Ball plugged in the rough

[FooFader]

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.

But as we've discussed above the ball was not in its "pitch mark" because it never left the ground in the discussed case but otherwise you'd be correct

[ColinL]

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.

[Ignorant]

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.

I wonder why you did that as I was only referring to the situation at hand..?

What about D20-1/0.7:

20-1/0.7
Lifting Ball to Determine Application of Rule
Q. May a player lift his ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief
under a Rule (e.g. to determine whether his ball is in a hole made by a
burrowing animal or is embedded)?
A. In equity (Rule 1-4), if a player has reason to believe he is entitled to
relief from a condition, the player may lift his ball, without penalty, provided
he announces his intention in advance to his opponent in match play or his
marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play, marks the position of the ball
before lifting it, does not clean the ball and gives his opponent or fellowcompetitor
an opportunity to observe the lifting. (continues)

So you are saying that if there is CW under the ball touching it there is no relief as the water is not visible before lifting the ball? How does that fit to the Definition of CW:

Casual Water
“Casual water” is any temporary accumulation of water on the course that
is not in a water hazard and is visible before or after the player takes his
stance. Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either casual water or loose
impediments, at the option of the player. Manufactured ice is an obstruction.
Dew and frost are not casual water.
A ball is in casual water when it lies in or any part of it touches the casual
water .

Also note the words in the Dec 25/3 you referred to ' the pitch-mark in which the ball came to rest was filled with water. ' It does not say if the ball was lifted or not to see that the pitch-mark was filled with water.

[Rulesman]

20-10.7 would not apply as it is known that his ball is not embedded because 25-2/6 tells us so.

[rogolf]

I would submit that 20-1/0.7 is applicable - it entitles the player to lift his ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief under a Rule - in the case at hand, it would be to determine whether his ball was in casual water.

[Ignorant]

20-1/0.7 would not apply as it is known that his ball is not embedded because 25-2/6 tells us so.

I wonder where you got that? Embedding is only one of the two options mentioned in the Dec, it certainly does not cover all the possible situations where the Dec would apply.

Would you care to explain your view?

[Ignorant]

So, at this point

- Rulesman says that it is NOT allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded.

- Colin L says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded.

- Rogolf says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7

Who are we to believe here?

[FooFader]

So, at this point

- Rulesman says that it is NOT allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded.

- Colin L says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded.

- Rogolf says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7

Who are we to believe here?

Interested to see what the actual answer would be

[ColinL]

So, at this point

- Rulesman says that it is NOT allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded.

- Colin L says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded.

- Rogolf says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7

Who are we to believe here?

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 was 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.

You even quoted that and then asked me what  about D20-1/0.7!

My view is that you have no legitimate reason for  lifting the  ball: there is no water visible, therefore there is no casual water. (That's how it meets the Definition of casual water.  If you can't see it, there isn't any.

[Dormie1360]

If I understand correctly there is no visible water?

I think I'm leaning with Rulesman. I don't think you can go looking for casual water that doesn't fit the definition of casual water or D25/3.  I do see  a difference between this and D20-1/0.7.  In 20-1/0.7 the fact that the ball was there had nothing to do with whether or not the condition was there.

In our case, there is no condition......unless you dig your ball out of the ground......i.e.  digging the ball out is creating the condition.

Just MHO....could be wrong.

Edit:  Just saw Colin's response,   I think we are agreeing?

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by ColinL

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 was 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.

You even quoted that and then asked me what  about D20-1/0.7!

My view is that you have no legitimate reason for  lifting the  ball: there is no water visible, therefore there is no casual water. (That's how it meets the Definition of casual water.  If you can't see it, there isn't any.

If I read you right a player has no legitimate reason for lifting his ball if he does not already know he is entitled a relief. Well, that is not what D20-1/0.7 says, so I have to disagree with you.

What if a player's ball is plugged in the ground and another person lifts it without authority and the hole is filled up with casual water while the ball is being lifted? Is the player to replace his ball and pretend there is no CW?

[ColinL]

Yes

Just saw Colin's response,   I think we are agreeing?

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 accepted that there must be some visible evidence that there may be a condition that would allow relief.

[Asheville]

I feel that 20-1/0.7 is a powerful Decision meant to permit the player to lift the ball (employing the proper procedure) if there's any likelihood that he might be entitled to relief under a Rule.

[Rulesman]

What puzzles me is that if a ball is genuinely plugged, there is no room for any water so the ball cannot be in casual water. If there is no water on or rising to the surface when a stance is taken, where is this casual water?

[Ignorant]

What puzzles me is that if a ball is genuinely plugged, there is no room for any water so the ball cannot be in casual water. If there is no water on or rising to the surface when a stance is taken, where is this casual water?

Did you read my question in the last paragraph of my post #29? What say You?

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 pitch-mark 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?

Please help me!!!!

[Rulesman]

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

[ColinL]

I feel that 20-1/0.7 is a powerful Decision meant to permit the player to lift the ball (employing the proper procedure) if there's any likelihood that he might be entitled to relief under a Rule.

"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.

[rogolf]

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.