Jump to content
2024 RBC Heritage WITB photos ×

Dropped ball and original ball found right afterwards


Recommended Posts

My partner last weekend sent his drive to a penalty area to the right across a line of tall trees. He being a serious long hitter, we were sure the ball had ended up there. He couldn’t find the ball in the penalty area so he dropped another one.

 

While he was waiting for his turn to hit he spots a ball under the line of trees. It was his original ball which had been caught by a branch. 
 

He picked up the ball in the trees and continued playing with the dropped ball. Was it ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

Did he have "Knowledge or Virtual Certainty" that the ball was in the Penalty Area, that is, based in all reasonably available information was he at least 95% sure the ball was in there?  If so, the dropped ball was put in play under an applicable Rule, so it is his Ball in Play.  The Original Ball is now a Wrong Ball, even if its found within the 3-minute search window. 

 

If he couldn't be Virtually Certain the ball was in the PA, it becomes more complicated.  He's dropped a ball under a Rule that didn't apply.  If he found the Original in time, he MUST pick up the dropped ball and play the Original.  If he didn't find it in time, its Lost, and he MUST take Stroke and Distance Relief.  

 

 

Assuming he had KVC that the ball was in the penalty area, but the location of the ball indicated that his estimate of where the ball would have crossed was wrong, doesn't he have to correct the drop based on new information since he has not made a stroke at the dropped ball?

 

I jump to the below point in an old thread I started about a semi-related issue in which you and @rogolf both suggest the drop point must be corrected based on new information learned--but with a critical difference as the ball in the given example is found in a different place WITHIN a PA showing that the estimated crossing point is likely incorrect. 

 

So here's what I'm thinking, based upon the player having KVC that it crossed the edge of the PA...

  1. He has KVC that the ball is in the PA. He drops the ball under the applicable rules of relief based upon the estimated point of crossing the PA edge.
  2. The dropped ball is now in play and the original ball is out of play, no matter what, because he had KVC. 
  3. He spots the original ball outside the PA before he makes a stroke. Based on the location of the ball, it either did not cross the PA edge (caught in a tree branch perhaps?) or it crossed and kicked back out. But either way, the location of the ball means that his estimated point where it crossed the edge of the PA is not correct. 
  4. He must re-drop the dropped ball in the place that more correctly aligns where the ball would have crossed the PA edge, based on the new knowledge, to correct the drop location.
  5. Assuming he re-drops correctly, no additional penalty strokes BEYOND the original penalty stroke for the PA drop, are incurred. 

Is that correct? If not, where did I go off the rails?

 

Ping G25 10.5* w/ Diamana 'ahina 70 x5ct stiff (set -0.5 to 10*)

Sub70 Pro Tour 5w w/ Aldila NV NXT 85 stiff

Wishon EQ1-NX 4h, 5i-GW single-length built to 37.5" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 286 52/10, 286 56/12, and JB 60/6 wedges, black, built to 36.75" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 Sycamore Mallet putter @ 36.5" with Winn midsize pistol grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Assuming he had KVC that the ball was in the penalty area, but the location of the ball indicated that his estimate of where the ball would have crossed was wrong, doesn't he have to correct the drop based on new information since he has not made a stroke at the dropped ball?

 

I jump to the below point in an old thread I started about a semi-related issue in which you and @rogolf both suggest the drop point must be corrected based on new information learned--but with a critical difference as the ball in the given example is found in a different place WITHIN a PA showing that the estimated crossing point is likely incorrect. 

 

So here's what I'm thinking, based upon the player having KVC that it crossed the edge of the PA...

  1. He has KVC that the ball is in the PA. He drops the ball under the applicable rules of relief based upon the estimated point of crossing the PA edge.
  2. The dropped ball is now in play and the original ball is out of play, no matter what, because he had KVC. 
  3. He spots the original ball outside the PA before he makes a stroke. Based on the location of the ball, it either did not cross the PA edge (caught in a tree branch perhaps?) or it crossed and kicked back out. But either way, the location of the ball means that his estimated point where it crossed the edge of the PA is not correct. 
  4. He must re-drop the dropped ball in the place that more correctly aligns where the ball would have crossed the PA edge, based on the new knowledge, to correct the drop location.
  5. Assuming he re-drops correctly, no additional penalty strokes BEYOND the original penalty stroke for the PA drop, are incurred. 

Is that correct? If not, where did I go off the rails?

 

The difference in this case, he found the ball outside of the PA, he didn't learn of a "corrected" reference point, a corrected location where it crossed the PA line.  Consequently, there's no need to correct the drop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, davep043 said:

The difference in this case, he found the ball outside of the PA, he didn't learn of a "corrected" reference point, a corrected location where it crossed the PA line.  Consequently, there's no need to correct the drop.

 

So... Devil's Advocate here... 

 

Let's say that the estimated point of crossing that he used for the drop was 40 yards closer to the hole than where the ball was found outside the PA. He can just keep the same drop point? 

 

Or does this potentially impugn KVC because if he didn't know the estimated point of crossing within a 40-yard margin it would be tough to say he actually had KVC? 

Ping G25 10.5* w/ Diamana 'ahina 70 x5ct stiff (set -0.5 to 10*)

Sub70 Pro Tour 5w w/ Aldila NV NXT 85 stiff

Wishon EQ1-NX 4h, 5i-GW single-length built to 37.5" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 286 52/10, 286 56/12, and JB 60/6 wedges, black, built to 36.75" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 Sycamore Mallet putter @ 36.5" with Winn midsize pistol grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

So... Devil's Advocate here... 

 

Let's say that the estimated point of crossing that he used for the drop was 40 yards closer to the hole than where the ball was found outside the PA. He can just keep the same drop point? 

 

Or does this potentially impugn KVC because if he didn't know the estimated point of crossing within a 40-yard margin it would be tough to say he actually had KVC? 

If it is KVC that the ball is in the penalty area (note that this is not solely the player's decision or reasonable estimate, but is based on the facts and available information), but the spot where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty is not known, the player needs to use his reasonable judgement to estimate that spot and proceed accordingly.  If more valid information about that spot becomes available before the player makes a stroke at the dropped ball, the player must use that valid information to change his relief area.  However, the information needs to valid, not mere speculation.  In the Clarification, another player actually saw where the original ball last crossed and finding the ball in that vicinity provided the valid/concrete information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

So... Devil's Advocate here... 

 

Let's say that the estimated point of crossing that he used for the drop was 40 yards closer to the hole than where the ball was found outside the PA. He can just keep the same drop point? 

 

 

No, he cannot.

 

He is bound to the drop but not to the spot. Thus he needs to make a new drop to correct location but he CANNOT continue with the original ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Or does this potentially impugn KVC because if he didn't know the estimated point of crossing within a 40-yard margin it would be tough to say he actually had KVC? 

Knowledge or Virtual Certainty is determined based on information available at the time of the decision.  Without being there, and possibly talking to the player, we can't make any kind of evaluation as to whether he was legitimately entitled to Penalty Area relief, or whether the ball was Lost.  Its important to note that the definition of KVC specifically allows for the possibility that the decision is wrong. 

Finding out that the ball wasn't in the Penalty Area might be reason for an official to discuss things with the Player, but the critical information is what the player knew at the time he decided to drop a ball, including what he saw his ball do (how well did he strike it, did it appear to carry the trees, did he see or hear it hit anything?), the player's knowledge of his own game (does he routinely carry over the trees?), and the player's knowledge of the golf course (is the PA clearly within range of the shot that he hit?).  The information would include knowledge or observations from the members of his group as well, all information readily available.  He might say he wasn't sure, but thought it was "probably in the water", which wouldn't be certain enough to get the favorable PA drop.  He might say he saw it clear the trees and splash, which could probably be certain enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

So... Devil's Advocate here... 

 

Let's say that the estimated point of crossing that he used for the drop was 40 yards closer to the hole than where the ball was found outside the PA. He can just keep the same drop point? 

 

Or does this potentially impugn KVC because if he didn't know the estimated point of crossing within a 40-yard margin it would be tough to say he actually had KVC? 

Here's a view on the issue from a USGA person:  When a player proceeds under KVC and the player's original ball is found outside the penalty area before the dropped substituted ball is played, THERE IS NO VALID CORRECTION to make.

 

And here's some earlier history:

 

26-1/3.5
Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule with Knowledge or
Virtual Certainty; Original Ball Then Found
Q. A player’s ball is struck towards a water hazard. It is known or virtually
certain that the player’s ball is in the water hazard, and he drops a ball under
Rule 26-1b. Before he plays the dropped ball, his original ball is found within
the five-minute search period. What is the ruling?
rule 26 418
DOTRO16 pages v7s01.indd 418 17/08/2015 12:29
A. As it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the water hazard
when the player put the substituted ball into play, that ball was correctly
substituted and he may not play the original ball.
If the original ball was found in the water hazard and this discovery
affects the reference point for proceeding under Rule 26-1b, resulting in
the substituted ball having been dropped in a wrong place, the player must
correct the error under Rule 20-6. The player must proceed in accordance
with any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 with respect to the
correct reference point (see Decisions 20-6/2 and 26-1/16). Otherwise, Rule
20-6 does not apply and the player must continue play with the dropped ball.
In either case, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 26-1.
In the unlikely event that the original ball was found outside the water
hazard, the player must continue with the dropped ball under penalty of one
stroke (Rule 26-1).

Edited by antip
added old Decision
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antip said:

Here's a view on the issue from a USGA person:  When a player proceeds under KVC and the player's original ball is found outside the penalty area before the dropped substituted ball is played, THERE IS NO VALID CORRECTION to make.

 

And here's some earlier history:

 

26-1/3.5 Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule with Knowledge or
Virtual Certainty; Original Ball Then Found

And the Mapping Summary says 'No Change' and cross refers to

17.1d(3)/2 – Player Drops Ball Based on Estimate of Where the Ball Last Crossed Edge of Penalty Area That Turns Out to Be the Wrong Point

 

Edited by Newby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antip said:

Here's a view on the issue from a USGA person:  When a player proceeds under KVC and the player's original ball is found outside the penalty area before the dropped substituted ball is played, THERE IS NO VALID CORRECTION to make.

 

And here's some earlier history:

 

26-1/3.5
Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule with Knowledge or
Virtual Certainty; Original Ball Then Found
Q. A player’s ball is struck towards a water hazard. It is known or virtually
certain that the player’s ball is in the water hazard, and he drops a ball under
Rule 26-1b. Before he plays the dropped ball, his original ball is found within
the five-minute search period. What is the ruling?
rule 26 418
DOTRO16 pages v7s01.indd 418 17/08/2015 12:29
A. As it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the water hazard
when the player put the substituted ball into play, that ball was correctly
substituted and he may not play the original ball.
If the original ball was found in the water hazard and this discovery
affects the reference point for proceeding under Rule 26-1b, resulting in
the substituted ball having been dropped in a wrong place, the player must
correct the error under Rule 20-6. The player must proceed in accordance
with any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 with respect to the
correct reference point (see Decisions 20-6/2 and 26-1/16). Otherwise, Rule
20-6 does not apply and the player must continue play with the dropped ball.
In either case, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 26-1.
In the unlikely event that the original ball was found outside the water
hazard, the player must continue with the dropped ball under penalty of one
stroke (Rule 26-1).

 

Thank you. It's a bit odd, but good to know. Player continues with dropped ball in original drop location if the ball is found outside the PA, with only the original penalty stroke and none additional. 

 

Ping G25 10.5* w/ Diamana 'ahina 70 x5ct stiff (set -0.5 to 10*)

Sub70 Pro Tour 5w w/ Aldila NV NXT 85 stiff

Wishon EQ1-NX 4h, 5i-GW single-length built to 37.5" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 286 52/10, 286 56/12, and JB 60/6 wedges, black, built to 36.75" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 Sycamore Mallet putter @ 36.5" with Winn midsize pistol grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Thank you. It's a bit odd, but good to know. Player continues with dropped ball in original drop location if the ball is found outside the PA, with only the original penalty stroke and none additional. 

 

 

It is not odd, quite on the contrary.

 

When a player puts a ball in play as per the Rules that ball is in play. Period. Simple and very much logical.

 

As the drop location based on KVC was correct there is no need to change it. Finding the original ball afterwards outside the PA does not alter anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It is not odd, quite on the contrary.

 

When a player puts a ball in play as per the Rules that ball is in play. Period. Simple and very much logical.

 

As the drop location based on KVC was correct there is no need to change it. Finding the original ball afterwards outside the PA does not alter anything.

 

I suppose the only reason I find it odd is that if the ball is found in the PA, and the location means that the crossing point used as reference for the first drop was obviously wrong based upon this new information, the player is required to correct it before taking a stroke at the ball. In this case despite the player having KVC, there is a redrop. 

 

In the point where the ball is outside the PA, it may reveal that the player's estimate of the crossing point used as reference for the first drop is also obviously wrong, but there is no redrop. 

 

In both cases the drop location is based on KVC, but in one case there is a redrop based on new information and in the other there is not. 

 

However, I think the issue here is that if the ball is outside the PA, then it means you cannot know or estimate where it crossed the edge of the PA, because it never crossed the edge of the PA (or perhaps bounced out of it depending on the situation, but that's equivalent because it's not in there). So if it's found outside the PA, there by definition *IS* no crossing point, therefore you can't redrop based on a nonexistent point. You have to use the original drop even if it's obviously not where the ball would have crossed if it were in the PA, even if it's closer to the hole than where the original ball was found and provides an advantage, etc. 

Ping G25 10.5* w/ Diamana 'ahina 70 x5ct stiff (set -0.5 to 10*)

Sub70 Pro Tour 5w w/ Aldila NV NXT 85 stiff

Wishon EQ1-NX 4h, 5i-GW single-length built to 37.5" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 286 52/10, 286 56/12, and JB 60/6 wedges, black, built to 36.75" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 Sycamore Mallet putter @ 36.5" with Winn midsize pistol grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I suppose the only reason I find it odd is that if the ball is found in the PA, and the location means that the crossing point used as reference for the first drop was obviously wrong based upon this new information, the player is required to correct it before taking a stroke at the ball. In this case despite the player having KVC, there is a redrop. 

 

In the point where the ball is outside the PA, it may reveal that the player's estimate of the crossing point used as reference for the first drop is also obviously wrong, but there is no redrop. 

 

In both cases the drop location is based on KVC, but in one case there is a redrop based on new information and in the other there is not.  

 

If the original ball is found outside the Penalty Area, where would you re-drop as there is no reference point at all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If the original ball is found outside the Penalty Area, where would you re-drop as there is no reference point at all?

 

That's exactly the issue I highlighted in the text you omitted from the quote. 

Ping G25 10.5* w/ Diamana 'ahina 70 x5ct stiff (set -0.5 to 10*)

Sub70 Pro Tour 5w w/ Aldila NV NXT 85 stiff

Wishon EQ1-NX 4h, 5i-GW single-length built to 37.5" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 286 52/10, 286 56/12, and JB 60/6 wedges, black, built to 36.75" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 Sycamore Mallet putter @ 36.5" with Winn midsize pistol grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant base the RP off where you find the ball in the penalty area.  For all you know, the ball bounced forward, backwards or sideways off a turtle.

  • Haha 2

SIM 2 Max 9.0 turned 7.0
TM Sim2 Titaniu, 13.5
TM RBZ 19* hybrid

TM RBZ 22* hybrid
Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-PW
Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
Vokey SM7 58* M Grind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

You cant base the RP off where you find the ball in the penalty area.  For all you know, the ball bounced forward, backwards or sideways off a turtle.

While it's not conclusive, it's additional information, it should factor into a player's reasonable judgement.  17.1d(2)/2 says you must take it into account if you find the original ball in the Penalty Area before playing a ball dropped for Penalty Area relief.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2024 at 3:19 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

In both cases the drop location is based on KVC, but in one case there is a redrop based on new information and in the other there is not. 

No, the Rule under which a drop is made is based on KVC.  The actual location of the drop is based on the players reasonable judgement, per Rule 1.3b(2).  The "data collection" process for KVC ends when a 3-minute search has expired, or a ball is substituted under a Rule which applies.  The data collection for reasonable judgement of the location of the Reference Point continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, davep043 said:

While it's not conclusive, it's additional information, it should factor into a player's reasonable judgement.  17.1d(2)/2 says you must take it into account if you find the original ball in the Penalty Area before playing a ball dropped for Penalty Area relief.

 

Right. And what I found odd is that you can't take that additional information into account if found outside the PA. It's not a lost ball because the player had KVC it was in the PA but at the same time the existence of the ball and its now known final testing place cannot provide additional information to be considered for RP.

 

But as I mentioned, I think the difficult thing is that you're trying to find a RP based on the place a ball crossed the PA edge, which is impossible if the ball isn't in the PA to begin with.

 

But it still seems like if the ball is found outside the PA 40 yards nearer to or further from the hole, the RP is likely inaccurate but cannot be changed. But if in the PA 40 yards in either direction, it can. 

Ping G25 10.5* w/ Diamana 'ahina 70 x5ct stiff (set -0.5 to 10*)

Sub70 Pro Tour 5w w/ Aldila NV NXT 85 stiff

Wishon EQ1-NX 4h, 5i-GW single-length built to 37.5" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 286 52/10, 286 56/12, and JB 60/6 wedges, black, built to 36.75" w/ Nippon Modus3 120 stiff

Sub70 Sycamore Mallet putter @ 36.5" with Winn midsize pistol grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But it still seems like if the ball is found outside the PA 40 yards nearer to or further from the hole, the RP is likely inaccurate but cannot be changed.

If you find a ball outside of the PA, you have gained NO information concerning where it crossed the PA limit, because it never DID cross the PA limit.  Yes, its information, but it doesn't apply to the specific question, it doesn't define where the ball crossed the line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, we had this happen YESTERDAY on the 18th hole of a tournament round. Hard dogleg left, blind tee shot., hazard on the left.

 

One  of my fellow competitors, playing a yellow Callaway “soccer” ball, crushed his tee shot VERY close to the trees on the corner of the dogleg/hazard.  When we got to the general vicinity, we couldn’t find the ball, so he went down in the hazard to look, and found, unbelievably enough, a yellow Callaway soccer ball.  
 

Assuming it was his original ball, he proceeded to measure two club lengths from the margin of the hazard and drop the found ball.  He was waiting his turn to play, at which point while looking for MY ball, I found his original ball in the middle of the fairway about 70 yards farther down. I yelled back to him not to hit, and we went from there.

 

I hope we got it right; we decided that there was NOT KVC on the original ball being in the hazard; he only thought it was because he found an identical AND somewhat unusual ball there.  He picked up the dropped ball and played the original.  
 

BTW, he won the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

Oddly enough, we had this happen YESTERDAY on the 18th hole of a tournament round. Hard dogleg left, blind tee shot., hazard on the left.

 

One  of my fellow competitors, playing a yellow Callaway “soccer” ball, crushed his tee shot VERY close to the trees on the corner of the dogleg/hazard.  When we got to the general vicinity, we couldn’t find the ball, so he went down in the hazard to look, and found, unbelievably enough, a yellow Callaway soccer ball.  
 

Assuming it was his original ball, he proceeded to measure two club lengths from the margin of the hazard and drop the found ball.  He was waiting his turn to play, at which point while looking for MY ball, I found his original ball in the middle of the fairway about 70 yards farther down. I yelled back to him not to hit, and we went from there.

 

I hope we got it right; we decided that there was NOT KVC on the original ball being in the hazard; he only thought it was because he found an identical AND somewhat unusual ball there.  He picked up the dropped ball and played the original.  
 

BTW, he won the tournament.

 

A few questions:

 

1. How did he know the unusual ball you found in the middle of the fairway was his and not the unusual ball he found in the hazard? Had he marked his ball somehow? Were the numbers different? The fact that he did not notice the ball in the hazard was NOT his ball, even before you found the other one, raises a red flag.

2. Did you find that ball within the three minutes from when he began the search for his ball? If not it doesn’t matter if he could positively identify it as his ball. It’s a lost ball and he goes back to the tee.

3. Are you confident he did not drop a second ball at the hazard? I can imagine someone doing that to avoid stroke and distance, and “finding” his ball there did give him an advantage. The fact that the balls were so unique would raise doubts for me.

 

In short, I’m thinking you all may have proceeded incorrectly here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

 

A few questions:

 

1. How did he know the unusual ball you found in the middle of the fairway was his and not the unusual ball he found in the hazard? Had he marked his ball somehow? Were the numbers different? The fact that he did not notice the ball in the hazard was NOT his ball, even before you found the other one, raises a red flag.

2. Did you find that ball within the three minutes from when he began the search for his ball? If not it doesn’t matter if he could positively identify it as his ball. It’s a lost ball and he goes back to the tee.

3. Are you confident he did not drop a second ball at the hazard? I can imagine someone doing that to avoid stroke and distance, and “finding” his ball there did give him an advantage. The fact that the balls were so unique would raise doubts for me.

 

In short, I’m thinking you all may have proceeded incorrectly here.

1. He didn't bother to check the found ball, I assume because it was so unusual.  The ball in the fairway was definitely his orginal ball; he knew the number and had underlined it.

2. It was less than 3 minutes until I found his original ball; I was on a different part of the hole looking for my ball and found his original ball.

3. I think you are more or less implying that he might have been attempting to cheat, and I think I can assure you that isn't the case here.  The other three guys were with him the entire time; I was the only one who wasn't.  I've known him for years, and he is NOT that guy anyway; retired NYFD captain who was a hero on 9/11 and has still has back and lung issues from that.  His perspective on life, much less his golf score, is pretty remarkable.

 

I understand your questions, but I think we got it right.  All four of us play a LOT of tournament golf, and we discussed it before he played his second shot to make sure we were getting it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I think you are more or less implying that he might have been attempting to cheat, and I think I can assure you that isn't the case here.  The other three guys were with him the entire time; I was the only one who wasn't.  I've known him for years, and he is NOT that guy anyway; retired NYFD captain who was a hero on 9/11 and has still has back and lung issues from that.  His perspective on life, much less his golf score, is pretty remarkable.

 

Sorry - I didn't mean to question his character. You obviously know him and trust him. If he had been a random competitor whom no one knew my concern might have been worth considering.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

Oddly enough, we had this happen YESTERDAY on the 18th hole of a tournament round. Hard dogleg left, blind tee shot., hazard on the left.

 

One  of my fellow competitors, playing a yellow Callaway “soccer” ball, crushed his tee shot VERY close to the trees on the corner of the dogleg/hazard.  When we got to the general vicinity, we couldn’t find the ball, so he went down in the hazard to look, and found, unbelievably enough, a yellow Callaway soccer ball.  
 

Assuming it was his original ball, he proceeded to measure two club lengths from the margin of the hazard and drop the found ball.  He was waiting his turn to play, at which point while looking for MY ball, I found his original ball in the middle of the fairway about 70 yards farther down. I yelled back to him not to hit, and we went from there.

 

I hope we got it right; we decided that there was NOT KVC on the original ball being in the hazard; he only thought it was because he found an identical AND somewhat unusual ball there.  He picked up the dropped ball and played the original.  
 

BTW, he won the tournament.

 

Hasn't it been determined that once a player takes penalty relief, he's committed - whether his original is found or not ? :classic_blink:

  • Like 1

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Hasn't it been determined that once a player takes penalty relief, he's committed - whether his original is found or not ? :classic_blink:

 

No.

 

If the ball dropped has been dropped according to an applicable Rule then and ONLY then the dropped ball is the ball in play. As eg. in the OP case, if there was NO KVC then dropping a ball 2 cl's as per the Penalty Area Rule is not allowed and the player MUST correct their error by proceeding according to the Rules.

 

Edited by Mr. Bean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

Oddly enough, we had this happen YESTERDAY on the 18th hole of a tournament round. Hard dogleg left, blind tee shot., hazard on the left.

 

One  of my fellow competitors, playing a yellow Callaway “soccer” ball, crushed his tee shot VERY close to the trees on the corner of the dogleg/hazard.  When we got to the general vicinity, we couldn’t find the ball, so he went down in the hazard to look, and found, unbelievably enough, a yellow Callaway soccer ball.  
 

Assuming it was his original ball, he proceeded to measure two club lengths from the margin of the hazard and drop the found ball.  He was waiting his turn to play, at which point while looking for MY ball, I found his original ball in the middle of the fairway about 70 yards farther down. I yelled back to him not to hit, and we went from there.

 

I hope we got it right; we decided that there was NOT KVC on the original ball being in the hazard; he only thought it was because he found an identical AND somewhat unusual ball there.  He picked up the dropped ball and played the original.  
 

BTW, he won the tournament.

 

To me this sounds very much like KVC and the original ball should not have been played. Then again, I was not there to see what really happened.

 

"crushed his tee shot VERY close to the trees on the corner of the dogleg/hazard"

 

"Very close" hints towards the assumption that the ball in question should have been found close to the PA or in it, otherwise it would have been KVC that the ball had been lost in the PA.

 

Well, congrats to the winner.

 

EDIT: One additional thing. If the player did NOT believe he had KVC his ball was in the PA, why did he make the drop instead of continuing to search for his ball?

 

Sounds like KVC to me...

 

 

Edited by Mr. Bean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

To me this sounds very much like KVC and the original ball should not have been played. Then again, I was not there to see what really happened.

 

"crushed his tee shot VERY close to the trees on the corner of the dogleg/hazard"

 

"Very close" hints towards the assumption that the ball in question should have been found close to the PA or in it, otherwise it would have been KVC that the ball had been lost in the PA.

 

Well, congrats to the winner.

 

EDIT: One additional thing. If the player did NOT believe he had KVC his ball was in the PA, why did he make the drop instead of continuing to search for his ball?

 

Sounds like KVC to me...

 

 

 

It seems to me, as apparently to you as well, that this latest (bluedot) player HAS "established KVC" in a penalty area.

 

And, WITH KVC, the player then takes his penalty drop. EVEN IF after the drop the original ball is found, the dropped ball is now the ball in play, yes ?

 

Alternately, if the player does NOT have KVC, what then ? They look for the original for 3 minutes and, if not found, lost ball.

 

Aren't those the only 2 possibilities UNLESS the original is found before the PA drop ?

 

So when does "KVC" become the "reality" ? As it seems that is the crux of the issue - KVC - take penalty relief. No KVC - lost ball. Is that correct ?

 

Note - in this latest incident, bluedot seemed to avoid the term KVC, but, like yourself, it certainly does sound to me like KVC,,,,,, especially since he found the "same" ball in the PA and immediately took his drop. Why he didn't attempt to identify his ball properly once he picked it up is beyond me but,,,,,,,,,, c'est la vie. Dunno1.gif

 

So, in this case, WITH "KVC" (which turned out to be wrong), shouldn't the player have proceeded with the dropped ball ? The found ball in the fairway is no longer relevant. Or is it ?

 

So didn't the player play a wrong ball, the 1 found in the fairway ? And wouldn't it be up to the Committee, after the fact, to decide whether it should be a DQ or a 2-stroke penalty ?

 

 

 

 

Edited by nsxguy

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 RBC Heritage - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #1
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Justin Thomas - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Rose - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Chandler Phillips - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Nick Dunlap - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Thomas Detry - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Austin Eckroat - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Wyndham Clark's Odyssey putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      JT's new Cameron putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Thomas testing new Titleist 2 wood - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Cameron putters - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Odyssey putter with triple track alignment aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Scotty Cameron The Blk Box putting alignment aid/training aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
       
      • 0 replies
    • 2024 Masters - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Huge shoutout to our member Stinger2irons for taking and posting photos from Augusta
       
       
      Tuesday
       
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 1
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 2
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 3
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 4
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 5
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 6
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 7
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 8
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 9
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 10
       
       
       
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 14 replies
    • Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 92 replies
    • 2024 Valero Texas Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Monday #1
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Tuesday #1
       
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Paul Barjon - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joe Sullivan - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Wilson Furr - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Willman - SoTex PGA Section Champ - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Jimmy Stanger - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rickie Fowler - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Harrison Endycott - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Vince Whaley - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Kevin Chappell - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Christian Bezuidenhout - WITB (mini) - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Scott Gutschewski - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Michael S. Kim WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Taylor with new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Swag cover - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Davis Riley's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Josh Teater's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hzrdus T1100 is back - - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Mark Hubbard testing ported Titleist irons – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Tyson Alexander testing new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hideki Matsuyama's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Cobra putters - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joel Dahmen WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Axis 1 broomstick putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy's Trackman numbers w/ driver on the range – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 13 replies

×
×
  • Create New...