lost ball and dropping a ball question

[Rulesman]

The PGA Tour enacts the local rule to expand this to include through the green, which extends the relief to the rough as well.

This is one rule that I feel should be amended so that the local rule is unnecessary.  This rule is the only place in the rule book where the term "fairway" is used, but that word is never defined in the rule book, leaving it open to interpretation.  The rules usually go out of their way to eliminate such loopholes, so I find this usage to be inconsistent with their usual philosophy.  I really can't see why the governing bodies wouldn't just extend the rule to encompass the entire course outside of bunkers and water hazards.

The PGA Tour only does it to save the players getting confused (poor dears). They are notorious for not reading local rules, so the tour include in the hard card for all courses and conditions.

The R&A; don't use it in their competitions. Their view is that unless conditions are very poor, the longer grass in the non closely mown areas will prevent the ball plugging anyway. If the conditions warrant it, they use it.

[Fourputt]

My understanding - though I can't remember where I got it from - is that the USGA would have relief from an embedded ball through the green as a standard Rule but that the R&A; is resistant because of a view of the traditional nature of the game.  The option of a Local Rule is a compromise.

If anyone can help with a reference to support this, I'd appreciate it.

This has always been my assumption, but it sees awfully ticky-tack, even for the R&A.;

The PGA Tour only does it to save the players getting confused (poor dears). They are notorious for not reading local rules, so the tour include in the hard card for all courses and conditions.

The R&A; don't use it in their competitions. Their view is that unless conditions are very poor, the longer grass in the non closely mown areas will prevent the ball plugging anyway. If the conditions warrant it, they use it.

If it's so unlikely except in unusual conditions, then why worry about it?  It adds a small level of complexity to the rules where none need exist.

[Rulesman]

My understanding - though I can't remember where I got it from - is that the USGA would have relief from an embedded ball through the green as a standard Rule but that the R&A; is resistant because of a view of the traditional nature of the game.  The option of a Local Rule is a compromise.

If anyone can help with a reference to support this, I'd appreciate it.

Colin

That is my understanding but the real pressure was from the PGA (protecting their members) leaning on the USGA.

[dkolo]

May I tidy this up a bit just to be clear, because you can play a provisional even if your ball may have gone into a water hazard.  The Rule is clear: you can play a provisional ball if your ball might be lost outside a water hazard.  That implies that it could  be in the water hazard. The point is if you are not sure and there is a possibility the ball might be outside the water hazard you can play a provisional.  It is only if you know or are virtually certain that the ball is in the water hazard that you are not allowed to play a provisional.  This rule applies only to water hazards.

Thank you for the correction there.

[Rulesman]

This has always been my assumption, but it sees awfully ticky-tack, even for the R&A.;

If it's so unlikely except in unusual conditions, then why worry about it?  It adds a small level of complexity to the rules where none need exist.

Possibly the fact that they had to introduce a decision to define when a ball is embedded may suggest that determining a ball to be embedded in longer grass is in fact the only complexity.

Nothing complex about 'Is it a closely mown area?' Yes or no.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

This has always been my assumption, but it sees awfully ticky-tack, even for the R&A.;

If it's so unlikely except in unusual conditions, then why worry about it?  It adds a small level of complexity to the rules where none need exist.

Possibly the fact that they had to introduce a decision to define when a ball is embedded may suggest that determining a ball to be embedded in longer grass is in fact the only complexity.

Nothing complex about 'Is it a closely mown area?' Yes or no.

I guess my point is that it really isn't proper or necessary for a player to be stuck with a penalty for an embedded ball in the rough just because the committee wasn't bothered to enact the local rule when the conditions changed between rounds.  I've even known competition committees (not high level ones obviously) in which most of the members weren't even aware that such a local rule existed, or was even necessary, since they didn't know that the embedded ball rule was only good in closely mowed areas.

[iacas]

Why should we be penalized because we don't have hundreds of people helping us look? Particularly when it's hit in a place where a ball shouldn't be lost. I'm selective in my cheating. Mostly to speed up play.

So, then, what's your actual handicap? I think that makes my point.

If you're writing down a score, you should be playing by the Rules. IMO… of course. Beyond discussing it here, I don't really care what someone I've never met does.

[Moppy]

May I tidy this up a bit just to be clear, because you can play a provisional even if your ball may have gone into a water hazard.  The Rule is clear: you can play a provisional ball if your ball might be lost outside a water hazard.  That implies that it could  be in the water hazard. The point is if you are not sure and there is a possibility the ball might be outside the water hazard you can play a provisional.  It is only if you know or are virtually certain that the ball is in the water hazard that you are not allowed to play a provisional.  This rule applies only to water hazards.

OK, I don't get this, from the USGA site:

26-1 . Relief For Ball In Water Hazard

...

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke :

How do you decide that a ball that is not found did or did not enter a water hazard? Why isn't the presumption that it is in the hazard?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

May I tidy this up a bit just to be clear, because you can play a provisional even if your ball may have gone into a water hazard.  The Rule is clear: you can play a provisional ball if your ball might be lost outside a water hazard.  That implies that it could  be in the water hazard. The point is if you are not sure and there is a possibility the ball might be outside the water hazard you can play a provisional.  It is only if you know or are virtually certain that the ball is in the water hazard that you are not allowed to play a provisional.  This rule applies only to water hazards.

OK, I don't get this, from the USGA site:

26-1. Relief For Ball In Water Hazard

...

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

How do you decide that a ball that is not found did or did not enter a water hazard? Why isn't the presumption that it is in the hazard?

Picture two scenes:

I.  A pond surrounded by 6 foot wide fringe of tall grass, with 3 feet of the tall grass outside of the hazard margin.

2.  A pond with smooth fairway right up the yellow line marking the margin of the hazard, and the entire fringe of tall grass is within the hazard margin.

For #1, if it is not certain that the ball is in the hazard, then it is deemed as lost outside of the hazard.  The fringe of tall grass outside of the margin creates sufficient doubt as to whether or not the ball is in the hazard.

For #2, if the ball is not found, it can only be in the hazard because there is no place in the vicinity outside of the hazard where it would not be found.

[Rulesman]

Also from the USGA site

Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1 , it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1 .

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.

In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

[vangator]

Closely mown grass could be a relative term. British Open rough that has probably never been mowed could probably be termed rough. The 4 or 5 inch grass that is regularly mowed could be considered closely mown compared to the British Open. After you tee off and if you don't see the ball from the tee, you should hit a provisional is case you don't find it. I don't think I'd like to play with or behind a group constantly hitting provisional. That could be a long round.

[iacas]

Closely mown grass could be a relative term.

No. From the Rules of Golf:

So basically: fairways, green fringes, and tees. Some drop areas count, for example…

[dfreuter415]

The groups I play in don't hit provisional very often. If it's lost, drop a ball where you honestly think it's lost. One stroke, as in unplayable lie. I tell the people I'm with that the pros have hundreds of people watching where their balls go. It's seldom they can't find a ball. Why should we be penalized because we don't have hundreds of people helping us look? Particularly when it's hit in a place where a ball shouldn't be lost. I'm selective in my cheating. Mostly to speed up play.

If it were an important match, by all means the rules should be followed.

I very seldom lose a ball, but last time out I did. I hit a drive into the rough where it should easily have been found. The area was very wet and the ball probably plugged. I dropped and did count a penalty stroke, but I didn't walk 250 yards back to the tee while others were waiting. Not sure of the rule on plugged balls in the rough. Is it a free drop in the rough like the fairway?

I concur 100% with you logic and method of scoring.

By all means, if you are playing in a tournament, the rules MUST be followed. But, for a friendly round of golf, one stroke and keep playing.

If you are playing for money with friends, establish you own local rules, if necessary. I used to play in a golf league, and we all agreed that one stroke for a lost ball was sufficient.

In addition, if you are going to count two strokes for a lost ball, I suspect that would slow down play a bit. (Personally, I like to play in a timely manner,)

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangator

The groups I play in don't hit provisional very often. If it's lost, drop a ball where you honestly think it's lost. One stroke, as in unplayable lie. I tell the people I'm with that the pros have hundreds of people watching where their balls go. It's seldom they can't find a ball. Why should we be penalized because we don't have hundreds of people helping us look? Particularly when it's hit in a place where a ball shouldn't be lost. I'm selective in my cheating. Mostly to speed up play.

If it were an important match, by all means the rules should be followed.

I very seldom lose a ball, but last time out I did. I hit a drive into the rough where it should easily have been found. The area was very wet and the ball probably plugged. I dropped and did count a penalty stroke, but I didn't walk 250 yards back to the tee while others were waiting. Not sure of the rule on plugged balls in the rough. Is it a free drop in the rough like the fairway?

I concur 100% with you logic and method of scoring.

By all means, if you are playing in a tournament, the rules MUST be followed. But, for a friendly round of golf, one stroke and keep playing.

If you are playing for money with friends, establish you own local rules, if necessary. I used to play in a golf league, and we all agreed that one stroke for a lost ball was sufficient.

In addition, if you are going to count two strokes for a lost ball, I suspect that would slow down play a bit. (Personally, I like to play in a timely manner,)

How on earth could it slow play?  You aren't doing anything different except adding an additional stroke to your card.  It's not like you have to actually make a swing for each penalty stroke.

[dkolo]

How on earth could it slow play?  You aren't doing anything different except adding an additional stroke to your card.  It's not like you have to actually make a swing for each penalty stroke.

I think he means it'll lead to longer search times because of the stiffer penalty, which, I dunno, maybe. It's not an argument I'm moved by. If you're making up scores with your own pseudo-rules, at least make it roughly proportional to the real thing. Two strokes and somewhere well off the fairway is a reasonable approximation of the actual penalty of stroke and distance, where you might stripe one down the middle with your third or lose another one.

[vangator]

If you can't find your first ball and your provisional, can you take 5 minutes for each? :-) I would assume not, but the rules of golf are wacky sometimes and open to interpretation. My handicap is established in a league where we do have a local rule covering lost balls in areas where they shouldn't be lost. If lost in the fairway, free drop where player and opponent agree the ball should be. Same for open rough where there is no chance the ball would normally be lost. Most of the golfers in my league are +20 handicaps with many at 36+. It takes 2 1/2 hours for 9 holes as it is, so 5 minutes per lost ball and provisionals would probably result in 3+ hours for 9 hole rounds. We have a local rule about footprints in an unraked sand trap. Lift out of the foot print. I got that rule in place. I'm trying to get instituted a rule for unfilled divots. Play them as ground under repair. During the current Big Break, one of the golfers mentioned making a divot he could bury a dead cat in. I've been in a few of those. That "rub of the green" rubs me the wrong way. I always tell my opponents to lift it out of those craters. You don't need to be penalized like that after spriping a ball down the middle of the fairway. They pros all have nicely filled divots. Why should we play tougher conditions than the pros? Jack tried to get filled divots declared as ground under repair. I agree. That's why they say "repair your divots".

[Rulesman]

1)  If you can't find your first ball and your provisional, can you take 5 minutes for each? I would assume not, but the rules of golf are wacky sometimes and open to interpretation.

2) They pros all have nicely filled divots. Why should we play tougher conditions than the pros? .

1) 27-4 Time Permitted for Search for Original Ball and Provisional Ball

Q. Is a player allowed five minutes to search for his original ball and five more minutes to search for his provisional ball, or just a total of five minutes?

A. If the two balls are so close together that, in effect, both balls would be searched for simultaneously, a total of five minutes for search is allowed. Otherwise, the player is allowed to search five minutes for each ball.

2) Because TV and other punters pay good money to see top pros playing perfect shots in perfect conditions.

But you should really see the divot holes halfway through the afternoon session of a pro comp. It's like WW1. They are still required to play from the sand filled (and unfilled) ones the following morning.

[dfreuter415]

Quote:

How on earth could it slow play?  You aren't doing anything different except adding an additional stroke to your card.  It's not like you have to actually make a swing for each penalty stroke.

I think he means it'll lead to longer search times because of the stiffer penalty, which, I dunno, maybe. It's not an argument I'm moved by.

That was exactly what I meant. When guys are going to lose two strokes for a lost ball, the guys I play with WILL look longer because of the extra stroke.

And, if you are going to lose two strokes, I would rather go back to the tee, because, in most cases, the shot that is lost is either in deep rough or a wooded area. And if you have already looked 5 minutes and then walk back to the tee, you tend to back up the course.