Another screwy one - lost on hazard or immovable obstruction in hazard or lost ball

[turtleback]

I've been hit with another situation but thank goodness this was in a casual round not a tournament round.  But I would still like to make sure I get it right.

On a par 4 hole there is a drainage ditch that runs across the fairway about 20 yards short of the green.  It is marked with yellow stakes, but because of a water shortage it is dry.  In a couple of places, within the hazard there are PVC plastic drainage pipes.

Gary intends to lay-up but overcooks his shot.  When he and his group approach the green they do not see the ball.  The players in the group ahead (unrelated - not members) state that the ball hit within the hazard and then the ball went into one of the drainage pipes. Since the drainage pipe pitches downward under the ground Gary's ball is not recoverable.

My initial reaction is that we are certain or virtually certain, based on the witnesses, that the ball went into the hazard.  The question is, does that translate that it is lost in the hazard?  The first question is whether it is still within the margin of the hazard.  Since we don't know how far down the pipe the ball went it is at least possible that it rolled far enough so that it is no longer within the margin. The second possible issue is that the plastic pipe is artificial and therefore an immovable obstruction.  Can a ball be lost in an immovable obstruction?  I can't find anything to that effect.  Or is it more reasonable to just treat is as being interfered with by an immovable obstruction in a hazard.  The only difference between this and the lost in  hazard possibility is the correct place to drop (hmmm, where have I heard the issue come up of where to drop recently?)

I'm inclined to go with the lost in a hazard ruling, but I'd be happy to hear other opinions on this.

Thoughts?

Thanks

[VOX]

Sounds like there is reasonable evidence that the ball entered the hazard. The margin of the hazard extends upwards and downwards. Since there is no evidence that the drainpipe (or water in the pipe) carried the ball out of the hazard, I believe you should proceed under 26-1 Ball in Water Hazard. You do not get relief from immovable obstructions within a water hazard.

[Dormie1360]

Well done VOX !

24-3b/1

Ball Lost in Underground Drainpipe

Q. A player's ball goes into an underground drainpipe, but he cannot reach or identify it. What is the ruling?

A. An underground drainpipe or culvert is an obstruction. If it is known or virtually certain that the ball is in the immovable obstruction , the player may invoke Rule 24-3b . Under Rule 24-3b the ball is deemed to lie at the spot where it last crossed the outermost limits of the obstruction.

If the entrance to the underground drainpipe or culvert is in a water hazard , Rule 24-3b(iii) applies and the player is not entitled to relief without penalty and must proceed under Rule 26-1 .

If the entrance to the underground drainpipe or culvert is out of bounds and it is neither known nor virtually certain that the ball is within the boundaries of the course, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1 - see Decision 24-2b/12 .

24-3b(iii)

b . Ball in Immovable Obstruction Not Found

(iii) In a Water Hazard (including a Lateral Water Hazard) : If the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the immovable obstruction at a spot in a water hazard , the player is not entitled to relief without penalty. The player must proceed under Rule 26-1 .

[Rulesman]

There is no relief from an immovable obstruction for a ball in a water hazard.

[turtleback]

I appreciate all the replies.  26-1 it is.  When I was reading the rule on immovables I let myself be fooled by the section on bunkers, which water hazards, of course, are not.  I'll need to watch that as I go forward.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

There is no relief from an immovable obstruction for a ball in a water hazard.

And for the folks just reading this thread, notice the bold above.  Whether of not you get relief from a immovable obstruction in a water hazard depends on where the ball is, not the obstruction.  If your ball were not in the hazard, you would be able to take relief from a immovable obstruction in a water hazard, (assuming he obstruction interferes with your stance or swing).  Conversely, if your ball is in the hazard, you would not get relief from an immovable obstruction, regardless if the immovable obstruction were in the hazard or not.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by VOX

Sounds like there is reasonable evidence that the ball entered the hazard. The margin of the hazard extends upwards and downwards. Since there is no evidence that the drainpipe (or water in the pipe) carried the ball out of the hazard, I believe you should proceed under 26-1 Ball in Water Hazard.

I agree that there is "reasonable evidence that the ball entered the hazard" but continue to have an issue with the virtual certainty language.  L ets say you hit your ball into a water hazard, you saw or heard it hit a tree in the hazard but there is no evidence that the ball ricocheted out of the hazard.  Can you proceed under 26-1?

[Dormie1360]

A lot would depend on what you mean by evidence.  Is it closely mown around the hazard, so if the ball were not  in the hazard you should be able to find it?  Or is there tall grass or rough, weeds, etc. around the hazard.  Normally if a ball hits a tree in or by the hazard and there are places outside the hazard where it could ricochet to and conceivably not be found within 5 minutes I would say no virtual certainty.