Player Claims Identical Marking/Ball

[Rulesman]

Yes, but what about the OP's original story, that he and his FC both played a provisional ball after having possibly played the original ball out out bounds.  The OP found his ball in bounds, while the FC's ball was clearly out.  Then when the OP went to pick up his provisional ball, the FC claimed that it was his, yet the OP was certain that the FC had hit a tree with his second ball.  The FC refused to even look or consider the possibility, and claimed that the OP's provisional was his.  The OP was able to show a bag full of balls, same brand and marked the same way, the FC was not.  Does the FC get the benefit of a grave doubt, or is he required to actually go back and look for his ball near the tree?  For the OP, it's just an abandoned provisional ball, so no effect on score.  To the FC, it would be his ball in play lying 3, but he can't actually offer any evidence that it really is his.

This would be a matter for the committee to resolve having spoken to the players and any other witnesses.

[Stretch]

I play with a guy who writes a swear word on his ball in thick black Sharpie. Can't reproduce it here but it rhymes with a particular sacrifice play in baseball to advance a runner. Very few debates over who owns that one.

[Dormie1360]

Read the opening post to get the original question, my response to which is what you quoted.  It's not as straightforward as that.

Understood, I thought we had meandered into similar but different situations.

As neither player was able to identify his ball, their balls are lost by definition.

I may have related this story before but when refereeing one day my patch involved a hole with a clear but difficult to access, stream running in front of the green. At start of play there were no balls in there. At the end there were over a dozen. When I got a ball retriever and fished them out, all except one were Titleist ProV1 with three red dots. The other had three black dots.

I think the RBs assumed that players marking their balls would realise they meant 'uniquely'.

Here's my only problem with the rules, stories, and decisions cited, along with others I looked up.  They all involve, or infer, that the players are in the same group, or the players involved did not mark their ball in anyway.  I go back to my original question.  Two players, not in the same group, play their balls to within say 5 yards of each other.  They both had marked their ball uniquely, at least as it pertains to their group.  They can not identify which ball is theirs because of identical markings.

Ruling both balls lost does not seem equitably to me, given the intent of R6-5 and R12-2.   IMHO, I don't think the rules contemplate this.  Neither player breached R6-5, and I think they followed the intent of R12-2.  How could a player be held responsible for not marking his ball uniquely from the entire field?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

As neither player was able to identify his ball, their balls are lost by definition.

I may have related this story before but when refereeing one day my patch involved a hole with a clear but difficult to access, stream running in front of the green. At start of play there were no balls in there. At the end there were over a dozen. When I got a ball retriever and fished them out, all except one were Titleist ProV1 with three red dots. The other had three black dots.

I think the RBs assumed that players marking their balls would realise they meant 'uniquely'.

Here's my only problem with the rules, stories, and decisions cited, along with others I looked up.  They all involve, or infer, that the players are in the same group, or the players involved did not mark their ball in anyway.  I go back to my original question.  Two players, not in the same group, play their balls to within say 5 yards of each other.  They both had marked their ball uniquely, at least as it pertains to their group.  They can not identify which ball is theirs because of identical markings.

Ruling both balls lost does not seem equitably to me, given the intent of R6-5 and R12-2.   IMHO, I don't think the rules contemplate this.  Neither player breached R6-5, and I think they followed the intent of R12-2.  How could a player be held responsible for not marking his ball uniquely from the entire field?

I don't see how you change the intent of the decision.  Neither player is able to identify his ball, therefore, both balls are lost.  It doesn't matter if they are different groups, or even if one of the balls is a stray ball belonging to nobody.  Just bad luck.  The guys who mark with just a dot or two are playing with fire, since that seems to be how 75% of the guys I competed against did it.

I used 3 dots for a while, then I played with someone who marked his Titleist the same way, so I started putting my initials on the ball.  When I learned about the Tin Cup stencils, I bought one in the shop at my home course.  I use a shark, and I have 3 different colored Sharpies.  I also use yellow Srixons now most of the time, so it's pretty rare to see a yellow Z-Star with a black, blue or red shark on it unless it is mine.

[David in FL]

I don't see how you change the intent of the decision.  Neither player is able to identify his ball, therefore, both balls are lost.  It doesn't matter if they are different groups, or even if one of the balls is a stray ball belonging to nobody.  Just bad luck.  The guys who mark with just a dot or two are playing with fire, since that seems to be how 75% of the guys I competed against did it.

I used 3 dots for a while, then I played with someone who marked his Titleist the same way, so I started putting my initials on the ball.  When I learned about the Tin Cup stencils, I bought one in the shop at my home course.  I use a shark, and I have 3 different colored Sharpies.  I also use yellow Srixons now most of the time, so it's pretty rare to see a yellow Z-Star with a black, blue or red shark on it unless it is mine.

Agree.  The very definition of "Lost Ball" supports that.....

Lost Ball

A ball is deemed “ lost ” if:

a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or.

The rules don't tell us how we must be able to identify our ball, but they do insist that we be able to.

[Dormie1360]

I don't see how you change the intent of the decision.  Neither player is able to identify his ball, therefore, both balls are lost.  It doesn't matter if they are different groups, or even if one of the balls is a stray ball belonging to nobody.  Just bad luck.  The guys who mark with just a dot or two are playing with fire, since that seems to be how 75% of the guys I competed against did it.

I used 3 dots for a while, then I played with someone who marked his Titleist the same way, so I started putting my initials on the ball.  When I learned about the Tin Cup stencils, I bought one in the shop at my home course.  I use a shark, and I have 3 different colored Sharpies.  I also use yellow Srixons now most of the time, so it's pretty rare to see a yellow Z-Star with a black, blue or red shark on it unless it is mine.

Ok, I'll accept that......although the pedantic side of me still isn't comfortable.

The rules don't tell us how we must be able to identify our ball, but they do insist that we be able to.

Don't know that I agree with that,  in the context of our discussion both 6-5 and 12-2 give guidance.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

The rules don't tell us how we must be able to identify our ball, but they do insist that we be able to.

Don't know that I agree with that,  in the context of our discussion both 6-5 and 12-2 give guidance.

His point is that the rules don't say that "You must mark the ball thusly", only that you must be able to identify it.  To me that makes the intent of the requirement mean that the more unique your mark, the more thoroughly you are in compliance with the rule.

[David in FL]

His point is that the rules don't say that "You must mark the ball thusly", only that you must be able to identify it.  To me that makes the intent of the requirement mean that the more unique your mark, the more thoroughly you are in compliance with the rule.

Ok, I'll accept that......although the pedantic side of me still isn't comfortable.

Don't know that I agree with that,  in the context of our discussion both 6-5 and 12-2 give guidance.

I agree that 6-5 and 12-2 give guidance in the form of one way that a player could ensure that he can identify his ball...... i.e., he should mark it.  He's not required to mark it though, as Fourputt says, the only requirement is that he be able to identify it.

As to pedantic.......I'd say it's one of the more endearing qualities of us rules guys....

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic

Definition of PEDANTIC . 1: of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant) 2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned . 3: unimaginative, pedestrian

.....yep, that about covers it!

[Dormie1360]

His point is that the rules don't say that "You must mark the ball thusly", only that you must be able to identify it.  To me that makes the intent of the requirement mean that the more unique your mark, the more thoroughly you are in compliance with the rule.

1) The player was unable to identify his ball.

Although I feel the player did everything suggested under the rules to avoid the above, and I can't say I'm convinced the decisions cited say otherwise,  in the end that doesn't change the fact that the player was unable to identify his ball.

As David suggested, I am unable to avoid the definition of a lost ball. (#1 above.)    As you mentioned, bad luck.

My balls usually have scuff marks on them, which helps in identification.

[bkuehn1952]

The USGA confirmed that when two players claim the same ball, neither is considered to have identified their ball.  As such, they are both subject to stroke & distance under the rule related to "Lost Ball".

So, make those marks unique and be sure to get to your ball and hit it before some bozo rides up and claims it is his.

[Rulesman]

The USGA confirmed that when two players claim the same ball, neither is considered to have identified their ball.  As such, they are both subject to stroke & distance under the rule related to "Lost Ball".

So, make those marks unique and be sure to get to your ball and hit it before some bozo rides up and claims it is his.

That says it all. Whether they actually followed 6-5 or 12-2 is of no matter. They have to be able to tell their ball from any other.

And what better way than putting a unique mark on it?

[Ignorant]

Isn't it interesting how extremely obvious and undisbutable things get complicated when emotions are involved? I mean, if a ball is not identified it is not identified, and yet that is regarded unfair by those who do think with their heart instead of their.... Rule Book ;-)

[Perfect Slicer]

That says it all. Whether they actually followed 6-5 or 12-2 is of no matter. They have to be able to tell their ball from any other.

And what better way than putting a unique mark on it?

But in the situation above, the OP had a unique mark, could prove it by showing all the other balls in his bag, and the opponent had no other proof than his statement. Should both parties be penalized?

[luu5]

But in the situation above, the OP had a unique mark, could prove it by showing all the other balls in his bag, and the opponent had no other proof than his statement. Should both parties be penalized?

I thought this was already ruled in favour of the player, based on evidence.

[Rulesman]

But in the situation above, the OP had a unique mark, could prove it by showing all the other balls in his bag, and the opponent had no other proof than his statement. Should both parties be penalized?

How could it be unique if all the other balls in his bag had the same mark

However, as I said before, the committee would have to make a decision on the opponent's claim based on all the evidence.

[Dormie1360]

I thought this was already ruled in favour of the player, based on evidence.

There are a couple of different scenarios being discussed.  If two players are fighting over a ball, (both players mark their balls the same way), the committee can try and decide who owns the ball, although they may not be able to.

The situation I brought up, the player's were not arguing.  They had two identically marked balls in front of them, they just didn't know who's belong to who.

In my scenario the balls are lost......I still feel bad about this. In the other, the committee can try and decide, although in the end the balls may be lost as well.

[Ignorant]

There are a couple of different scenarios being discussed.  If two players are fighting over a ball, (both players mark their balls the same way), the committee can try and decide who owns the ball, although they may not be able to.

The situation I brought up, the player's were not arguing.  They had two identically marked balls in front of them, they just didn't know who's belong to who.

What's the difference? The fact that they were arguing, disagreeing, having a different point of view or just did not know what they were supposed to do?

In both scenarios the players could not identify their own ball .

[Dormie1360]

How could it be unique if all the other balls in his bag had the same mark

However, as I said before, the committee would have to make a decision on the opponent's claim based on all the evidence.

What's the difference? The fact that they were arguing, disagreeing, having a different point of view or just did not know what they were supposed to do?

In both scenarios the players could not identify their own ball.

No, in one of the scenarios players are fighting over the ownership of a ball.  As far as the players are concerned they HAVE identified their ball.  The committee MAY be able to resolve the dispute......determine if one player actually has identified their ball. See Rulesman's post above.  If not, then yes the ruling would be 2 lost balls.

In the other example, because there was no disagreement, there was nothing for the committee to decide.  Neither player knew which ball was his.