Ball plugged in the rough

[ColinL]

Decision 20-1/0.7 permits a player to lift his ball (following the prescribed procedure) "if he has reason to believe he is entitlted to relief" (quote). If the ground is soft and mushy, the player has good reason to believe that there may be casual water present. Obviously he doesn't need to see casual water in order to believe he may be entitled to relief; seeing it around the ball or his feet guarantees that he is entitled to relief.

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?

"i f there were no evidence of a condition existing  - a ball plugged without the slightest sign of wetness around about it or his 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."

[Ignorant]

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 sign of wetness around about it or his 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."

I guess one would have at least some kind of feeling that there might be CW under the ball before lifting his ball.

[Ignorant]

There is no pitch mark, the ball never became airborne.

Are you a politician?

I am so sorry, I will change that word so you may concentrate on the question instead of an incorrect term:

Or let us take a more plausible scenario. My ball is plugged in and I wish to identify it. I inform my fc, mark the position and lift it. And voilá, the hole in the ground from which the ball was lifted from is (half)filled with water! What am I to do? Just stick it in and declare it unplayable? Chunk half of the territory with my SW to get the ball up? Sit down and cry? Ask the referee? Order a pizza?

[Rulesman]

''Player makes a swing at his ball and tops it again to such a degree that he pushes the ball downwards into the ground about 4 inches."

Why would he need to identify it ?

[Dormie1360]

Decision 20-1/0.7 permits a player to lift his ball (following the prescribed procedure) "if he has reason to believe he is entitlted to relief" (quote). If the ground is soft and mushy, the player has good reason to believe that there may be casual water present. Obviously he doesn't need to see casual water in order to believe he may be entitled to relief; seeing it around the ball or his feet guarantees that he is entitled to relief.

Hi Rogolf,

D25/1 tells us that soft, mushy earth is not casual water.  If a ball were plugged in this condition and there were no relief under 25-2, you would allow the player to lift his ball to see if casual water was under the ball?

[rogolf]

Hi Rogolf, D25/1 tells us that soft, mushy earth is not casual water.  If a ball were plugged in this condition and there were no relief under 25-2, you would allow the player to lift his ball to see if casual water was under the ball?

Yes, if the player believed his ball was in a situation where he might be entitled to relief, I would have no basis for refusing to allow the procedure outlined in Decision 20-1/0.7 If you would rule otherwise, what is your justification for doing so?

[Dormie1360]

Yes, if the player believed his ball was in a situation where he might be entitled to relief, I would have no basis for refusing to allow the procedure outlined in Decision 20-1/0.7

If you would rule otherwise, what is your justification for doing so?

My concern is in the above example the player is creating the condition by the act of lifting the ball.  He is not lifting the ball under an applicable rule. Decision 25/1 has already told us that the condition is not casual water. I still think there is a subtle difference under D20-/0.7, where the condition exists regardless if the ball is lifted or not.

I'm not saying I'm right, I just haven't heard a persuasive argument that addresses my concerns.  Is @Fourputt internet down?  He always has an opinion.

[rogolf]

My concern is in the above example the player is creating the condition by the act of lifting the ball.  He is not lifting the ball under an applicable rule. Decision 25/1 has already told us that the condition is not casual water. I still think there is a subtle difference under D20-/0.7, where the condition exists regardless if the ball is lifted or not. I'm not saying I'm right, I just haven't heard a persuasive argument that addresses my concerns.  Is @Fourputt internet down?  He always has an opinion.

I don't support that he's creating the situation - he's just lifting the ball because he believes the ball is in a situation where he is entitled to relief. I agree that soft, mushy earth isn't casual water, but that doesn't mean there can't be casual water in areas of soft, mushy earth. Look at 25/3 from a different perspective - if the player's ball had come to rest in another ball's pitch-mark and that pitch-mark was filled with water, would you grant relief? How would the player know if he wasn't permitted to lift his ball as in 20-1/0.7?

[luu5]

My concern is in the above example the player is creating the condition by the act of lifting the ball.  He is not lifting the ball under an applicable rule. Decision 25/1 has already told us that the condition is not casual water. I still think there is a subtle difference under D20-/0.7, where the condition exists regardless if the ball is lifted or not.

I'm not saying I'm right, I just haven't heard a persuasive argument that addresses my concerns.  Is @Fourputt internet down?  He always has an opinion.

In decision 25/3 the player is also creating the condition but is allowed the relief.

What about deeming ball unplayable, digging the ball up and then finding out the casual water, a'la decision 28/13?

Maybe @fourputt is on his way back to/from the mountain?

[rogolf]

In decision 25/3 the player is also creating the condition but is allowed the relief. What about deeming ball unplayable, digging the ball up and then finding out the casual water, a'la decision 28/13? Maybe @fourputt is on his way back to/from the mountain?

Let's not get side-tracked by the issue of "the player creating the situation", whatever that means. The player in 25/1 has "created" the casual water when he took his stance on soft, mushy earth where water was not visible before he took his stance.

[Dormie1360]

In decision 25/3 the player is also creating the condition but is allowed the relief.

What about deeming ball unplayable, digging the ball up and then finding out the casual water, a'la decision 28/13?

Maybe @fourputt is on his way back to/from the mountain?

In both those decisions the player is lifting under an applicable rule.  In 25/3 water is visible before he lifts so 25-1 is applicable, see my understanding of the decision below, and in 28/13 he is lifting under the Unplayable ball rule.

Let's not get side-tracked by the issue of "the player creating the situation", whatever that means. The player in 25/1 has "created" the casual water when he took his stance on soft, mushy earth where water was not visible before he took his stance.

Exactly, relief is granted because the definition of Casual Water was met by taking his stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

I don't support that he's creating the situation - he's just lifting the ball because he believes the ball is in a situation where he is entitled to relief. I agree that soft, mushy earth isn't casual water, but that doesn't mean there can't be casual water in areas of soft, mushy earth. Look at 25/3 from a different perspective - if the player's ball had come to rest in another ball's pitch-mark and that pitch-mark was filled with water, would you grant relief? How would the player know if he wasn't permitted to lift his ball as in 20-1/0.7?

In 25/3 the water is visible in the pitch mark, before the player does anything.....at least that's the way I'm reading it.  So yes he can lift under an applicable rule....25-1.   The point of 25/1 is that this condition does not meet the definition of casual water.  You are saying the player may take relief for an embedded ball in mushy earth, not otherwise allowed, because in doing so he may find water.

I do understand your point of view.

As no one else is agreeing with me ......

[rogolf]

In 25/3, it clearly states that no water was visible on the surface. The ball is in a pitch-mark. How can the player determine that there is water in the pitch-mark unless he removes the ball from the pitch-mark? Lifting the ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief is done through 20-1/0.7

[luu5]

In both those decisions the player is lifting under an applicable rule.  .... in 28/13 he is lifting under the Unplayable ball rule.

If you hit a ball four inches below surface, most likely you would take unplayable, i.e. you lift the ball, find water in the hole, casual water. Or do you mean casual water has to always be visible without any action (except taking a stance)?

[Ignorant]

''Player makes a swing at his ball and tops it again to such a degree that he pushes the ball downwards into the ground about 4 inches."

Why would he need to identify it ?

I am sensing that you are not willing to participate in the discussion. No problem.

[Dormie1360]

In 25/3, it clearly states that no water was visible on the surface. The ball is in a pitch-mark. How can the player determine that there is water in the pitch-mark unless he removes the ball from the pitch-mark? Lifting the ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief is done through 20-1/0.7

I don't read the decision that way.  Rough is used to purposely qualify the situation in that the player would not be able to lift, without some sort of visible water. The decision also makes a point that there is no visible water on the "surface"

The decision says "plugged deeply", which I think is also on purpose to imply the ball is deep enough where water can be see in the pitch mark around and above the equator of the ball while the ball still lies in the pitch mark.

[Ignorant]

What about deeming ball unplayable, digging the ball up and then finding out the casual water, a'la decision 28/13?

I guess that would be the same as in the OP, to which I commented about possible refusing to grant relief due to CW.

[Ignorant]

In 25/3 the water is visible in the pitch mark, before the player does anything.....at least that's the way I'm reading it.

Is it visible? This is the question I have asked myself many times. Also I have asked myself how can a pitch-mark be filled with water if it is filled with ball. Could it be that the pitch-mark is filled up with water because the ball was lifted? The wording in D25/3 leaves lots of room for interpretations.

And again, what if I lift my ball for identification and the pitch-mark (or whatever hole in the ground created by the ball...) fills up with CW am I entitled to relief even though that water was not visible before I lifted the ball?

[Dormie1360]

If you hit a ball four inches below surface, most likely you would take unplayable, i.e. you lift the ball, find water in the hole, casual water. Or do you mean casual water has to always be visible without any action (except taking a stance)?

The first, the player could say he was taking an unplayable and lift the ball.  If there was water in the pitch mark he could then proceed under 25.  If there was not water in the pitch mark, he would be bound by R28.

Again, to dig/pry a ball in play out of the ground without any liability, in hopes that there might be water underneath doesn't seem correct to me. You are getting into having to decide the reasonable certainty of there being water, right?  Obviously there has to be some boundaries. How would you decide this?  Seems very subjective.

To answer ignorant's post, I could see water in the hole, even with the ball still in the hole.  As far as lifting for identification, if you see water after lifting I would say relief under 25.  The initial lift was under R12 which is the player's right.  You then would have to replace, which would be in a hole filled with water, so 25 is now available.

Again, you guys could be correct.......I think the horse is dead.