Korn ferry ball found not in hazard after drop..eventual DQ

[NMBob]

thank you for responses folks. 

 

 

 

[limegreengent]

The Committee are the ultimate arbitrators who “ eventually “ decide whether the player has KVC that the ball was in a penalty area when he dropped the ball.

This determination will be reached after discussing what available information is known to the player or information that he can acquire without unreasonable delay before the drop.

 

Often players and their fellow competitors will agree on certain facts - but that does not always mean that the 95% standard is reached  as this is often a misunderstood area of the rules.

 

 

In this scenario based on the Committee’s decision as reported in the thread , they have decided that the player met the KVC  standard at the time of the drop which then made the  Original ball out of play -  and it became a wrong ball when it was subsequently played.

 

This eventual KVC ruling would have required conversations with all parties concerned to establish the facts and would explain why any officials on the course would not make any definitive ruling at the time .

 

[antip]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Do we know where the OB was found? In or out of the PA?

Not explicit. I assumed PA but it may not have been. Doesn't alter its status as wrong ball but if it was found outside the PA then 17.1d(3)/2 would have no relevance and the player's correct action would have been to proceed with the dropped ball.

[Colin L]

12 hours ago, NMBob said:

 

You have assumed away the issue.  The article says you have the real info that they know the ball is not in the penalty area.   That is the whole problem .  The second they turn around and immediately see him drop, they wave at him like "what are you doing..."

 

What is required for your KVC, only the one  player thoughts or also agreement from the players in the pairing?

Bob, you do not require the agreement of anyone else in this or any other rules situation.  You proceed according to what you believe to be correct.  Sometimes, as this player found to his cost, you can be wrong.  

[Newby]

12 hours ago, NMBob said:

The article says you have the real info that they know the ball is not in the penalty area.   

There is no mention of a Penalty Area.

The original article says 

"Kozan motioned that Lyras’ original ball was not in the water and playable."

[DaveLeeNC]

22 minutes ago, Newby said:

There is no mention of a Penalty Area.

The original article says 

"Kozan motioned that Lyras’ original ball was not in the water and playable."

 

Isn't water on the course a penalty area by default? From Rule 17 Purpose:

 

 Rule 17 is a specific Rule for penalty areas, which are bodies of water or other areas defined by the Committee where a ball is often lost or unable to be played. For one penalty stroke, players may use specific relief options to play a ball from outside the penalty area.

 

Maybe I missed your point here. 

 

dave

[davep043]

Wow.  I read the first bit, have dinner, and come back to this.

Much has been made of the Known or Virtually Certain standard.  KVC is a decision made by the Player, after evaluating all information that is reasonably available at the time of the decision.  When the other Players are 100+ yards away, up by the Green, they're not reasonably available.  The Player, based on understanding his shot distances and the direction of his shot, and his knowledge of the hole, apparently decided he was Virtually Certain the ball was in the Penalty Area, and took appropriate relief.  He does NOT need to put that KVC decision to a vote, he alone is the arbiter, unless the Committee gets involved The Committee interviewed all of the players, and apparently agreed that the Player did indeed have KVC before he made the drop.

6.3b(2) says that when a Player substitutes a ball by dropping it, with the intention for it to be in play, that ball is in play.  Further, the Original Ball is no longer in play, even if found within the search period, and must NOT be played.  If the Original is not in play, if the substituted ball is in play, the Original is a Wrong Ball.  So when the player picked up his ball in play (the one he dropped), and played the Original (now Wrong) ball, he's in trouble.  Per 6.3c(1), he Player MUST correct the Wrong Ball mistake by going back and playing from the correct spot, the spot where he substituted (dropped) his ball to take Penalty Area Relief.  Since he didn't do that before teeing off on the next hole, he is DQ.

The press release is misleading, it got the Rule 6 discussion correct, but the rest is wrong.  As far as we know, he dropped in the correct place in taking PA relief.  But he picked up that correctly substituted ball and instead played out the hole with a Wrong Ball.

Assuming he HAD returned and played the Substituted Ball, he'd have been lying 5.  Tee shot, second shot into (KVC at the time) Penalty Area, 1 Penalty Stroke for 17.1 Relief, 2 PS for Wrong Ball, 1 PS for 9.4, lifting his ball in play, 1+2+1=3 PS (PA relief penalty always applies, 6.3 and 9.4 penalties with no intervening event, only the more severe is enforced).

[bluedot]

This seems relatively straightforward, and the player himself didn’t seem to have a problem with the rule; he owned up to his own error.  He put a second ball in play; after that, he just screwed up by playing the original ball, and he knew it.  
 

One thing that I don’t think has been mentioned is that if he had been uncertain of the Rules, he COULD have played out the hole with both balls after informing his fellow competitors which one he wanted to count, and then gotten a ruling; I believe that is ALWAYS an option in stroke play.  
 

I had ALL of this happen to me on the 16th hole of one of the best rounds of my life; I saw my tee shot go into a hazard on the left, then dropped where it entered, only to find my original ball outside the hazard and MUCH farther up.  (We assumed it must have hit a tree and then the cart path, but beyond our sight from the tee.). I wasn’t sure of the rule, so I played both balls out; made three with the original ball, but 6 with the dropped second ball.

I don’t like that rule, at least as it compares to a somewhat similar provisional ball situation, but it’s a pretty simple rule, really.

[Cliffy2020]

Thanks for detailed explanation davep043.  NMBob had sincere, genuine, and valid questions that helped everybody understand this ruling.

 

 

[NMBob]

Again thanks for the responses.

 

Bluedot seems to have first hand experience of what seems to have a weird penalizing more the lesser wrong scenario, outcome of the rules.  That makes me wonder, why have it that way?...  If I now understand this. 

 

The rule in 17 has someone making a penalty drop, and then if you then find the ball in the penalty area, and this new information shows you are dropped in the wrong place, you cannot play from there if you have not made a stroke.   You must take that ball and drop it in the now known proper place.   So in this case you use the new information.   This could move you closer to the hole.   But if the ball was outside the penalty area , literally one foot from the in the penalty area scenario, but now outside, and this place is farther up, no, you better go back and play from the place that is now known to actually be wrong.  You cannot use the new information.  That is basically your only option, right.     Literally, a player whose ball is found before the stroke,  outside of the hazard could wind up in a worse, wrong place than a player who hit it in the hazard whose ball is then found in the penalty area, before the stroke .   

 

Why have the rules that way?   Why not either 1 - just delete the 17 rule and say the drop is the end of it, period.   That is the end of it even if the original is found, anywhere.     Or 2 -  if you are going to use new information after the penalty drop, but before the stroke, allow an original  ball found to be played from the hazard even, and a original ball found outside the hazard to allow some invoking of 14-5b3 (ball was put in play under rule that did not apply)  that says before a stroke is made it is now determined  the drop should never have happened and you can play the original ball.  This to me, seems what would be the most fair.  Is there some way it would not work or could be abused etc.   I mean, if i was inventing the rules, I don't see how, why,  you wind up where it is today.  

 

 

[Newby]

4 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Isn't water on the course a penalty area by default? From Rule 17 Purpose:

 

 Rule 17 is a specific Rule for penalty areas, which are bodies of water or other areas defined by the Committee where a ball is often lost or unable to be played. For one penalty stroke, players may use specific relief options to play a ball from outside the penalty area.

 

Maybe I missed your point here. 

 

dave

 "Kozan motioned that Lyras’ original ball was not in the water and playable."

 

Given that a PA doesn't have to contain water and we don't know the limit of the PA, the ball may not have been in the PA. All we know from this is that it was playable, presumably on dry ground.

 

My point was that we did not have all the information. Was there anything we should have known?

 

[Mr. Bean]

15 minutes ago, Newby said:

 "Kozan motioned that Lyras’ original ball was not in the water and playable."

 

Given that a PA doesn't have to contain water and we don't know the limit of the PA, the ball may not have been in the PA. All we know from this is that it was playable, presumably on dry ground.

 

My point was that we did not have all the information. Was there anything we should have known?

 

 

The text as written seems to suggest that the ball was in a PA but playable. That is irrelevant, though, the outcome does not change.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, NMBob said:

The rule in 17 has someone making a penalty drop, and then if you then find the ball in the penalty area, and this new information shows you are dropped in the wrong place, you cannot play from there if you have not made a stroke.   You must take that ball and drop it in the now known proper place.   So in this case you use the new information.   This could move you closer to the hole.   But if the ball was outside the penalty area , literally one foot from the in the penalty area scenario, but now outside, and this place is farther up, no, you better go back and play from the place that is now known to actually be wrong.  You cannot use the new information.  That is basically your only option, right.     Literally, a player whose ball is found before the stroke,  outside of the hazard could wind up in a worse, wrong place than a player who hit it in the hazard whose ball is then found in the penalty area, before the stroke .   

Note that the Clarification to Rule 17 (Cl 17.1d(3)/2) refers you to Rule 14.5 which has to do with correction of mistakes in substituting, dropping, or placing a ball.  In general terms, 14.5 tells you that you have to keep the stuff you got right.  In the KF Tour instance, the Player had KVC that his ball was in the Penalty Area, and took proper relief for the Penalty Area.  He got that much right, he is required to keep that decision, to take relief from the Penalty Area.  He did find his Original Ball, but he didn't determine a revised point of entry into the PA, so there's nothing to correct under 17.1d(3)/2 and 14.5.  The location of his Substituted ball was done properly, he estimated the point of entry and dropped in the appropriate Relief Area, its NOT a Wrong Place as defined in the Rules.

Note also that 17.1d(3)/2 says the player MUST take Penalty Area relief, and that he MUST correct the drop location based on the new knowledge.  It doesn't say that the Player can change his mind about taking relief, that the player can now play his ball from the Penalty Area.  The only thing he can do is to change his choice of which type of relief to take, using the "new" location of the ball to determine the correct Reference Point. 

In a larger context, the rule is designed to avoid giving a player an opportunity to change his mind after he makes a decision.  There are a few other rules written this way.  For instance, a player hits a Provisional, then wants other players NOT to search for the Original Ball.  No, he chose the Provisional so he could play the Original if found, that Original remains the ball in play for a while.  A player lifts a ball from a cart path, then decides he doesn't like the relief options.  He can't change his mind and put it back, without accepting a stroke penalty.  You make a decision, in most cases you're stuck with it.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

 "Kozan motioned that Lyras’ original ball was not in the water and playable."

 

Given that a PA doesn't have to contain water and we don't know the limit of the PA, the ball may not have been in the PA. All we know from this is that it was playable, presumably on dry ground.

 

My point was that we did not have all the information. Was there anything we should have known?

 

 

I was just reacting to your statement that "there was no mention of a PA" where (to me) the mention of water was equivalent to mentioning a PA. But, as I surmised, I had missed your broader point here. 

 

dave

[antip]

9 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Isn't water on the course a penalty area by default? From Rule 17 Purpose:

 

 Rule 17 is a specific Rule for penalty areas, which are bodies of water or other areas defined by the Committee where a ball is often lost or unable to be played. For one penalty stroke, players may use specific relief options to play a ball from outside the penalty area.

 

Maybe I missed your point here. 

 

dave

Not in the water doesn't mean it is not in the penalty area. Edit: just noticed this is already answered.

Edited January 16 by antip

[antip]

5 hours ago, NMBob said:

Again thanks for the responses.

 

Bluedot seems to have first hand experience of what seems to have a weird penalizing more the lesser wrong scenario, outcome of the rules.  That makes me wonder, why have it that way?...  If I now understand this. 

 

The rule in 17 has someone making a penalty drop, and then if you then find the ball in the penalty area, and this new information shows you are dropped in the wrong place, you cannot play from there if you have not made a stroke.   You must take that ball and drop it in the now known proper place.   So in this case you use the new information.   This could move you closer to the hole.   But if the ball was outside the penalty area , literally one foot from the in the penalty area scenario, but now outside, and this place is farther up, no, you better go back and play from the place that is now known to actually be wrong.  You cannot use the new information.  That is basically your only option, right.     Literally, a player whose ball is found before the stroke,  outside of the hazard could wind up in a worse, wrong place than a player who hit it in the hazard whose ball is then found in the penalty area, before the stroke .   

 

Why have the rules that way?   Why not either 1 - just delete the 17 rule and say the drop is the end of it, period.   That is the end of it even if the original is found, anywhere.     Or 2 -  if you are going to use new information after the penalty drop, but before the stroke, allow an original  ball found to be played from the hazard even, and a original ball found outside the hazard to allow some invoking of 14-5b3 (ball was put in play under rule that did not apply)  that says before a stroke is made it is now determined  the drop should never have happened and you can play the original ball.  This to me, seems what would be the most fair.  Is there some way it would not work or could be abused etc.   I mean, if i was inventing the rules, I don't see how, why,  you wind up where it is today.  

 

 

This post misses a critical issue to understanding the rules. When you proceed under an applicable rule, and commit no error in the process, there is no going back. Period. 
The fact that you now learn more accurate information - that would have resulted in different choices if it had arrived in a timely manner - is simply irrelevant. Those other rules you are speculating about do not apply - the only continuing applicable rule is 9.1 - play the ball as it lies. 

 

Edited January 16 by antip
minor edit