Lost Ball?

[antip]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

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.

LOL. Very simple - this situation is never going to happen, has never happened, in my presence. Step 1, always, is "you need to identify that ball". If I was to blaze two words on my hat they would be "assume nothing". 

[antip]

8 hours 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...

This it the classic debating "straw man". Two balls not found but "They decide to search for A's ball first, even though....". It has no relevance to this thread and no authority under the Rules. I would treat this as breach of 5.6, unreasonable delay, consistent with the second last bullet point of 5.6a/1.

[larrybud]

Lesson learned on this one. I'm not helping anybody search for their ball until I get to mine and ID it. If they burn the 3 min while that happens, then so be it. I think the OP got screwed. Glad it didn't affect the match in the end. And his pro has no clue one way or another.

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, antip said:

This it the classic debating "straw man". Two balls not found but "They decide to search for A's ball first, even though....". It has no relevance to this thread and no authority under the Rules. I would treat this as breach of 5.6, unreasonable delay, consistent with the second last bullet point of 5.6a/1.

This is hardly a straw man. It is a different question that has been discussed in various forms in this thread. And if you want to assess pace of play penalties based on the information presented (which is all you have), I just don't know how to respond to that. Note that you are the guy espousing not making assumptions. 

 

In the meantime I assume that your answer to my question is "no", so thank you for that. 

 

dave

[antip]

57 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

This is hardly a straw man. It is a different question that has been discussed in various forms in this thread. And if you want to assess pace of play penalties based on the information presented (which is all you have), I just don't know how to respond to that. Note that you are the guy espousing not making assumptions. 

 

In the meantime I assume that your answer to my question is "no", so thank you for that. 

 

dave

Dave

Let me be clear - my comment above relates solely to what Mr B posted, solely that scenario - it is nothing to do with anything that you posted previously - the scope for folk to all be talking cross-purposes in a thread that has accumulated input this fast is enormous.

 

That Mr B post features: NO ball has been assumed to belong to either player so both balls are unfound and unidentified in the same area in this Mr B scenario. So in this case there is no capacity for sequential search and I don't believe there are any rules debates or concerns here - players do not have any Rules authority to search sequentially in this specific scenario. So I don't see this bearing any relationship to the discussion in this thread, which relates to a ball both found and assumed to belong to one player. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by antip

[DaveLeeNC]

5 minutes ago, antip said:

players do not have any Rules authority to search sequentially.

 

I am struggling a bit to parse what this means. Does this mean that if my cart partner's ball is lost 100 yards off the tee and my ball is 'somewhere' 300 yards off the tee, then I have to go look for my ball before I help my cart partner and the rules require this. Is that what you are saying? if not can you try again. 

 

dave

 

ps. If you want to call my post a strawman - fine with me. 

[antip]

15 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am struggling a bit to parse what this means. Does this mean that if my cart partner's ball is lost 100 yards off the tee and my ball is 'somewhere' 300 yards off the tee, then I have to go look for my ball before I help my cart partner and the rules require this. Is that what you are saying? if not can you try again. 

 

dave

 

ps. If you want to call my post a strawman - fine with me. 

See my edited previous post - it is nothing to do with your earlier question or whatever scenario you may have raised there.

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, antip said:

This it the classic debating "straw man". Two balls not found but "They decide to search for A's ball first, even though....". It has no relevance to this thread and no authority under the Rules. I would treat this as breach of 5.6, unreasonable delay, consistent with the second last bullet point of 5.6a/1.

 

But that is the answer given by USGA to Dave and I think that answer is if not completely incorrect given in haste without thinking it through. USGA specifically said the players were not obligated to identify the ball visible and I see it very differently, as do you based on your answer to my latest question.

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, antip said:

That Mr B post features: NO ball has been assumed to belong to either player ...

 Here we go again...

 

I thought it was perfectly clear that the ball visible is ASSUMED to be one of the players'. No person in their full senses would think otherwise when going forward to search balls and seeing a ball in or close to the area their balls are believed/assumed to be.

 

Well, it seems I should have written it down but in my wildest dreams I could not imagine someone could misunderstand the description.

[cassel191919]

On 3/25/2023 at 6:39 PM, 2bGood said:

 

 

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. 

 

The problem I have here is he has no idea what the rule is, so don't try and be that know it all guy. I am just glad the op didn't lose the match on a situation that not many even know the correct ruling. I will also say much more was added to the story after I made my angry comment, so give me a little bit of a break.

[Hawkeye77]

10 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am struggling a bit to parse what this means. Does this mean that if my cart partner's ball is lost 100 yards off the tee and my ball is 'somewhere' 300 yards off the tee, then I have to go look for my ball before I help my cart partner and the rules require this. Is that what you are saying? if not can you try again. 

 

dave

 

ps. If you want to call my post a strawman - fine with me. 

 

I think he edited "the no authority under the rules to search sequentially" (paraphrase) part to make it apply to the specific situation he was talking about, but maybe that was edited after you posted the above, so I think that's clearer now, but the statement was originally in the context of the hypothetical he was discussing (it was stated in a general way, yes).  

 

I think you know if the ball of the player you are riding with may be lost as you suggest and you are 200 yards ahead of him you are not required to go look for your ball before helping the other player look for his.  

[DaveLeeNC]

10 hours ago, antip said:

See my edited previous post - it is nothing to do with your earlier question or whatever scenario you may have raised there.

NO argument there - you cannot search sequentially in the "same area" (where what is 'same area' is my question). 

 

dave

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 Here we go again...

 

I thought it was perfectly clear that the ball visible is ASSUMED to be one of the players'. No person in their full senses would think otherwise when going forward to search balls and seeing a ball in or close to the area their balls are believed/assumed to be.

 

Well, it seems I should have written it down but in my wildest dreams I could not imagine someone could misunderstand the description.

LOL, so now, possibly, I qualify as someone not in their full senses.

My understanding of your words, on which my previous post was based, is these players do not have an understanding or assumption of whose ball the sighted one belongs to and they are: a) seeking to manipulate the search clock, or b) just think they are permitted to decide to search for one player's ball first. Because you said nothing about these players making a specific assumption about whose ball it is, I saw this scenario as different than that which went to the USGA, and not just in being "same area".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by antip

[DaveLeeNC]

34 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

I think he edited "the no authority under the rules to search sequentially" (paraphrase) part to make it apply to the specific situation he was talking about, but maybe that was edited after you posted the above, so I think that's clearer now, but the statement was originally in the context of the hypothetical he was discussing (it was stated in a general way, yes).  

 

I think you know if the ball of the player you are riding with may be lost as you suggest and you are 200 yards ahead of him you are not required to go look for your ball before helping the other player look for his.  

Thanks for the response. The current post from antip is much more clear to me (not saying that the original post was not clear - just that it was not clear to me). I posted the outrageous example just to demonstrate why I did not understand the statement as I originally read it.

 

BTW, a 'broad reading' of Lost/4 (similar to Lost/2, Lost/4 is for the case of two balls belonging to a single player) implies to me that areas that are something like 25 to 50 yards apart ARE the same area in the context of a search for a ball.

 

The example given in Lost/4 for not the same area is opposite sides of the fairway (and I am NOT assuming that there is another ball visible in this case - unlike the OP's case in this thread). Given no other guidance I would assume that the example that I brought up would be that a search in AreaA by B is a search for B's ball. And if you separate by a moderate amount the answer is the same (say another 50'ish yards). 

 

dave

Edited March 27, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[antip]

13 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Thanks for the response. The current post from antip is much more clear to me (not saying that the original post was not clear - just that it was not clear to me). I posted the outrageous example just to demonstrate why I did not understand the statement as I originally read it.

 

BTW, a 'broad reading' of Lost/4 (similar to Lost/2, Lost/4 is for the case of two balls belonging to a single player) implies to me that areas that are something like 25 to 50 yards apart ARE the same area in the context of a search for a ball.

 

The example given in Lost/4 for not the same area is opposite sides of the fairway (and I am NOT assuming that there is another ball visible in this case - unlike the OP's case in this thread). Given no other guidance I would assume that the example that I brought up would be that a search in AreaA by B is a search for B's ball. And if you separate by a moderate amount the answer is the same (say another 50'ish yards). 

 

dave

The clarifications for "lost" have evolved from January. The new version of Lost/2 has some new stuff (check it on the website/app if you don't have the book), and the USGA advice to Dave may have drawn on the new final bullet point in that clarification.

[davep043]

23 minutes ago, antip said:

The clarifications for "lost" have evolved from January. The new version of Lost/2 has some new stuff (check it on the website/app if you don't have the book), and the USGA advice to Dave may have drawn on the new final bullet point in that clarification.

That's certainly one potential factor in their decision, one ball was thought to be a little further into the rough.  The way I read the two responses is that the initial one (saying that Lost/2 doesn't apply) was based on the USGA's probable response if asked to make an "after the fact" ruling.  It seems to draw on the statement that both players agreed that they were only looking for a single ball, ergo they did not believe that both balls were in "close vicinity".  The USGA is not going to overrule that evaluation without some kind of evidence, and there is none provided. 

The second response is that Lost/2 certainly can apply to two different players, its not limited to a single player with two balls (original and provisional) in the same area.  The USGA respondent said that he'd be likely to start the clock on both players simultaneously, and I take that to include the provision "if he was there to see first hand."  To me this rule covers situations that can only be answered on a case-by-case basis by an on-site official.  

[DaveLeeNC]

51 minutes ago, antip said:

The clarifications for "lost" have evolved from January. The new version of Lost/2 has some new stuff (check it on the website/app if you don't have the book), and the USGA advice to Dave may have drawn on the new final bullet point in that clarification.

Posted for amusement only. I was not sure what the status of the USGA/R&A decisions book is these days. I was hoping for a pdf or something like that. Just for grins I set up a ChatGPT account and asked 'it' as shown in the attached image. Let's just say not a good start. 🙂🙂

 

dave

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[rogolf]

17 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Posted for amusement only. I was not sure what the status of the USGA/R&A decisions book is these days. I was hoping for a pdf or something like that. Just for grins I set up a ChatGPT account and asked 'it' as shown in the attached image. Let's just say not a good start. 🙂🙂

 

dave

 

 

I'm sure that you are aware that the "Decisions Book" ceased to exist after December 31, 2018?  Everything is now in the Official Guide to the Rules of Golf.

Further, Lost /4 ceased to exist after December 31, 2022.

Let's stick with the current Rules!  🙂

[Hawkeye77]

29 minutes ago, davep043 said:

That's certainly one potential factor in their decision, one ball was thought to be a little further into the rough.  The way I read the two responses is that the initial one (saying that Lost/2 doesn't apply) was based on the USGA's probable response if asked to make an "after the fact" ruling.  It seems to draw on the statement that both players agreed that they were only looking for a single ball, ergo they did not believe that both balls were in "close vicinity". 

 

I think you are reading too much into the answer?

 

It's not a natural conclusion they did not believe both balls were in "close vicinity" and the rule speaks of "same vicinity" not "close vicinity" - this seems to be wanting it both ways by interpreting the answer.  Even in the same vicinity the key elements are they assumed the visible ball to belong to one player and set off on an agreed search for the other player's ball - there was no thought or concern about another ball being lost or searched for.  So yes, their state of mind/actions/intent play into it for sure, but nothing gets to the point of the USGA having to make any assumptions about same vicinity.  

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, rogolf said:

I'm sure that you are aware that the "Decisions Book" ceased to exist after December 31, 2018?  Everything is now in the Official Guide to the Rules of Golf.

Further, Lost /4 ceased to exist after December 31, 2022.

Let's stick with the current Rules!  🙂

Thank you, @rogolf!!!!. I knew that there was not a physical book any more, but did not know if there was a book form pdf'ish file available. I also did not know that I had stumbled into the old Rules online. I am not sure why those are still here, but I guess if I had carefully read the URL I would have been tipped off. See Definitions - Interpretations (usga.org) . 

 

dave

[nsxguy]

5 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I'm sure that you are aware that the "Decisions Book" ceased to exist after December 31, 2018?  Everything is now in the Official Guide to the Rules of Golf.

Further, Lost /4 ceased to exist after December 31, 2022.

Let's stick with the current Rules!  🙂

 

Lost/4 appears to be IN the current rules.

 

Find "Definitions" and then click on "Interpretations". Lost/4 is there

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Lost/4 appears to be IN the current rules.

 

Find "Definitions" and then click on "Interpretations". Lost/4 is there

Somehow you are accessing an archived version, even the term "Interpretations" is no longer in the Rules.

[nsxguy]

11 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Somehow you are accessing an archived version, even the term "Interpretations" is no longer in the Rules.

 

That's interesting.

 

In an attempt to make sure I got the current rules, I deleted all USGA.org cookies on my MAC, and then again googled for USGA definitions, & then clicked on "Interpretations" tab.

 

Let me try again.

 

[davep043]

16 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

So yes, their state of mind/actions/intent play into it for sure, but nothing gets to the point of the USGA having to make any assumptions about same vicinity.

Facts are difficult, and when making a Ruling the official has only the words of the two players to guide him.  They didn't "make assumptions", they took the information available and made a Ruling.  As stated, the two players weren't searching the same area for two balls.  

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

The example given in Lost/4 for not the same area is opposite sides of the fairway (and I am NOT assuming that there is another ball visible in this case - unlike the OP's case in this thread). Given no other guidance I would assume that the example that I brought up would be that a search in AreaA by B is a search for B's ball. And if you separate by a moderate amount the answer is the same (say another 50'ish yards).

 

When I stated this (see quote above), I had only read the old versions of Lost/2 and Lost/4. Knowing that the old Lost/4 is gone and having read the new Lost/2, I amend my statement and two search areas that are 50 yards apart are definitely different. A slight overlap .. needs 'on the ground' judgement. 

 

dave

[rogolf]

14 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

That's interesting.

 

In an attempt to make sure I got the current rules, I deleted all USGA.org cookies on my MAC, and then again googled for USGA definitions, & then clicked on "Interpretations" tab.

 

Let me try again.

 

Why bother with google?  Go direct to usga.org

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

[nsxguy]

22 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Somehow you are accessing an archived version, even the term "Interpretations" is no longer in the Rules.

 

8 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

That's interesting.

 

In an attempt to make sure I got the current rules, I deleted all USGA.org cookies on my MAC, and then again googled for USGA definitions, & then clicked on "Interpretations" tab.

 

Let me try again.

 

 

interesting (again).

 

I seem to recall something similar when the new rules showed up in 2019. Google found, for quite a while, the old rules references.

 

Seems like similar things are happening now.

 

In this case I googled "usga definitions" and got the 2019 definitions; and went from there.

 

But when I google "usga rules", I see the differentiation of 2019/2023.

 

Guess it's time I bookmarked the 2023 Rules, and then search them, rather than just googling "usga xxxx" each time I want to see something specific.

 

Sorry about that. 👍

[nsxguy]

3 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Why bother with google?  Go direct to usga.org

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

 

Our posts "crossed".

 

I know you don't expect me to type all that out.

 

It's usually easier for me to open a new tab, type a simple query and get right to the result.

 

But in this particular case it appears Google isn't quite up to snuff (it happens occasionally) so I'll go with bookmarking the 2023 Rules and going from there.

 

Thanks

 

[nsxguy]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:47 AM, Schulzmc said:

Playing in our season long match play tournament, my opponent and I both hit our drives on the first hole. Both were on the left edge of the fairway, over a rise and not visible from the tee. I have played with this guy a lot, and know I normally outdrive him by 10-30 yds. He and I also believed his ball was a little more left than mine. As we crest the rise we see one ball in the first cut, and no other ball visible. We both assume that the visible ball is mine and begin looking for his ball in the rough short of my ball. After three minutes we do not find his ball. He is about to head back to the tee when I walk up to my ball... and realize it is his ball. I almost immediately see my ball a few yards further forward in the thick rough. 

 

Here is the question: he contends that the three minutes for searching for my ball have already elapsed. The fact that we thought we were searching for his ball is irrelevant. We knew where one ball was, and were searching for the other and did not find it within the allowed time. I contended the moment we realized my ball was the one lost the clock began on a new search for my ball. 

 

I conceded the hole and we moved on to #2. I ended up winning the match on 18 so the final result was not affected. Our pro said he could see both sides of the argument.

 

What say you all?

 

20 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Facts are difficult, and when making a Ruling the official has only the words of the two players to guide him.  They didn't "make assumptions", they took the information available and made a Ruling.  As stated, the two players weren't searching the same area for two balls.  

 

I don't remember if you posted your original question to the USGA, or the follow ups you sent them (I know you can't post verbatim their response).

 

Given the OP's description, I would suggest that the 2 players were searching in the same area.

 

Firstly, they hit over a rise in a similar direction and, although the OP "usually hits it 10-30 yards further", once the balls are out of sight, who knows where they end up ? "Same area" ? To me, of course.

 

Proof of that ? The OP finally found HIS ball (the visible one) 10 yards short of his opponent's (so much for "usually" - and in the 1st cut instead of the deep rough. So this time, clearly he wasn't 10-30 yards further and the balls ended up "a few yards" from one another.

 

I would suggest that in this case, especially not seeing the balls land, it would be logical to assume they were searching in the "same area".

 

I believe I saw the part where a player "must" identify a visible ball in asap but I don't recall reading about any penalty for NOT doing so - and even if there was a penalty involved, who would get it (as neither of them identified the ball) ?

 

Of course, had one identified the visible ball in the first place this ALL would've been avoided but no use rubbing salt into that wound - and it IS an interesting discussion. 👍

 

[Schulzmc]

29 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Proof of that ? The OP finally found HIS ball (the visible one) 10 yards short of his opponent's (so much for "usually" - and in the 1st cut instead of the deep rough. So this time, clearly he wasn't 10-30 yards further and the balls ended up "a few yards" from one another.

Actually - the visible ball turned out to be my opponent's ball, and my ball was not short of it but past it by 10-15 yds.