Lost Ball?

[2bGood]

13 hours ago, cassel191919 said:

I couldn't agree more with you, the rules are extremely tough especially in the middle of a round. I think match play makes it harder, I feel like in this situation since you don't have protect the field its a play on since it was actually an honest mistake by both people. Saying that I also understand the rules are rules take, I just don't know if after 8 pages of bickering if we know the correct ruling yet lol. 

In theory match play is actually easier for those that don't know the rules. As long as you and your opponent agree on the result of a hole and you don't knowingly agree to break the rules you can go about your rounds blissfully unaware of what you are supposed to be doing.

Edited March 29, 2023 by 2bGood

[davep043]

6 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Thanks, @davep043. All that I saw was a video clip of part of 'the action'. I also had a 'only Sergio' kind of reaction (based on less info than you have) but it was more along the lines of a reasonable and knowledgeable person would have had a different conversation with the RO than what I heard from Sergio (who not not really ugly - at least in the part that I saw). 

 

dave

Oddly enough, I'll be a volunteer Rules Official for a MAPGA event at that course in just a couple weeks.  I haven't been there since they did a major renovation, I'll have to go look at the hole.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

To me it is splitting hairs.  Like many of the new rules, the player's thoughts and intent come into play, which muddies the water.  The Rule requires timely identification if it is uncertain that the ball belongs to the player searching.   In this case, both players seem certain that the visible ball belonged to A, and were certain that the only ball they needed to search for was B.  Consequently, there was no uncertainty, hence no requirement to identify it in a timely manner.  That's what I've taken from the USGA response to my follow-up questions.

To a point, I understand why the rule is written this way.  We don't want to require a player to look at every ball he sees on his walk.  That's a reason to begin the requirement only after the player starts searching, because searching means he's arrived at the area where he believes the ball might be.  We don't want to require him to identify balls that have no chance of being his ball, to identify every ball in sight, only those which he's uncertain about.   In MY opinion, the player's conclusion that the visible ball belonged to A was wrong, not backed up by anything beyond guesswork.  But its the players' certainty that the rule identifies as a factor.  

 

That (bolded) is one way of looking at it but how many times have you experienced a situation where there are a multitude of balls on the way to the search area?

 

I am simply looking at the very pragmatic side of this. Once you see a ball that COULD be yours it SHOULD be your responsibility to try to identify it EVEN THOUGH the "search has not commenced". Anything else seems very artificial to me.

[Hawkeye77]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I am simply looking at the very pragmatic side of this. Once you see a ball that COULD be yours it SHOULD be your responsibility to try to identify it EVEN THOUGH the "search has not commenced". Anything else seems very artificial to me.

 

Maybe someday they will "codify" the standard you suggest.  

[DaveLeeNC]

 

49 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I am simply looking at the very pragmatic side of this. Once you see a ball that COULD be yours it SHOULD be your responsibility to try to identify it EVEN THOUGH the "search has not commenced". Anything else seems very artificial to me.

 

50 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Maybe someday they will "codify" the standard you suggest.

 

Then we could argue about where the "Identify Area" is as surely it does not extend 200 yards down the fairway from where you are helping your partner search for his ball  😃

 

dave

[davep043]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

I am simply looking at the very pragmatic side of this. Once you see a ball that COULD be yours it SHOULD be your responsibility to try to identify it EVEN THOUGH the "search has not commenced". Anything else seems very artificial to me.

I'd use the word "arbitrary", but its one place where I think the Rules need to draw a "line", and the exact location of that line is always going to be somewhat arbitrary.  We could get into a chicken and egg discussion, if a player is looking at a ball that COULD be his, he is by definition searching.  Its common sense to me to look at every ball that could be mine, I don't want to run out of time by ignoring a my original ball for too long.   

I think the whole thread is about a rather rare situation.  If both players hadn't hit balls into that general area, the ball would have been checked and identified.  @Schulzmc says he's hit that shot many times, and its never gone in the rough, he would have checked any ball around.  His Opponent was surprised his ball was in the first cut, I guarantee he would have checked that ball in the first cut, rather than confining his search to an area 20 or 30 yards short of it.  Heck, I bet @Schulzmc will never again ignore a ball that's "probably not" his own.  

[Mr. Bean]

I discussed this issue with a referee colleague and ultimately we came to the conclusion that the scenarios described in this thread (and the USGA ruling) are very much imaginative by nature and thus virtually non-existent in real life.

 

I believe @antip put it right by saying 

 

  

On 3/27/2023 at 1:29 AM, antip said:

LOL. Very simple - this situation is never going to happen, has never happened, in my presence. 

 

I agree, neither has nor will happen in my presence. The problem will be if it happens when there is no referee present, but even then common sense would prevail, at least around here.

 

Thank you all, I am done. Happy Easter!

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

I discussed this issue with a referee colleague and ultimately we came to the conclusion that the scenarios described in this thread (and the USGA ruling) are very much imaginative by nature and thus virtually non-existent in real life.

 

I believe @antip put it right by saying 

 

  

 

I agree, neither has nor will happen in my presence. The problem will be if it happens when there is no referee present, but even then common sense would prevail, at least around here.

 

Thank you all, I am done. Happy Easter!

Not knocking the OP in any way, because it did actually happen this one time at golf camp 😀, but if I’m actually playing match play I’d want to be sure the visible ball is mine and be sure my opponent knows that’s my ball and I’d be making sure he knows it’s my ball (in a nice way) just for the strategic impact. Of course, then we’d find out it’s his and ….. oops, lol. So generally I agree this would rarely happen.  But stuff happens and maybe this situation provides some guidance for how to handle a rules issue when it arises, maybe not be so agreeable to not looking into it further on course, or may be a cautionary tale that helps someone. 

[DaveLeeNC]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

I discussed this issue with a referee colleague and ultimately we came to the conclusion that the scenarios described in this thread (and the USGA ruling) are very much imaginative by nature and thus virtually non-existent in real life.

 

There were a couple of things going on here. The OP had a very specific situation and he wanted a 'yes/no' answer. The discussion expanded a bit (I view this as inevitable and valuable) to cover issues related to but slightly beyond/different than the posted question. I posted a scenario that you characterized as bizarre. Quite frankly I had little interest in the 'yes/no' answer but was VERY interested in the thought process required to generate that answer. A response of 'so unlikely to happen that it is not worth addressing' is just a refusal to address the question. 

 

And OBVIOUSLY the primary scenario in this thread was NOT imaginary. 

 

dave

[antip]

12 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So, essentially what You are saying is that if A and B simply ignore that visible ball they are not in breach of 18.2a(1) for not promptly trying to identify that ball, even though it later proves to be one of the players' ball, is that correct?

 

No.

[rogolf]

Out of curiosity only, is there a penalty for a breach of 18.2a(1)?

Edited March 29, 2023 by rogolf

[Hawkeye77]

35 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Out of curiosity only, is there a penalty for a breach of 18,2a/1?

Is it just the consequence that the ball is deemed lost?

[Chunkitgood]

Staggering there could be such argument over a rule as clear as this one.

 

 A ball is not lost until the player or his caddy has looked for it for three minutes.  The obligation to identify a ball also does not apply unless the ball is found during that three minute period, which necessarily means after that three minute period starts, that is, after the player has started to look for his ball.

[Hawkeye77]

8 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

Staggering there could be such argument over a rule as clear as this one.

 

 A ball is not lost until the player or his caddy has looked for it for three minutes.  The obligation to identify a ball also does not apply unless the ball is found during that three minute period, which necessarily means after that three minute period starts, that is, after the player has started to look for his ball.

 

I think some got there less than 6 posts in but in fairness (and I'm no rules expert) it took reading and thinking about some of the "counter" views that were sensible with actual reference to the rules and some that were stretching just to be stretching to figure out what I thought was the answer, so always value in back and forth - never know what will flip the light switch. 

[homergolf]

There was not a lost ball so you wasted 3 minutes.  

[davep043]

9 hours ago, rogolf said:

Out of curiosity only, is there a penalty for a breach of 18.2a(1)?

 

9 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Is it just the consequence that the ball is deemed lost?

That's the way I read it, 18.2a(1) defines when a Ball is Lost.  18.2b defines the penalty, stroke and distance.

1 minute ago, homergolf said:

There was not a lost ball so you wasted 3 minutes.  

The OP's Opponent wasted 3 minutes as well as two strokes, basically, because his ball was indeed Lost after he searched for 3 minutes and didn't find and identify it.

[rogolf]

13 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Is it just the consequence that the ball is deemed lost?

A ball cannot be “deemed” lost. It’s only lost after a three minute search (definition of lost). At least that’s how I read it. 

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, rogolf said:

A ball cannot be “deemed” lost. It’s only lost after a three minute search (definition of lost). At least that’s how I read it. 

Yes, the rule deems it lost by definition.  

[davep043]

15 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Yes, the rule deems it lost by definition.  

Its nitpicky, but "deemed lost" isn't what the Rule says, the Rule says it is Lost.  Even if that Original Ball is found after 3 minutes, it is Lost, and therefore a Wrong Ball.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Its nitpicky, but "deemed lost" isn't what the Rule says, the Rule says it is Lost.  Even if that Original Ball is found after 3 minutes, it is Lost, and therefore a Wrong Ball.  

Yes, it is considered lost, means the same thing. Nothing more than the expiration of 3 minutes. 

[nsxguy]

deem - "Regard or consider in a specified way"

[Hawkeye77]

I suggest we drop the many meanings of "deem" in favor of 18 holes of golf and dinner in a grill room, otherwise it's Webster's and Roget's at 20 paces and we'll probably be at it all night - only thing I'm sure of is we can define a search area as "under D". 

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Sometimes regular English vs USGA/R&A English is confusing.  In 'regular English' something being lost means that you do not know where it is (but in the typical case you know that it is not where you expect it to be). And if you are looking for something and see something in the distance that could possibly be the thing you are looking for but you don't know - you have not yet 'found it'. I assume that this shows up in the various translations as well. 

 

dave

[rogolf]

I’m sorry to have brought this up, but “deemed” seems too close to “declared“. 

[davep043]

14 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Yes, it is considered lost, means the same thing. Nothing more than the expiration of 3 minutes. 

One thing that matters a whole lot in rules discussions is the Status of the Ball.  If you get to a Rules Workshop you may spend most of an hour discussing the Status.  Lost is a specific status, and to add additional words like considered, deemed, treated as, etc., can only serve to muddy the waters.  As with every single defined term in the Rules of Golf, the definitions used in every-day life just aren't important.  

Now, where and when are we getting together for that round of golf?

[sui generis]

And, while we're messing about with words, let's not forget the chasm between "lost" and "not found." See R16.1e, Relief for Ball Not Found but in or on Abnormal Course Condition, for example.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=16&subrulenum=1

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by sui generis

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

One thing that matters a whole lot in rules discussions is the Status of the Ball.  If you get to a Rules Workshop you may spend most of an hour discussing the Status.  Lost is a specific status, and to add additional words like considered, deemed, treated as, etc., can only serve to muddy the waters.  As with every single defined term in the Rules of Golf, the definitions used in every-day life just aren't important.  

Now, where and when are we getting together for that round of golf?

It would be fun!

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

One thing that matters a whole lot in rules discussions is the Status of the Ball.  If you get to a Rules Workshop you may spend most of an hour discussing the Status.  Lost is a specific status, and to add additional words like considered, deemed, treated as, etc., can only serve to muddy the waters.  As with every single defined term in the Rules of Golf, the definitions used in every-day life just aren't important.  

Now, where and when are we getting together for that round of golf?

Dave, maybe you can answer this (mostly motivated by curiosity) question. Take the case of a drive that lands (and is assumed to lie) in the General Area of the course. It might be light rough or it might be in some really heavy stuff (no line of sight off the tee). 

 

The player does not hit a provisional and intends to apply MLR E-5 if he cannot 'locate' (I used this English word intentionally) his ball. The moderate rough is pretty thin and he quickly gets to KVC that his ball is not in the rough (3 minutes not yet gone). 

 

He begins his E-5 process to find his drop point in the fairway when he sees a ball in the thick stuff that could be (or not) his ball. So as I understand it his ball is now found but not identified. 

 

E-5 ONLY covers balls not found or out of bounds. So he would only be allowed to apply E-5 if he were able to identify the visible ball as not his. 18.2a(1) would seem to require that he try to identify the ball. If he cannot do that  (ball in the middle of thorny bushes would be a common reason in our area) then his ball is lost (but nothing has changed its found status??). And E-5 (as I read it) does not cover this case (ball must be not found or OB). 

 

Did I get this right? Or does a found ball that cannot be identified (in a palm tree would be another common example in some areas) become not found once it becomes lost? BTW, I don't expect to run into it on the course but it seems like something that might be covered in a one hour discussion of ball status.

 

Thanks.

 

dave

[nsxguy]

19 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

E-5 ONLY covers balls not found or out of bounds. So he would only be allowed to apply E-5 if he were able to identify the visible ball as not his. 18.2a(1) would seem to require that he try to identify the ball. If he cannot do that  (ball in the middle of thorny bushes would be a common reason in our area) then his ball is lost (but nothing has changed its found status??). And E-5 (as I read it) does not cover this case (ball must be not found or OB). 

 

Did I get this right? Or does a found ball that cannot be identified (in a palm tree would be another common example in some areas) become not found once it becomes lost? BTW, I don't expect to run into it on the course but it seems like something that might be covered in a one hour discussion of ball status.

 

Thanks.

 

dave

 

Let me give this a try/guess.

 

Is there any status called "found" ? Don't see it in the definitions. I believe the ball is not deemed considered found until it's identified.

 

So the ball in the shrubs, not yet identified, has NO status (yet). IF it's identified as the player's ball, it is then the "ball in play". If it's not his ball it (again) has no status.

 

You didn't mention how far the player went using E-5, but I think, if he drops a ball using E-5 I believe that now becomes the ball in play and the original ball is now lost.

[davep043]

25 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Dave, maybe you can answer this (mostly motivated by curiosity) question. Take the case of a drive that lands (and is assumed to lie) in the General Area of the course. It might be light rough or it might be in some really heavy stuff (no line of sight off the tee). 

 

The player does not hit a provisional and intends to apply MLR E-5 if he cannot 'locate' (I used this English word intentionally) his ball. The moderate rough is pretty thin and he quickly gets to KVC that his ball is not in the rough (3 minutes not yet gone). 

 

He begins his E-5 process to find his drop point in the fairway when he sees a ball in the thick stuff that could be (or not) his ball. So as I understand it his ball is now found but not identified. 

 

E-5 ONLY covers balls not found or out of bounds. So he would only be allowed to apply E-5 if he were able to identify the visible ball as not his. 18.2a(1) would seem to require that he try to identify the ball. If he cannot do that  (ball in the middle of thorny bushes would be a common reason in our area) then his ball is lost (but nothing has changed its found status??). And E-5 (as I read it) does not cover this case (ball must be not found or OB). 

 

Did I get this right? Or does a found ball that cannot be identified (in a palm tree would be another common example in some areas) become not found once it becomes lost? BTW, I don't expect to run into it on the course but it seems like something that might be covered in a one hour discussion of ball status.

 

Thanks.

 

dave

I looked at E-5, and was a bit surprised that it uses the words "not found" as opposed to Lost.  I'm working through this as I'm writing, so I'm going over a few factors that we went through already in this thread.  The Player HAS begun his search, he hasn't found the ball where he'd be OK playing it, and begins to take relief under E-5.  Before the 3 minutes has lapsed, and before he drops his ball, he sees a ball in a difficult position, and its uncertain that the ball is (or isn't) his.  I'd say he's required under 18.2a(1) to go look at the ball, to identify it.  If he doesn't do that in a timely manner, the ball is lost, per the last sentence of that Rule.  So he dawdles, the penalty under that Rule is that the ball is lost, which is his preferred outcome anyway.  Now if he had actually dropped a ball under E-5 before the search time had elapsed (the status of THAT ball is Substituted, which is a subset of In Play), the dropped ball is In Play, the Original Ball is now a Wrong Ball (but not Lost).  

I'd look at a Player's choice not to go identify the ball located in the thorny scrub as intentionally not following the Rules, a potential 1.2a violation.  There's no specific penalty for this, although in a case of "serious misconduct" a Committee could DQ a player.  I can't imagine that situation could ever result in a DQ.

Oh, to follow up on my remark about the Workshop, I went back to my Course Outline for the December USGA/PGA Workshop.  Day 2 opened with "Status of the Ball Definitions, Rules 6.3 and 14.4 – Substituted Ball and Wrong Ball".  They generally set up the day so that more complex and important topics are discussed earlier in each day, while more straightforward rules were done later as we all got tired..

Edited March 30, 2023 by davep043