Couple of rules issues

Morning folk could I delve into your combined expertise couple of actual happenings last week in a singles stableford
Player putts bad pull ball hits flagstick lying on the green and goes off at an angle into the hole!
Second one bit easier player hits second shot and thinks his ball is in the water hazard drops ball(not declared prov)plays next shot and playing partner then points out his original ball which had just cleared the hazard-the immortal words 'this is your ball over here'

be interested in your decision.
Hope all well and enjoying the new season

2 shot penalty for hitting the flagstick, and the second ball is the one in play.

SmithersJones wrote:2 shot penalty for hitting the flagstick, and the second ball is the one in play.

This.

Although in your second scenario I assume you mean he played a shot, then walked to the water hazard, thinking his ball was in it, dropped a ball and played it? In which case I'm pretty sure the qualifier of "not calling it a provisional" is academic, since a provisional could only have been played from where he originally played his second shot from (see Rule 27-1). So as soon as he dropped a ball at the water hazard, it became the ball in play.

Ball in play is the way I saw it but some argued its not that clear cut in that he also played a wrong ball.What I didn't tell was that he then carried on with the original ball which the playing partner found.I was on the adjoining tee and politely made the point that he was playing the wrong ball.Good point re provisional
I don't know what he signed for but I guess it would be a DQ if he signed for a wrong score or continued with the 'wrong'original ball

dont think you CAN play a provisional for a water hazard ... so IF it was called a provisional, it was for a potentially lost ball.
Once the ball was found, that is the one in play ????

If the ball had definitely gone in the hazard (but how youd know that if it couldnt be found!!) then you would have to take relief - ie drop in correct place OR could return to where previous shot was played and play from there, but the provisional is not in play.

dynamark wrote:Ball in play is the way I saw it but some argued its not that clear cut in that he also played a wrong ball.What I didn't tell was that he then carried on with the original ball which the playing partner found.I  was on the adjoining tee and politely made the point that he was playing the wrong ball.Good point re provisional
I don't know what he signed for but I guess it would be a DQ if he signed for a wrong score or continued with the 'wrong'original ball

Don't think the wrong ball applies in the case since the rules for a water hazard allow for virtual certainty and don't require absolute proof (26-1). Ergo you can "declare" your ball to be in the hazard if you are virtually certain it is, and proceed with a drop. You are then not penailsed if it subsequently becomes clear that the ball was not in the hazard.

There are quite a lot of issues here.

Why did the guy hit another ball? Did he assume it was in the water hazard - you can't assume a ball is in a water hazard. There needs to be some proof - like you or someone else saw a splash.

If he just thought it was lost - which effectively he did by not declaring it as a provisional - then the fact that the original was found is irrelevant. The ball in play was the second ball.

Since it was a stableford, he could blank that hole and sign for a correct score even though in reality he didn't know how many he had taken. That's the best way to get round difficult rules issues in stablefords.

He was convinced he had put it in the hazard.Confirmed today that he signed for a 4 so was DQ.
George hi - didn't appreciate he could just blank that hole.Sensible thing would have been to take advice before signing the card,but if he had continued to play with the original wrong ball still a DQ I believe.
Bob I sort of agree with your last comment the ball had just cleared the water and lay in a little dip out of site.
Interesting one

Bob_the_Job wrote:


Don't think the wrong ball applies in the case since the rules for a water hazard allow for virtual certainty and don't require absolute proof (26-1).  Ergo you can "declare" your ball to be in the hazard if you are virtually certain it is, and proceed with a drop.  You are then not penalised if it subsequently becomes clear that the ball was not in the hazard.

This issue of "virtual certainty" is complex. Certainty is that you retrieve the ball from the water hazard. Virtual certainty is that you can see it, and identify it, but not retrieve it. I'd say you and your partner seeing a splash when the ball hits the water is virtual certainty. However a ball that is heading towards a pond when last seen, and can't be found, is not virtual certainty. If there is rough round the pond, or trees, or bushes or a hedge, or anything like that creates even the slightest doubt, then you'd have to treat the ball as lost and not in the hazard.

George1507 wrote: Virtual certainty is that you can see it, and identify it, but not retrieve it..

No, if you can identify it then it's a certainty/knowledge.  

But you're right - it's a complex and in my opinion a messy area.  I dislike the rule because it's a bit too vague and the introduction of the word virtual leaves it too open to interpretation and abuse.  The R&A Rules explorer starts out trying to define "virtual Certainty" and then goes all self referencing and wishy-washy, and in my view can be summarised as "It's in if your adamant it's in".

For those with nothing better to do/read (note even seeing a splash does not constitute "knowledge"):

"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.

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."