Need a ruling, please

[Dr_Fu_Manchu]

Player goes for the green on second shot of par 5.  Player tops the ball into a down tree blocking the green and  it's marked a ground under repair. However, the player can't find their ball as it's lodged somewhere under the downed tree.  What's the play from there?

[Kieran123]

rule 25-1 c

c. Ball in Abnormal Ground Condition Not Found

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward an abnormal ground condition is in such a condition. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition . In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1 .

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition , the player may take relief under this Rule. If he elects to do so, the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition must be determined and, for the purpose of applying this Rule, the ball is deemed to lie at this spot and the player must proceed as follows:

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_Fu_Manchu

Player goes for the green on second shot of par 5.  Player tops the ball into a down tree blocking the green and  it's marked a ground under repair. However, the player can't find their ball as it's lodged somewhere under the downed tree.  What's the play from there?

Quote:

c. Ball in Abnormal Ground Condition Not Found

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward an abnormal ground condition is in such a condition. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition . In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1 .

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition , the player may take relief under this Rule. If he elects to do so, the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition must be determined and, for the purpose of applying this Rule, the ball is deemed to lie at this spot and the player must proceed as follows:

(i) Through the Green: If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition at a spot through the green , the player may substitute another ball, without penalty, and take relief as prescribed in Rule 25-1b(i) .

25-1b(i) reads:

Quote:

(i) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green , the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the condition and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green .

What all of this means is that it must first be absolutely certain that the ball is in the ground under repair.  (If there is a possibility that it may be lost outside of the GUR, then it is just a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.)  Then you determine the point where the ball crossed into the GUR, and this is deemed the point where the ball lies for taking relief.  You then locate the nearest point not closer to the hole where you have complete relief for your lie, stance (you cannot be standing in the GUR to hit a ball outside of it when taking relief), and swing.  This is the nearest point of relief.  You then get to drop one clublength from that point, not closer to the hole and not back into a position of interference.  There is no penalty for this procedure.

[trickymicky69]

This happened to me the other day

Duffed my bunker shot into an animals burrow in the face of the bunker

Couldnt find it for a while

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What all of this means is that it must first be absolutely certain that the ball is in the ground under repair.  (If there is a possibility that it may be lost outside of the GUR, then it is just a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.)

Why asolutely certain? What happened to 'known or virtually certain' ?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Why asolutely certain? What happened to 'known or virtually certain' ?

There is nothing wrong with using layman's terms.  For most casual golfers, KVC is a foreign language, and since "absolutely certain" conveys the same message, I chose to use that in my synopsis as the rule applies to this scenario.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There is nothing wrong with using layman's terms.  For most casual golfers, KVC is a foreign language, and since "absolutely certain" conveys the same message, I chose to use that in my synopsis as the rule applies to this scenario.

No offence, but even though I understand your point I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in that.

First of all, this is not a layman's forum, this is a golf rules forum and the least we should do is to use correct terms (with a layman explanation, perhaps). This way even the 'laymen' will eventually learn the correct terms and the rules. Secondly, absolutely certain is not the same thing as 'known or virtually certain'. If it was that would be used in the Rules.

Using layman's terms leads to a chaos of terms. One example from my country is 'nearest point of relief'. Due to the translation into our language a large number of golfers believe it is 'nearest playable point'. Just today I helped two separate players to take a free drop in a competition and both of them used that particular incorrect term, and that term sits tight amongst the 'laymen'.

So I suggest we stick to the real terms, and if necessary (as often is) we explain them in layman terms.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

No offence, but even though I understand your point I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in that.

First of all, this is not a layman's forum, this is a golf rules forum and the least we should do is to use correct terms (with a layman explanation, perhaps). This way even the 'laymen' will eventually learn the correct terms and the rules. Secondly, absolutely certain is not the same thing as 'known or virtually certain'. If it was that would be used in the Rules.

Using layman's terms leads to a chaos of terms. One example from my country is 'nearest point of relief'. Due to the translation into our language a large number of golfers believe it is 'nearest playable point'. Just today I helped two separate players to take a free drop in a competition and both of them used that particular incorrect term, and that term sits tight amongst the 'laymen'.

So I suggest we stick to the real terms, and if necessary (as often is) we explain them in layman terms.

I strongly disagree.  We want to help laymen to understand the rules.  That often means using terms that people in general are more familiar with.  Don't get so locked into terminology that your explanations become obtuse.    In the above example I quoted the rule itself, then I felt that I filtered it down to it's actual real life meaning.  I don't feel that I need to be lectured about that, by you or anyone.  I've taken two 4-day USGA rules workshops and when instructing, its quite common for the experts to explain "rule speak" in a more common form.  It's fine when you are discussing the rules with those who know and understand them, but it's quite another thing when speaking to ordinary golfers who are trying to understand the procedure and don't really care what the rules terms are.  Say it in a way that conveys the meaning without simply repeating the rule itself.  Some rules are easy to grasp, others take more effort.  Help others to understand the meaning behind the rule, don't just parrot what the book says.

[Bunkerboy1]

If the player cannot find the ball, it is deemed a lost ball and he must play his next shot from the previous spot.  Penalty is equal to one shot.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I strongly disagree.  We want to help laymen to understand the rules.  That often means using terms that people in general are more familiar with.  Don't get so locked into terminology that your explanations become obtuse.    In the above example I quoted the rule itself, then I felt that I filtered it down to it's actual real life meaning.  I don't feel that I need to be lectured about that, by you or anyone.  I've taken two 4-day USGA rules workshops and when instructing, its quite common for the experts to explain "rule speak" in a more common form.  It's fine when you are discussing the rules with those who know and understand them, but it's quite another thing when speaking to ordinary golfers who are trying to understand the procedure and don't really care what the rules terms are.  Say it in a way that conveys the meaning without simply repeating the rule itself.  Some rules are easy to grasp, others take more effort.  Help others to understand the meaning behind the rule, don't just parrot what the book says.

I wonder why you got so upset? After all, what you did is you taught those laymen incorrect rules interpretations, despite of all those USGA workshops. Did they really teach you to do that? I very much doubt it.

Why do you think Rules do not use the wording 'absolutely certain' ?

It is perfectly ok (and very much necessary as well) to use wordings outside Rules to explain them but it is not ok to substitute them. That is the only reason why I picked the issue up. I have seen how easily those 'interpretations' get stuck especially when have been presented by a credible source (like you).

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Why absolutely certain? What happened to 'known or virtually certain' ?

There is nothing wrong with using layman's terms.  For most casual golfers, KVC is a foreign language, and since "absolutely certain" conveys the same message, I chose to use that in my synopsis as the rule applies to this scenario.

I greatly respect your knowledge and opinions Rick, but whether the audience is a layman/casual golfer or a rules guru, in my mind "absolutely certain" conveys something different than "virtually certain". The former implies 100% certitude, the latter something less than that.

[Zeph]

You don't have to be 100% certain, that's why they use that wording. In some situations, you cannot be 100% sure, but you if it is virtually certain, you can declare the ball in the GUR or hazard. I've hit lots of blind shots were I never found the ball or even saw exactly where it landed, but it was virtually certain it was inside a hazard, so I used the rules for a ball in a hazard.