Dropped ball and original ball found right afterwards

[Colin L]

A question for  those who are still insistent that the fact that the player thought the yellow ball was his was enough to justify taking penalty area relief.   Had he played that ball as it lay in the penalty area and then discovered his own ball elsewhere, would the fact that he believed the one he played to be his own make any difference to the fact that he had played a wrong ball and incurred a penalty?

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Colin L said:

A question for  those who are still insistent that the fact that the player thought the yellow ball was his was enough to justify taking penalty area relief.   Had he played that ball as it lay in the penalty area and then discovered his own ball elsewhere, would the fact that he believed the one he played to be his own make any difference to the fact that he had played a wrong ball and incurred a penalty?

 

If it can be proven the other ball was his original ball then he has played a wrong ball.

 

In the original description by bluetot (or whatever) there was no mentioning of any markings in the original ball. Later he wrote that the player had underlined the number, that is, made an identification mark. I had missed that (a fellow referee pointed that out to me on Saturday when we met) and in my eyes that changes things. If and when there was an identification mark on his ball then he was entitled to correct the error as he had not properly identified his ball (in the PA). Had there NOT been any mark then I am of the opinion that Rule that I quoted is the key. Just as in my later example.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Firstly, NOBODY is talking about VC.

 

You continue to miss the point that VC is the lower standard, and that you have talked about how he doesn't have "virtual certainty," but that he somehow has knowledge.

 

That's like saying something costs $0.95, but the person only has a dollar, so they can't afford it.

 

He doesn't have virtual certainty, let alone "knowledge." Finding a ball similar to his is not "knowledge."

 

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

He did identify his ball to HIS satisfaction.

 

Who cares about his satisfaction? Knowledge is a factual matter, and the fact is… he didn't identify his golf ball. It's not enough for it to be to "his satisfaction."

 

What if he hit a pink ball into a penalty area and then upon finding a yellow ball said "oh I must have knocked the pink right off that ball, this is clearly my ball" and he plays it? Has he identified it to "his satisfaction"? Well, clearly, because he said so, right?

 

And yes, that's an entirely stupid extreme example, but "his" satisfaction doesn't matter.

[davep043]

Now that I'm back home from my Masters journey, I've read through.  In the original post, no ball was found.  In the @bluedot post, a stray ball was found, a ball that the player mistakenly identified as his own.  The player's sloppiness in mis-identifying the ball found doesn't give him KVC, in my opinion, its as if he didn't find any balls, or found a dozen white balls.  In either case, its possible that the Player could have Virtual Certainty that his ball was in the Penalty Area.  The player's estimate of the distance he hit the shot, the sound (or silence) of the ball hitting a tree, the slopes surrounding the PA, the thickness of the grass in the general area, and maybe more factors would have to be evaluated to reach a conclusion.  I may have missed that, but I haven't read enough information that I can say either way.  

[sui generis]

For me in bluedot's scenario, the player's (mis)identification is sufficient (R7.2) for him to proceed iaw R17. 😉

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

You continue to miss the point that VC is the lower standard, and that you have talked about how he doesn't have "virtual certainty," but that he somehow has knowledge

 

Kindly quote what I've written that leads you to believe this. I will then happily apologize for "my" mistake. 👍

 

TIA

[nsxguy]

11 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

If I hit a brand new, UNMARKED 2023 Titlest Prov1x #3 into an area such as the player involved and find the same ball, is it not mine ?

 

10 hours ago, rogolf said:

Perhaps, if you can identify it, but not always strictly by colour, brand, type and number. 

 

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

 

This is what the Rules say:

 

7.2

How to Identify Ball

A player’s ball at rest may be identified in any one of these ways:

• By the player or anyone else seeing a ball come to rest in circumstances where it is known to be the player’s ball.
• By seeing the player’s identifying mark on the ball (see Rule 6.3a), but this does not apply if an identical ball with an identical identifying mark is also found in the same area.
• By finding a ball with the same brand, model, number and condition as the player’s ball in an area where the player’s ball is expected to be, but this does not apply if an identical ball is in the same area and there is no way to know which one is the player’s ball.

 

Thank you Mr. B. That is what I thought. 👍

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

Thank you Mr. B. That is what I thought. 👍

 

Well, I would still be careful as some posters have taken a very strict stance on identifying a ball with no markings. Those posters will, if they desire to continue this thread with another multitude of posts, most likely focus on the words "expected to be" and probably say that this is not equivalent to KVC or any "fact".

 

Regardless of opinions, these are always cases where one needs to be there and they are ALWAYS judgement calls whenever the KVC steps in.

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, sui generis said:

For me in bluedot's scenario, the player's (mis)identification is sufficient (R7.2) for him to proceed iaw R17. 😉

If I read that post correctly, the player actually picked up that ball in the Penalty Area  If that's accurate, I can't agree, 7.2 offers three methods to ID your ball, two of which are (edited):

By seeing the player’s identifying mark on the ball (see Rule 6.3a),

By finding a ball with the same brand, model, number and condition as the player’s ball

He certainly didn't see the identifying mark.  And finding a ball without that mark seems to me that the found ball wasn't in the same "condition" as the player's original, which did have a mark.  That's based on my own interpretation of "condition" here.   

 

On the other hand, if he saw a "nearly identical" ball in the PA, and couldn't get close enough to ID it, that would be a factor in evaluating KVC. It wouldn't be conclusive on its own, but it might be enough to get there. 

[sui generis]

30 minutes ago, davep043 said:

That's based on my own interpretation of "condition" here.   

 

My view on "condition" has to do with the cover such as it being scratched or scraped or paint damaged or discoloured. 😉

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

My view on "condition" has to do with the cover such as it being scratched or scraped or paint damaged or discoloured. 😉

I thought as much.  And it kind of bothers me that my own interpretation allows the player to proceed under 14.5, since he dropped a ball under a rule that didn't apply.  I hate that carelessness becomes an effective defense.

[Mr. Bean]

I still would like to know who or what decides whether KVC exists if it is not the player and the members of their group + referee. Would be kind of nice to know.

[sui generis]

49 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I thought as much.  And it kind of bothers me that my own interpretation allows the player to proceed under 14.5, since he dropped a ball under a rule that didn't apply.  I hate that carelessness becomes an effective defense.

 

We're allowed to be careless or clumsy or forgetful sometimes, but not others. 🙂

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

I thought as much.  And it kind of bothers me that my own interpretation allows the player to proceed under 14.5, since he dropped a ball under a rule that didn't apply.  I hate that carelessness becomes an effective defense.

 

Yeah, that kinda bugs me too.

 

The guy does pretty much everything wrong, including misidentifying his ball, dropping outside the PA, etc.

 

OTOH, 5 fingers.  But he did stripe his tee shot right down the middle and it should've been found immediately, without any issue.

 

So I guess he ultimately got what he DID deserve, despite all the falderol 

[iacas]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Kindly quote what I've written that leads you to believe this. I will then happily apologize for "my" mistake. 👍

 

I think I conflated your insistence that he has "knowledge" (by finding a similar ball that wasn't his) with you saying (but not quoting) someone else saying that he didn't have VC, but did have K.

 

On 4/14/2024 at 9:20 PM, nsxguy said:

At the time, he picked his ball out of the water and "identified" it as his. That is KNOWLEDGE.

 

This is where you continue to be wrong: he did not have knowledge. Finding a ball does not give him knowledge, nor did he properly identify the ball.

 

It is irrelevant that he was "sure" it was his ball when he didn't properly identify it.

[nsxguy]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think I conflated your insistence that he has "knowledge" (by finding a similar ball that wasn't his) with you saying (but not quoting) someone else saying that he didn't have VC, but did have K.

 

Not quite an apology but I'll infer as much and take it.

 

 

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

This is where you continue to be wrong: he did not have knowledge. Finding a ball does not give him knowledge, nor did he properly identify the ball.

 

It is irrelevant that he was "sure" it was his ball when he didn't properly identify it.

 

I wish I had the certainty about everything you have; even when you're wrong mistaken.

 

But we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

Knowledge - "Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person ,,,,,,,,,,"

 

He picked out a ball that matched the rules requirement below.

 

"By finding a ball with the same brand, model, number and condition as the player’s ball in an area where the player’s ball is expected to be [snip]"

 

Why he didn't check for the small underline under the number, I have no idea. Perhaps he was thinking about how he'd just lost himself the tournament ? Perhaps he was just disgusted at his bad luck ?

 

Who knows ? But at the time he dropped the ball, he had knowledge and even satisfied the rule. The fact that he was ultimately proven wrong notwithstanding.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

Who knows ? But at the time he dropped the ball, he had knowledge and even satisfied the rule. The fact that he was ultimately proven wrong notwithstanding.

 

 

Well.... at the time he THOUGHT he had his own ball in hand but he failed to properly identify it. Now, IF he had not had any additional identification markings in his ball THEN his assumption (which is not knowledge) would have (maybe) satisfied Rule 7.2 and his drop would have been legitimate. I say maybe as we were not there and cannot tell where his ball was expected to be.

 

I think we have handled his one and it is time to find the lessons learned:

 

1) ALWAYS put a unique identification mark/marks on EVERY ball you use.

 

2) ALWAYS identify your ball properly before taking any kind of actions with any ball.

[nsxguy]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

I think we have handled his one and it is time to find the lessons learned:

 

1) ALWAYS put a unique identification mark/marks on EVERY ball you use.

 

2) ALWAYS identify your ball properly before taking any kind of actions with any ball.

 

I expect we ALL have examples in our lives where we learn something the hard way.

 

When I first started playing "organized" golf with my club, a member of my group and I both striped a drive in virtually the same direction down the middle of a blind fairway.

 

When we got there 2 balls were roughly 5 yards apart. We then discovered we both played the same make, model, and number ball. We were both sent back to the tee.

 

1 mistake I never made a 2nd time.

 

 

Edited April 16 by nsxguy

[iacas]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

But we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

I do not: this is not a matter of opinion.

 

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Knowledge - "Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person ,,,,,,,,,,"

 

You can't use the dictionary definition of words in the Rules of Golf: they have their own definitions.

 

Virtual certainty is 95%+. Knowledge is absolute (thus 100%). Someone seeing a ball splash in the middle of a pond counts as 100%. Seeing a ball rolling over a hill toward a pond with only relatively short grass around it is somewhere in the 95%+ realm even if you don't see it go in the water.

 

If he had found HIS ball, he'd have 100% (knowledge). He did not; he found "a" similar golf ball that he thought was his.

 

That's not knowledge regardless of how many times you insist that it is.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

Well.... at the time he THOUGHT he had his own ball in hand but he failed to properly identify it. Now, IF he had not had any additional identification markings in his ball THEN his assumption (which is not knowledge) would have (maybe) satisfied Rule 7.2 and his drop would have been legitimate. I say maybe as we were not there and cannot tell where his ball was expected to be.

 

I think we have handled his one and it is time to find the lessons learned:

 

1) ALWAYS put a unique identification mark/marks on EVERY ball you use.

 

2) ALWAYS identify your ball properly before taking any kind of actions with any ball.

 

👍🏼 Emphasis added by me.

[Newby]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

He picked out a ball that matched the rules requirement below.

 

"By finding a ball with the same brand, model, number and condition as the player’s ball in an area where the player’s ball is expected to be [snip]"

 

 I thought bluedot told us 

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.

[davep043]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

But at the time he dropped the ball, he had knowledge and even satisfied the rule.

I'm with @Newby, picking up a "similar" golf ball, and then NOT even looking for the markings can't provide knowledge or virtual certainty.  Note that the definition of KVC requires the player to use all "reasonably available information".  Its hard to argue that he did that when he ignored the (lack of) markings of the ball sitting in his hand.

[iacas]

Coincidentally, this just happened at a college conference championship. The player dropped a ball with virtual certainty the ball was in a PA, then picked up the dropped ball and played the original ball when it was found near another player's ball.

 

The player was DQed for the round as the player had dropped under an applicable rule and then played a wrong ball (the original ball). The committee called the USGA phone # for rules questions.