Player Unable to Find His Ball Because Another Player Played It
Q.A and B hit their tee shots into the same general area. A found a ball and played it. B went forward to look for his ball and could not find it. After a few minutes, B started back to the tee to put another ball into play. On the way, he found A's ball and knew then that A had played his (B's) ball in error. What is the ruling?
A.In match play, A lost the hole (Rule 15-3a).
In stroke play, A incurred a penalty of two strokes for playing a wrong ball and must then play his own ball (Rule 15-3b). A's ball was not lost even if A and B had been searching for more than five minutes because A had not "begun to search for it (his ball)"; the searching had been for B's ball - see Definition of "Lost Ball."
On the other hand, B began to search for his ball as soon as he went forward to look for it. If less than five minutes had elapsed before B found A's ball, B should have placed a ball on the spot from which A had wrongly played his (B's) ball and continued play, without penalty - see last paragraph of Rule 15-3b. However, if five minutes had expired, B's original ball was lost and he was obliged to put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1).
Every year, something is changed in a club design. The real differences are minimal, assuming your current clubs are from within the last 10 or so years (just throwing out a random number).
However, I just got upgraded to the Ping G driver from the Ping G30, and the big change I noticed is the face of the driver has a bit more friction on the G (at least as I understand it). What it seems to do is reduce side spin, while retaining normal-ish back spin (I use the low-spin tec version). When I miss-hit a drive with my old driver vs the newer one, I see noticeably less slice or hook with the newer version.
When I go through those articles, I mostly read through the reviews of them. It gives a better idea of what might be better.
Right, but then you're just getting into however different people value different things (including money, the performance of their golf clubs, the looks of the golf clubs, the value of a name brand, etc.).
People have different values. For something like this, there's rarely any agreement on those, nor is there any "right" or "wrong" answers.
I use a set of muscle backs that could just as easily be from the 1950s as now. The tech on those isn't really improving much (though the shafts are undoubtedly much better).
We went round and round a bit on this last year, but I don't remember seeing decision 15-3b/1 mentioned. The difference between this decision and 27/6 seems to be that B's ball is found in a timely manner. The finding of the "other" ball makes it virtually certain that A's ball was moved by an outside agency (Player B). In the other thread, B's ball is never found. 27/6 allows the same kind of relief as long as the "other" ball is found within the 5-minute search limit. As I read the rules and decisions, this is a timing issue, the rules require a decision to be made within 5 minutes of beginning the search for A's ball. If the "other ball" isn't found, its presumed lost.
In a way this is somewhat similar to another discussion we had, where a player's ball apparently hit a cart path and went much further than anticipated. He searched and didn't find it at the expected distance, went back and played another tee shot for the lost ball, and eventually found the original much closer to the green. He couldn't then put the original into play and "negate" the second tee ball, as he'd already searched for 5 minutes.
I don't know if the difference in the timing of the discovery is adequate justification for the different outcomes, but that seems to me to be the defining factor. It would be interesting to get the take of some of the USGA rules experts on this, not on what the rules say, but on why they draw the distinction.