A question on wording.

[drifterdon]

Earlier this week I was playing a round at the local course where I joined the men's club this year.

On the 15th hole you have to hit down off of a steep cliff into the fairway. The Tee is around 100 feet above the fairway.

I hit fantastic drive that sent my ball a long way where it came to rest in the fairway about 20 feet from a bunker.

I was using a bright yellow ball that I could see resting in the fairway from above.

There is a winding path down the hill through the woods to get down to the fairway and by the time I got down to where my ball landed, there was no ball to be found. (The 10th fairway is adjacent to this one).

My wife and I searched all around and believe it had to be removed by an outside agency. It was no longer where it originally came to rest.

Reading rule 18-1 it states "If a ball is moved by an outside agency, there is no penalty and THE ball must be replaced.

THE ball is now gone, so does this rule apply?

Thanks

[wadesworld]

You missed Note 1 of Rule 18:

Note 1: If a ball to be replaced under this Rule is not immediately recoverable, another ball may be substituted.

Note that since it's unlikely you would know the exact spot on which to replace the ball, in this case, you would drop at the estimated spot.

[drifterdon]

I sure did.

Thank you wadesworld

[Rulesman]

Reading rule 18-1 it states "If a ball is moved by an outside agency, there is no penalty and THE ball must be replaced.

THE ball is now gone, so does this rule apply?

Thanks

27-1/2.5

Lost Ball Treated as Moved by Outside Agency in Absence of Knowledge or Virtual Certainty to That Effect

Q. A player who is unable to find his ball treats it as moved by an outside agency, rather than lost, in the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty to that effect. Accordingly, he drops a ball where he thinks his original ball came to rest (Rule 18-1 ) and plays it, rather than taking the stroke-and-distance penalty for a lost ball (Rule 27-1 ). What is the ruling?

A. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that the ball had been moved by an outside agency, the player was required to put another ball into play under Rule 27-1 . In playing the ball dropped under Rule 18-1 , the player played from a wrong place.

In match play, he incurred a penalty of loss of hole (Rule 20-7b ).

In stroke play, he incurred the stroke-and-distance penalty prescribed by Rule 27-1 and an additional penalty of two strokes for a breach of that Rule (Rule 20-7c ). Because the breach was a serious one, he was subject to disqualification unless he corrected the error as provided in the second paragraph of Rule 20-7c .

[Phil McGleno]

In other words you should have played it as a lost ball because for all you know the ball was simply plugged or a leaf blew over it or something. Unless you see someone pick up your ball or something you can not be virtually certain.

[Fourputt]

In other words you should have played it as a lost ball because for all you know the ball was simply plugged or a leaf blew over it or something. Unless you see someone pick up your ball or something you can not be virtually certain.

True.  But in this case the player saw the ball at rest in the fairway.  It was not embedded and nothing has been mentioned about leaves.  The route to the ball required that the player lose sight of the ball, and when he came out of the woods, the ball was gone.  I think that this is a case where equity has to come into ones thinking when making a ruling.  It would take a gale force wind to move a ball lying in the fairway, and nothing was said about it being abnormally windy.  No rain has been noted, so apparently it was a nice enough day.  Nothing has been mentioned about an earthquake so that can't be the cause.

Lacking any other possible cause , in equity, it must be assumed that the ball was moved by an outside agency, whether that agency was human or some sort of local fauna.  In this case, I cannot see any logical reason why the player should be penalized 2 strokes when the circumstances were completely beyond his control.

[Phil McGleno]

True.  But in this case the player saw the ball at rest in the fairway.  It was not embedded and nothing has been mentioned about leaves.  The route to the ball required that the player lose sight of the ball, and when he came out of the woods, the ball was gone.  I think that this is a case where equity has to come into ones thinking when making a ruling.  It would take a gale force wind to move a ball lying in the fairway, and nothing was said about it being abnormally windy.  No rain has been noted, so apparently it was a nice enough day.  Nothing has been mentioned about an earthquake so that can't be the cause. Lacking any other possible cause , in equity, it must be assumed that the ball was moved by an outside agency, whether that agency was human or some sort of local fauna.  In this case, I cannot see any logical reason why the player should be penalized 2 strokes when the circumstances were completely beyond his control.

I disagree. Equity does not matter if he is not virtually certain and I do not think he is. Thus it is a lost ball. The ball could be ten yards away, or plugged again as he teed off from a great height and those balls are more likely to land at close to 90° than a shallower angle that will roll out more. Or maybe his memory was a bit off, or he lost his place driving along the winding road.

[drifterdon]

My wife watched the ball in flight and she says it bounced before coming to rest in the fairway.

What I failed to mention and what caused me to feel certain it was removed by someone else is that I did find another ball in the rough by the bunker, although it was white and not yellow.

I knew exactly where my ball was at rest but when I got down there it was just gone.

[SavvySwede]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

True.  But in this case the player saw the ball at rest in the fairway.  It was not embedded and nothing has been mentioned about leaves.  The route to the ball required that the player lose sight of the ball, and when he came out of the woods, the ball was gone.  I think that this is a case where equity has to come into ones thinking when making a ruling.  It would take a gale force wind to move a ball lying in the fairway, and nothing was said about it being abnormally windy.  No rain has been noted, so apparently it was a nice enough day.  Nothing has been mentioned about an earthquake so that can't be the cause.

Lacking any other possible cause, in equity, it must be assumed that the ball was moved by an outside agency, whether that agency was human or some sort of local fauna.  In this case, I cannot see any logical reason why the player should be penalized 2 strokes when the circumstances were completely beyond his control.

I disagree. Equity does not matter if he is not virtually certain and I do not think he is. Thus it is a lost ball.

The ball could be ten yards away, or plugged again as he teed off from a great height and those balls are more likely to land at close to 90° than a shallower angle that will roll out more. Or maybe his memory was a bit off, or he lost his place driving along the winding road.

He had a bunker as a point of reference. So if he saw his ball next to the bunker and in the fairway there really shouldn't be a question of where it landed.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

True.  But in this case the player saw the ball at rest in the fairway.  It was not embedded and nothing has been mentioned about leaves.  The route to the ball required that the player lose sight of the ball, and when he came out of the woods, the ball was gone.  I think that this is a case where equity has to come into ones thinking when making a ruling.  It would take a gale force wind to move a ball lying in the fairway, and nothing was said about it being abnormally windy.  No rain has been noted, so apparently it was a nice enough day.  Nothing has been mentioned about an earthquake so that can't be the cause.

Lacking any other possible cause, in equity, it must be assumed that the ball was moved by an outside agency, whether that agency was human or some sort of local fauna.  In this case, I cannot see any logical reason why the player should be penalized 2 strokes when the circumstances were completely beyond his control.

I disagree. Equity does not matter if he is not virtually certain and I do not think he is. Thus it is a lost ball.

The ball could be ten yards away, or plugged again as he teed off from a great height and those balls are more likely to land at close to 90° than a shallower angle that will roll out more. Or maybe his memory was a bit off, or he lost his place driving along the winding road.

Virtual certainty can be achieved if all other possibilities have been eliminated.  For instance, a ball is seen rolling toward a water hazard.  Because of a slight slope, the ball cannot be seen entering the hazard.  When the players arrive at the spot, there is no ball to be found, nothing can be seen in the murky water, but there is no other place nearby where the ball could be lost.  Therefore the ball is assumed to be in the water hazard because virtual certainty rules out any other possibility.

[wadesworld]

Virtual certainty can be achieved if all other possibilities have been eliminated.  For instance, a ball is seen rolling toward a water hazard.  Because of a slight slope, the ball cannot be seen entering the hazard.  When the players arrive at the spot, there is no ball to be found, nothing can be seen in the murky water, but there is no other place nearby where the ball could be lost.  Therefore the ball is assumed to be in the water hazard because virtual certainty rules out any other possibility.

I agree with Fourputt.  If you observe your ball at rest in the fairway and it's not there when you get there, and there are no extenuating circumstances such as leaves, then the only possibility is an outside agency.  That meets the standard for virtual certainty.

[Rulesman]

Lacking any other possible cause, in equity, it must be assumed that the ball was moved by an outside agency, whether that agency was human or some sort of local fauna.  In this case, I cannot see any logical reason why the player should be penalized 2 strokes when the circumstances were completely beyond his control.

That is not what equity is about. Equity is applied when a situation arises for which there is no rule or decision. Under the Rules, equity means that like situations shall be treated alike. But in this case it is covered by 18-1 and 27-1/2.5, so equity does not come into it.

As Tufts says "The approach is not whether “this particular situation is unfair to me,” but rather whether “others in a similar situation and I in mine are treated alike under the Rules.”

1-4 . Points Not Covered By Rules

If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules , the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

18-1 . By Outside Agency

If a ball at rest is moved by an outside agency , there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.

Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency . In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1 .

If no outside agency is seen how can it be virtual certain that an outside agency moved the ball.

18-1/5 is a good example of when there is virtual certainty.

[ColinL]

@ Drifterdon,

You say the 10th fairway was adjacent to yours but you don't mention whether there were other players on this hole.  Their presence in the right place at the right time to have played your ball by mistake would be useful evidence in support of your ball having been spirited away by an outside agency.

By the way, whether to rule that the ball was taken by an outside agency  or not has nothing to do with equity.  There  is an applicable rule in !8-1.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

True.  But in this case the player saw the ball at rest in the fairway.  It was not embedded and nothing has been mentioned about leaves.  The route to the ball required that the player lose sight of the ball, and when he came out of the woods, the ball was gone.  I think that this is a case where equity has to come into ones thinking when making a ruling.  It would take a gale force wind to move a ball lying in the fairway, and nothing was said about it being abnormally windy.  No rain has been noted, so apparently it was a nice enough day.  Nothing has been mentioned about an earthquake so that can't be the cause.

Lacking any other possible cause, in equity, it must be assumed that the ball was moved by an outside agency, whether that agency was human or some sort of local fauna.  In this case, I cannot see any logical reason why the player should be penalized 2 strokes when the circumstances were completely beyond his control.

I disagree. Equity does not matter if he is not virtually certain and I do not think he is. Thus it is a lost ball.

The ball could be ten yards away, or plugged again as he teed off from a great height and those balls are more likely to land at close to 90° than a shallower angle that will roll out more. Or maybe his memory was a bit off, or he lost his place driving along the winding road.

I disagree with your disagree. Given the OP's version of events, if I were the RO on scene I would be inclined toward KVC.

[Phil McGleno]

The guy said he believes it was taken by someone else. He did not mention other people being in the area and only now is he talking about another ball - a WHITE ball - being in the area. Who would play a yellow ball if they teed off with white? That is not enough for me. Also, his wife saw it bounce, but he did not? Did he actually see the ball in the fairway then if he did not see it bounce himself? That is all. I do not really care what he ended up doing nor do I have a big problem with him playing it as moved by outside agency. I just would have played it as a lost ball myself.

[Rulesman]

I disagree with your disagree. Given the OP's version of events, if I were the RO on scene I would be inclined toward KVC.

What did the OA look like? Where did it come from? Where did it go?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

I disagree with your disagree. Given the OP's version of events, if I were the RO on scene I would be inclined toward KVC.

What did the OA look like? Where did it come from? Where did it go?

So tell me - you play your drive down the middle of the fairway.  You watch it roll to a stop.  Your 3 companions play their shots.  You can still see your ball in the fairway.  You stop at the rest room as you leave the tee.  When you come out your ball is no longer there.  Do you take a stroke and distance penalty when there is literally no possible way that your ball was taken by anything other than the unwitnessed act of an outside agency?  This is how I read the OP's scenario.  If there was more doubt than this, I would rule that 27-1 applies, but from the way it was presented, I can't see it.  That makes the rule more penal that  it is intended to be.

The rules are not intended to punish a player, they are merely supposed to ensure that a player does not gain an advantage from breaching or sidestepping a rule.  A ball at rest disappears, and there is no wind, no slope, no water that could have moved it, then what else is left?  Outside Agency.  I can't  see any other possible ruling that makes any sense.

[drifterdon]

So, from the Tee markers I could not see the fairway so I asked my wife to keep an eye on it for me. After the shot walking to the edge in front of the Tee box I could clearly see my ball in the fairway not far from the bunker right where she said it was.

There were no other players in the area but again, this fairway is adjacent to the 10th fairway. Both fairways share a row of trees.

Taking a provisional ball is not normally taken when I can see my ball clearly and returning to the top of the cliff to the Tee area is definitely not probable for a 63 year old guy walking on this course.

I still feel it was taken by someone playing the other fairway (although I did not see it happen), but I have learned a lot through all of your inputs here. Thank you all for your valuable insights, hopefully I am never faced with a situation like this again, but if I am, I will have a lot more to think about. Thanks again, good exchanges are what make a community like this beneficial for all of us. I am just glad it wasn't a hole in one.