77]

58 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Does the committee even have a role in this situation ?

 

I don't recall whether or not there was a referee available (or even if there were any at all), but once the 2 players agreed on a ruling, whether right or wrong, and played from the next tee, the decision is final, no ?

 

I was referring to the general reference to a Committee getting involved, yes, no need with the hypothetical.  The players agreed as indicated previously. Had they not, as Dave points out, it would have or should have ended up there (unless the pro was the "Committee" - since we don't know if they even have one as such, although they should).