or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ColinL

Out of Bounds: no choice but to play from where you played your last stroke with a 1 stroke penalty (Rule 27-1b). Water hazard: as long as you know or are certain your ball is in a water hazard (yellow stakes or line)  you have the option of playing from where you played your last stroke or dropping any distance back on a line  from the hole through where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard.  If your ball is in a lateral water hazard (red stakes or line), you...
The convention here is that the flags on the outward half are a different colour (e.g. yellow) from the flags on th inward half (e.g. red) and since generally you would expect double greens to comprise an outward hole and an inward hole, there is not problem ....... provided you don't have a senior moment and forget which way round the colours are.
Which is what I was reaching towards in feeling there has to be visible evidence that the condition might exist to allow the ball to be lifted.  With that proviso (which is as you point out written into the words "if he has reason to believe")  I'll change my  view with thanks for your clarification. Would you go along with what I said above - with one crucial change in the wording? "if there were no evidence of a condition existing  - a ball plugged without the slightest...
"If there's any likelihood"  is the kind of qualification  I was reaching towards when I said I might concede if there were other evidence for the possibility of a condition existing that would afford relief. If there were none - a ball plugged without the slightest sign of water around about it or your feet when taking  stance, I don't think a player should just be allowed to dig out his ball on the outside chance some water might appear. 
Yes  We are indeed.  But we have  Rogolf's view that the player may lift (or maybe it should be dig his ball out)  to see if there is any water in the hole because he is entitled to do so to  check if he can seek relief.   I see a strength in that argument but feel distinctly uncomfortable about it without, at the moment, being able to construct an argument.  Later maybe.   At the moment, I'm thinking that I might (just might!)  concede the argument provided it were...
Firstly, set aside my digression into an embedded ball in casual water ( I was led astray, honest. ;)  ) and concentrate on the original situation which does not involve an embedded ball.  That means set aside the reference to Decision 25/3 which is about an embedded ball and is therefore not applicable. On the question of being allowed to lift this ball out of its hole to establish if it is in casual water, where did I say the player could invoke D20-1/0.7?  What I said...
I thought the the conversation had diverted to the suggestion that you could not take relief from casual water in the rough if the ball was embedded and was responding to that.    As you rightly say, in the original question the ball was not embedded. You would not be entitled to lift the ball to see if there were water and so  only  if water were visible around the ball after it had been driven into the ground, could you decide it was in casual water.
Perhaps you should take a look at Decision 25/3 Q.A player's ball plugged deeply in short rough. No casual water was visible on the surface, but the pitch-mark in which the ball came to rest was filled with water. Was the player's ball in casual water?A.Yes.There is no suggestion  here that the fact that the ball is deeply plugged would result in relief not being allowed.  Its just not an issue.
The Exception is about interference by anything that would make a stroke impracticable.  I don't see the ground as something which is causing interference.  A couple of rocks with the ball between them could be interfering with a stroke.
 So, if your ball goes into casual water - quite possibly deeply embedded - and is not found, you can take relief but if it is visibly embedded, you can't?
New Posts  All Forums: