Justification per Principles of FC Hitting Your Ball and forcing you to play as lost?

[iacas]

So, a discussion more for the Rules Geeks, not whether this is "fair" or "right" or "stupid" or not.

I believe the scenario was:

• A and B hit into the same area in a stroke play competition.
• B hits A's ball mistakenly.
• A cannot find his ball and goes to re-tee.
• On the green (B with A's ball, A with the second ball he put into play), they see that B hit A's ball.

This seems to me close enough to 15-3b/1 that I am wondering why A can't just go back to the spot they identify as the spot from which B played A's ball and A can play his second shot from there. Heck, you're more than virtually certain in this case: you're absolutely certain the B played A's ball. If B hit A's ball into a water hazard or OB somewhere, you're not absolutely certain, you're just "virtually certain."

Yes, A could say "dude, did you hit my ball" and go forward to look, but that alone might take the bulk of his five minutes, and he might not choose to look 240 yards away for his ball because, seriously, what kind of a jerk hits someone else's ball when they're already looking for it in the same area?

---

In other words… what is the rules justification for penalizing A for a lost ball in this scenario? I understand it meets the definition of a lost ball… but to me, so would the ball in 15-3b/1. So what's the justification?

---

P.S. What if a spectator (outside agency) mistakenly picks up your ball, is embarrassed to tell you that, but musters up the courage after you've put another ball into play and are walking back through the area? What's the rules justification for that? I kind of get it, because the second ball is "in play," but again you're more than virtually certain of not only the temporary theft of your original ball, but it's location, too. The fact that your second ball is "in play" strikes me more as a convenience thing or a technicality than something that reaches down to the core fundamentals or principles that guide the Rules of Golf.

[DaveP043]

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.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

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.

Though related, obviously, in that example the guy didn't search in the right place (forward enough after it bounced off the cart path), while in this case, a fellow competitor played his ball, so it would be unreasonable to go forward 240 yards to inspect the ball a fellow competitor played.

They're not all that analogous, I guess I'm saying.

You'd be a shitty fellow competitor, but this is a weird case where you screwing up can result in a penalty on someone else despite them doing nothing "wrong." Again, I think it's unreasonable that you'd have to spend any of your valuable five minutes going 100+ yards forward to look at the ball the FC just hit to make sure it's not yours. Their failure to properly identify their ball shouldn't result in a penalty to you.

---

And to take a completely different tact… the ball was found within five minutes. It's just that an FC hit it before the golfer had the chance to identify it.

Consider this:

27/5.5 Original Ball Found Within Five-Minute Search Period Not Identified Until After Period Has Elapsed

Q.A player plays a second shot, searches for his ball for just over four minutes and then starts to walk back down the fairway to play another ball under Rule 27-1. A ball is then found within the five-minute search period, but as the player is now a considerable distance away, he is unable to identify the ball as his before the search period has elapsed. What is the ruling?

A.As a ball was found within five minutes of beginning search, the player is allowed enough time to reach the area in order to identify it. If the player identifies the ball as his, it is not a "lost ball" even though the identification takes place after the five-minute search period has elapsed.

Does that mean if you got to 4:59 without finding your ball, you should say "I think you may have hit my ball, and I'm going to walk forward to see" if an FC hits a ball from the same area as you?

[newtogolf]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

So, a discussion more for the Rules Geeks, not whether this is "fair" or "right" or "stupid" or not.

I believe the scenario was:

• A and B hit into the same area in a stroke play competition.
• B hits A's ball mistakenly.
• A cannot find his ball and goes to re-tee.
• On the green (B with A's ball, A with the second ball he put into play), they see that B hit A's ball.

This seems to me close enough to 15-3b/1 that I am wondering why A can't just go back to the spot they identify as the spot from which B played A's ball and A can play his second shot from there. Heck, you're more than virtually certain in this case: you're absolutely certain the B played A's ball. If B hit A's ball into a water hazard or OB somewhere, you're not absolutely certain, you're just "virtually certain."

Yes, A could say "dude, did you hit my ball" and go forward to look, but that alone might take the bulk of his five minutes, and he might not choose to look 240 yards away for his ball because, seriously, what kind of a jerk hits someone else's ball when they're already looking for it in the same area?

---

In other words… what is the rules justification for penalizing A for a lost ball in this scenario? I understand it meets the definition of a lost ball… but to me, so would the ball in 15-3b/1. So what's the justification?

---

P.S. What if a spectator (outside agency) mistakenly picks up your ball, is embarrassed to tell you that, but musters up the courage after you've put another ball into play and are walking back through the area? What's the rules justification for that? I kind of get it, because the second ball is "in play," but again you're more than virtually certain of not only the temporary theft of your original ball, but it's location, too. The fact that your second ball is "in play" strikes me more as a convenience thing or a technicality than something that reaches down to the core fundamentals or principles that guide the Rules of Golf.

I agree, that's why I responded as I did.  The ball isn't available to find because Player B hit the ball.   I had something similar happen to me last year, the only twist is the amount of time spent looking for Player A's ball.  

[Golfingdad]

33 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

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.

 

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Though related, obviously, in that example the guy didn't search in the right place (forward enough after it bounced off the cart path), while in this case, a fellow competitor played his ball, so it would be unreasonable to go forward 240 yards to inspect the ball a fellow competitor played.

They're not all that analogous, I guess I'm saying.

I realize that @iacas is saying that this isn't really analogous, but just for fun, I remember what @DaveP043 is talking about because .... it was me! :)

 

[DaveP043]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

They're not all that analogous, I guess I'm saying.

I agree, and didn't mean to suggest that the two situations should be treated the same, just that in each situation there was a delay in finding out what happened to the original ball..

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

You'd be a shitty fellow competitor, but this is a weird case where you screwing up can result in a penalty on someone else despite them doing nothing "wrong." Again, I think it's unreasonable that you'd have to spend any of your valuable five minutes going 100+ yards forward to look at the ball the FC just hit to make sure it's not yours. Their failure to properly identify their ball shouldn't result in a penalty to you.

I agree completely, and I think that was my initial response in the old thread, before I knew what decision 27/6 specifically says.

I think @iacas's last paragraph in his original post hits the nail on the head.  This is a convenience thing, a time-limiting thing, where a decision must be made at the end of the 5-minute search period.  Once you've made that decision, anything you find out about the original ball simply doesn't matter, including finding out that it was moved by an outside agency.  A later finding can result in a penalty (Player B finds out he's played a wrong ball), but it can't remove a penalty stroke (Player A with a lost ball because Player B hit A's ball).

[SG11118]

Seems like rule 1-2 Note 2 would apply here sending the subject to committee decision per 1-4

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Seems like rule 1-2 Note 2 would apply here sending the subject to committee decision per 1-4

It would not, and that's not really what this thread is about.

The ruling on this is clear, and I agree it's the correct ruling per the rules as written right now.

[SG11118]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

It would not, and that's not really what this thread is about.

The ruling on this is clear, and I agree it's the correct ruling per the rules as written right now.

OK - agree - definitely doesn't meet note 2.  Closer to meeting note 1, but doesn't meet that either.

I'm not close to a rules official, but... When 15-3b says the competitor "must" place a ball where the ball was first misplayed, that is definitive language.  If the golfer continues to play his/her second ball, they wouldn't they be in violation of this rule.  Since this event happened prior to the ball being "lost", wouldn't 15-3b override the ball being lost?  

This situation doesn't meet the definition of rub of the green.  I don't know of any justification for having a competitors screw-up costing an innocent competitor strokes.  

[SG11118]

OK - I read D 27/6 on other thread.  I guess once 5 minutes are past, the ball is deemed lost.  I also don't understand the justification.  I guess if everyone is walking or everyone is riding, it is fair to expect everyone to keep track of their balls.  When there is a difference in the time it takes to get to balls, it is a bit of an unreasonable expectation in my opinion.

[Fourputt]

The key with this is that the rules are very definite that once a player has put a second ball in play under stroke and distance for any reason, the second ball is the ball in play, regardless of any future discoveries concerning the original ball.  That negates any timing issue as well.

The only time that this would not be the case is if the original ball was found to have been holed by the player.  In that case the play of the hole was finished, and any subsequent actions were nullified.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The key with this is that the rules are very definite that once a player has put a second ball in play under stroke and distance for any reason, the second ball is the ball in play, regardless of any future discoveries concerning the original ball.  That negates any timing issue as well.

That doesn't quite speak to the justifications, IMO. It just speaks to the way the Rules of Golf read, and I'm capable of reading them and understanding the current rules.

It strikes me as unreasonable to expect that a player would have any other option here. We can't reasonably expect a player to inspect the golf balls hit by his fellow competitors (on his hole and neighboring holes) in the case that they hit his ball. His time is best spent looking for his golf ball.

Through no fault of his own, nor even the fault of his caddie, partner, a spectator who is rooting for him, etc. this player is penalized by the actions of a fellow competitor. Yeah, the fellow competitor is penalized too, but effectively he's penalized the same, because if he finds his actual golf ball the FC is only penalized two strokes, effectively the same as stroke and distance by the other competitor. Heck, the FC even gets the remainder of his five minutes to look for and find his actual golf ball! (27/2) If he found (and hit) the wrong ball immediately, he gets the full five minutes to search for HIS golf ball.

Meanwhile, perhaps the original player whose ball was hit finds three golf balls in the area, but none are his… and he runs out of his five minutes because the other guy already hit his ball.

I can read and understand the language of the rules. I "get" what the ruling is. But in considering the principles, I am not quite able to justify the rule being this punitive toward the player whose ball is hit by his FC. The player, not through ignorance, carelessness, or intentional act has not even lost his golf ball (colloquial definition, not ROG) - another player hit it well away from a reasonable search area.

So what's the justification, per the principles? It seems to me it has nothing to do with playing the course as you find it. So how does it really violate the other principle of "Play your ball from the tee and never touch it until you remove it from the hole"? The player was prevented from doing so by a fellow competitor who violated the Rules.

Why should another competitor's violation of the rules punish you as well? Especially as they may get the lighter of the two punishments?

[drmevo]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

That doesn't quite speak to the justifications, IMO. It just speaks to the way the Rules of Golf read, and I'm capable of reading them and understanding the current rules.

It strikes me as unreasonable to expect that a player would have any other option here. We can't reasonably expect a player to inspect the golf balls hit by his fellow competitors (on his hole and neighboring holes) in the case that they hit his ball. His time is best spent looking for his golf ball.

Through no fault of his own, nor even the fault of his caddie, partner, a spectator who is rooting for him, etc. this player is penalized by the actions of a fellow competitor. Yeah, the fellow competitor is penalized too, but effectively he's penalized the same, because if he finds his actual golf ball the FC is only penalized two strokes, effectively the same as stroke and distance by the other competitor. Heck, the FC even gets the remainder of his five minutes to look for and find his actual golf ball! (27/2) If he found (and hit) the wrong ball immediately, he gets the full five minutes to search for HIS golf ball.

Meanwhile, perhaps the original player whose ball was hit finds three golf balls in the area, but none are his… and he runs out of his five minutes because the other guy already hit his ball.

I can read and understand the language of the rules. I "get" what the ruling is. But in considering the principles, I am not quite able to justify the rule being this punitive toward the player whose ball is hit by his FC. The player, not through ignorance, carelessness, or intentional act has not even lost his golf ball (colloquial definition, not ROG) - another player hit it well away from a reasonable search area.

So what's the justification, per the principles? It seems to me it has nothing to do with playing the course as you find it. So how does it really violate the other principle of "Play your ball from the tee and never touch it until you remove it from the hole"? The player was prevented from doing so by a fellow competitor who violated the Rules.

Why should another competitor's violation of the rules punish you as well? Especially as they may get the lighter of the two punishments?

I'm no rules expert but I wholeheartedly agree.  There's so many situations I can imagine where there's no reasonable way a player could know his ball is about to be hit by a fellow competitor, so I think the whole "it's his responsibility to stop the fc from hitting it" argument is BS. That mistake should all be on the fc. 

There have been some threads about rules that should be changed, and I think this qualifies. It seems indefensible. 

[Hardspoon]

I really can't wrap my head around this either.

I guess the only justification I can think of is that, to be fair, all outside agencies must be treated equally under the RoG.  If a gopher picks up your ball and carries it 200 yards to the green, and you find it only after you dropped a second ball, you're out of luck.  So, it must be treated the same for the FC.

But that's not very satisfying to me.

 

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Does that mean if you got to 4:59 without finding your ball, you should say "I think you may have hit my ball, and I'm going to walk forward to see" if an FC hits a ball from the same area as you?

Alternately, any time an FC hits a ball from the same area, you could declare definitively that it WAS moved by an outside agency, because you are virtually certain that the FC just hit your ball.  You then proceed to play two balls under Rule 3-3.  If you're wrong, your second ball (which you took stroke-and-distance on) counts.  If you turn out to be right, well, it was virtually certain that it was moved by an outside agency, since the proof is right there!

Similar silliness.

 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

I guess the only justification I can think of is that, to be fair, all outside agencies must be treated equally under the RoG. If a gopher picks up your ball and carries it 200 yards to the green, and you find it only after you dropped a second ball, you're out of luck. So, it must be treated the same for the FC.

I get that.

But in this instance, the things that are different are that you know where the golf ball originally lie with a high degree of certainty.

If it's known that a spectator picks up your ball and runs away with it, even if you can't "find" the original ball (because the spectator went somewhere and can't be found), you're allowed to drop in the area where it was.

It's not satisfying to me either.

6 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Alternately, any time an FC hits a ball from the same area, you could declare definitively that it WAS moved by an outside agency, because you are virtually certain that the FC just hit your ball.  You then proceed to play two balls under Rule 3-3.  If you're wrong, your second ball (which you took stroke-and-distance on) counts.  If you turn out to be right, well, it was virtually certain that it was moved by an outside agency, since the proof is right there!

I wonder if 3-3 could be used that way. I'm inclined to think that it would be fine, but it's not really a question of how to proceed under the Rules… or is it?

Anyway, I'm intentionally going to kind of ignore that because it's not really what I'm hoping to discover in this thread, which is really the justification for the rule/decision. I can kinda see it, but I can never really get around to supporting it more than not.

[natureboy]

Where was the FC's ball in this scenario? If he thought it was his, wouldn't his ball still be sitting near the same location to be found by you and likely identified as his ball?

[DaveP043]

I'm going to agree with @Hardspoon, this decision is based largely on the principle of treating similar situations similarly, i.e. equity.  All balls not found within 5 minutes are lost unless its virtually certain that the ball fits into one of a couple of categories, including being moved by an outside agency.  The decision make it clear that it doesn't matter who moved the ball, if its not known or virtually certain that it was moved by an outside agency, it is lost. One thing that can provide that virtual certainty is finding Player B's ball within the time limit.

The situation we're talking about is one of the very rare circumstances in which the player is

essentially blameless (was essentially denied the opportunity to find and identify his ball),

the ball was moved by an outside agency,  

the movement by the outside agency is known before the play of the hole is complete (but after the search period has elapsed),

and the location of the original ball can be determined with reasonable accuracy.  

It makes sense to me that, in fairness, Player A "deserves" better treatment than the decisions allow.  However, "equity" doesn't necessarily means fairness, it means "consistency."  I'm guessing that the group that made this decision didn't want to start making additional "exceptions" to the lost ball rules, opening up a can of worms for future exceptions for balls located after the 5-minutes search period.  I'm sure the 5-minutes time limit isn't one of the core principles, but expanding the "standard" time limit in only specific circumstances does seem inconsistent with "equity", and equity is one of the core principles.

I think this is one of the more interesting Rules topics I've read, because it doesn't just focus on what the rules require, but on the basis behind the rules and decisions.  

[iacas]

12 hours ago, natureboy said:

Where was the FC's ball in this scenario? If he thought it was his, wouldn't his ball still be sitting near the same location to be found by you and likely identified as his ball?

Not really the point of this thread but it was never found. May have hit a tree and gone anywhere.