Hello People

We played our winter pairs knockout game today & a situation came up
that none of us was sure about. One of the opposition hit his ball
into a bush off the tee. When we all got to the bush the ball was
located but could not be retreived. The markings of the ball could be
clearly seen though (name written & the guy's usual line marked for
putting along with correct makers insignia & number).

As the ball was not lost (as it could be seen) & though was clearly
unplayable, we all decided that he could drop another ball as far back
as he wanted instead of going back to the last place the ball was
played, ie., in this case the tee. We all related to the rule of a
ball (if all agreed) went into a water hazard need not be retreaved to
prove it went into the hazard.

As it was, the guy was ofcourse one shot adrift & we ended up winning
the hole & indeed the match (on the 20th!) but did we make the right
desicion in this instance?

Mark.

Mark  writes:

> Hello People
> 
> We played our winter pairs knockout game today & a situation came up
> that none of us was sure about. One of the opposition hit his ball
> into a bush off the tee. When we all got to the bush the ball was
> located but could not be retreived. The markings of the ball could be
> clearly seen though (name written & the guy's usual line marked for
> putting along with correct makers insignia & number).
> 
> As the ball was not lost (as it could be seen) & though was clearly
> unplayable, we all decided that he could drop another ball as far back
> as he wanted instead of going back to the last place the ball was
> played, ie., in this case the tee. We all related to the rule of a
> ball (if all agreed) went into a water hazard need not be retreaved to
> prove it went into the hazard.
> 
> As it was, the guy was ofcourse one shot adrift & we ended up winning
> the hole & indeed the match (on the 20th!) but did we make the right
> desicion in this instance?

The player was permitted to use Rule 28b or 28c as he was able to
identify his ball and it was not in a water hazard (see Decision 28/11).

"As far back as he wanted" is only part of Rule 28b -- he was also required
to keep the point where the ball lay directly between the hole and the
spot where he dropped the ball.

BTW: "if all agreed" is not the standard for applying the water hazard
rule, "reasonable evidence" is (Rule 26-1, Decision 26-1/1).

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"Mark"  wrote in message 
news:1192994660.811954.80420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hello People
>
> We played our winter pairs knockout game today & a situation came up
> that none of us was sure about. One of the opposition hit his ball
> into a bush off the tee. When we all got to the bush the ball was
> located but could not be retreived. The markings of the ball could be
> clearly seen though (name written & the guy's usual line marked for
> putting along with correct makers insignia & number).
>
> As the ball was not lost (as it could be seen) & though was clearly
> unplayable, we all decided that he could drop another ball as far back
> as he wanted instead of going back to the last place the ball was
> played, ie., in this case the tee. We all related to the rule of a
> ball (if all agreed) went into a water hazard need not be retreaved to
> prove it went into the hazard.
>
> As it was, the guy was ofcourse one shot adrift & we ended up winning
> the hole & indeed the match (on the 20th!) but did we make the right
> desicion in this instance?
>
> Mark.
>

You did the right thing.

If a ball is unplayable, the player has three options, each under penalty of 
a stroke:
a) play a ball from where he last played
b) drop a ball back in line with where his ball lies and the hole, going as 
far back as he likes, or
c) drop a ball within 2 club-lengths of where his ball lies, but not nearer 
the hole.

For (b) and (c) the ball must first be found and identified in order for 
there to be a reference point for dropping.

Note also, that when taking relief under penalty (ball unplayable or in a 
water hazard)  the Rules say drop *a* ball, so the original does not have to 
be recovered or even used.
When taking relief without penalty, (from an obstruction, GUR, casual water, 
etc) the player must drop *the* ball.  Only if it is not readily 
retrievable, may he substitute another.

Malcolm

On 22 Oct, 08:00, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> "Mark"  wrote in message
>
> news:1192994660.811954.80420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello People
>
> > We played our winter pairs knockout game today & a situation came up
> > that none of us was sure about. One of the opposition hit his ball
> > into a bush off the tee. When we all got to the bush the ball was
> > located but could not be retreived. The markings of the ball could be
> > clearly seen though (name written & the guy's usual line marked for
> > putting along with correct makers insignia & number).
>
> > As the ball was not lost (as it could be seen) & though was clearly
> > unplayable, we all decided that he could drop another ball as far back
> > as he wanted instead of going back to the last place the ball was
> > played, ie., in this case the tee. We all related to the rule of a
> > ball (if all agreed) went into a water hazard need not be retreaved to
> > prove it went into the hazard.
>
> > As it was, the guy was ofcourse one shot adrift & we ended up winning
> > the hole & indeed the match (on the 20th!) but did we make the right
> > desicion in this instance?
>
> > Mark.
>
> You did the right thing.
>
> If a ball is unplayable, the player has three options, each under penalty of
> a stroke:
> a) play a ball from where he last played
> b) drop a ball back in line with where his ball lies and the hole, going as
> far back as he likes, or
> c) drop a ball within 2 club-lengths of where his ball lies, but not nearer
> the hole.
>
> For (b) and (c) the ball must first be found and identified in order for
> there to be a reference point for dropping.
>
> Note also, that when taking relief under penalty (ball unplayable or in a
> water hazard)  the Rules say drop *a* ball, so the original does not have to
> be recovered or even used.
> When taking relief without penalty, (from an obstruction, GUR, casual water,
> etc) the player must drop *the* ball.  Only if it is not readily
> retrievable, may he substitute another.
>
> Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks guys (both Leon & Malcolm)

Glad we did the right thing. The player did drop his ball a little way
back but inline with the flag, but we weren't sure, as mentioned, if
he had to retrieve his origanal ball or was allowed to use another.

As regards the water hazard ruling as mentioned by Leon I'm a bit
miffed. Though not completely a novice of the rules (but don't get me
wrong,not an expert either) I was sure it was with agreement that a
ball was seen going into said hazard was enough to deem it so. If not,
what other evidence if the ball was at the bottom of the drink could
be sought to gain "resonable evidence"?

Mark.

Mark  writes:

> On 22 Oct, 08:00, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
> > "Mark"  wrote in message
> >
> > news:1192994660.811954.80420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hello People
> >
> > > We played our winter pairs knockout game today & a situation came up
> > > that none of us was sure about. One of the opposition hit his ball
> > > into a bush off the tee. When we all got to the bush the ball was
> > > located but could not be retreived. The markings of the ball could be
> > > clearly seen though (name written & the guy's usual line marked for
> > > putting along with correct makers insignia & number).
> >
> > > As the ball was not lost (as it could be seen) & though was clearly
> > > unplayable, we all decided that he could drop another ball as far back
> > > as he wanted instead of going back to the last place the ball was
> > > played, ie., in this case the tee. We all related to the rule of a
> > > ball (if all agreed) went into a water hazard need not be retreaved to
> > > prove it went into the hazard.
> >
> > > As it was, the guy was ofcourse one shot adrift & we ended up winning
> > > the hole & indeed the match (on the 20th!) but did we make the right
> > > desicion in this instance?
> >
> > > Mark.
> >
> > You did the right thing.
> >
> > If a ball is unplayable, the player has three options, each under penalty of
> > a stroke:
> > a) play a ball from where he last played
> > b) drop a ball back in line with where his ball lies and the hole, going as
> > far back as he likes, or
> > c) drop a ball within 2 club-lengths of where his ball lies, but not nearer
> > the hole.
> >
> > For (b) and (c) the ball must first be found and identified in order for
> > there to be a reference point for dropping.
> >
> > Note also, that when taking relief under penalty (ball unplayable or in a
> > water hazard)  the Rules say drop *a* ball, so the original does not have to
> > be recovered or even used.
> > When taking relief without penalty, (from an obstruction, GUR, casual water,
> > etc) the player must drop *the* ball.  Only if it is not readily
> > retrievable, may he substitute another.
> >
> > Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Thanks guys (both Leon & Malcolm)
> 
> Glad we did the right thing. The player did drop his ball a little way
> back but inline with the flag, but we weren't sure, as mentioned, if
> he had to retrieve his origanal ball or was allowed to use another.
> 
> As regards the water hazard ruling as mentioned by Leon I'm a bit
> miffed. Though not completely a novice of the rules (but don't get me
> wrong,not an expert either) I was sure it was with agreement that a
> ball was seen going into said hazard was enough to deem it so. If not,
> what other evidence if the ball was at the bottom of the drink could
> be sought to gain "resonable evidence"?

Mark, did you read Decision 26-1/1 as suggested?

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

Mark wrote:

> As regards the water hazard ruling as mentioned by Leon I'm a bit
> miffed. Though not completely a novice of the rules (but don't get me
> wrong,not an expert either) I was sure it was with agreement that a
> ball was seen going into said hazard was enough to deem it so. If not,
> what other evidence if the ball was at the bottom of the drink could
> be sought to gain "resonable evidence"?
> 
> Mark.
> 

Mark

In RoG terms, an 'agreement' that the ball was heading towards a water 
hazard is fair enough....however the 'Rules' require 'reasonable 
evidence' that the ball actually entered the hazard, and remained there!

  Typically acceptable 'reasonable evidence' is the fact that, given 
that the ball was seen heading toward the hazard, there should be no 
other feature of the course surrounding the hazard, such as trees, 
bushes, impediments, obstructions or rough, that could have diverted the 
ball in its path, or in which it could possibly have come to rest.

  The term 'reasonable evidence' can be broadly applied, but there needs 
to be a degree of certainty about the ball being lost in the hazard that 
far exceeds the prospect that the ball might be lost outside the hazard.

cheers
david

On Oct 23, 12:09 am, david s-a  wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > As regards the water hazard ruling as mentioned by Leon I'm a bit
> > miffed. Though not completely a novice of the rules (but don't get me
> > wrong,not an expert either) I was sure it was with agreement that a
> > ball was seen going into said hazard was enough to deem it so. If not,
> > what other evidence if the ball was at the bottom of the drink could
> > be sought to gain "resonable evidence"?
>
> > Mark.
>
> Mark
>
> In RoG terms, an 'agreement' that the ball was heading towards a water
> hazard is fair enough....however the 'Rules' require 'reasonable
> evidence' that the ball actually entered the hazard, and remained there!
>
>   Typically acceptable 'reasonable evidence' is the fact that, given
> that the ball was seen heading toward the hazard, there should be no
> other feature of the course surrounding the hazard, such as trees,
> bushes, impediments, obstructions or rough, that could have diverted the
> ball in its path, or in which it could possibly have come to rest.
>
>   The term 'reasonable evidence' can be broadly applied, but there needs
> to be a degree of certainty about the ball being lost in the hazard that
> far exceeds the prospect that the ball might be lost outside the hazard.
>
> cheers
> david

Sorry for the confusion.

I did read the ruling Leon & the "...question of fact whether a ball
lost after having been struck toward a water hazard is lost..." I took
to mean that others, as well as the player, must see the ball entering
the hazard to deem it lost in the hazard & retreval was not nessesary.
I take Davids point that if any other obstructions were to be in play
(bushes, trees, etc.) that may have interfered with the flight of the
ball prior to it perhaps entering the hazard then the ball being lost
in the hazard is not a definate.

Mark.

Mark  writes:

> On Oct 23, 12:09 am, david s-a  wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
> > > As regards the water hazard ruling as mentioned by Leon I'm a bit
> > > miffed. Though not completely a novice of the rules (but don't get me
> > > wrong,not an expert either) I was sure it was with agreement that a
> > > ball was seen going into said hazard was enough to deem it so. If not,
> > > what other evidence if the ball was at the bottom of the drink could
> > > be sought to gain "resonable evidence"?
> >
> > > Mark.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > In RoG terms, an 'agreement' that the ball was heading towards a water
> > hazard is fair enough....however the 'Rules' require 'reasonable
> > evidence' that the ball actually entered the hazard, and remained there!
> >
> >   Typically acceptable 'reasonable evidence' is the fact that, given
> > that the ball was seen heading toward the hazard, there should be no
> > other feature of the course surrounding the hazard, such as trees,
> > bushes, impediments, obstructions or rough, that could have diverted the
> > ball in its path, or in which it could possibly have come to rest.
> >
> >   The term 'reasonable evidence' can be broadly applied, but there needs
> > to be a degree of certainty about the ball being lost in the hazard that
> > far exceeds the prospect that the ball might be lost outside the hazard.
> >
> > cheers
> > david
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> I did read the ruling Leon & the "...question of fact whether a ball
> lost after having been struck toward a water hazard is lost..." 

Mark, those words are present in Rule 26-1 but not in Decision 26-1/1
(title: Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 26-1).  If you have
not read the Decision, I still recommend it.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Leon Chamae  wrote:

> Mark, those words are present in Rule 26-1 but not in Decision 26-1/1
> (title: Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 26-1).  If you have
> not read the Decision, I still recommend it.

In case Mark doesn't have access to the Decisions, here's 26-1/1
(taken from the R & A website, http://tinyurl.com/d9nmx.):

<quote>
The term "reasonable evidence" in Rule 26-1 is purposely and
necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on
the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. As
applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost in a
water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard.
The evidence must be preponderantly in favour of its being in the
hazard.
Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost outside the hazard and the
player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For
example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball
could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the
ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep
rough in the area.
Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily
provide reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of
hazards. It would depend on all the circumstances.
</quote>

Although in practice you would almost certainly come to a consensus
with other witnesses - such as playing partners - the consensus per se
would have no standing in the committee accepting that you did the
right thing. This makes perfect sense in terms of "protecting the
field": amiable playing partners can't be allowed to convey a playing
advantage over sterner players. (Except possibly in their amiability.)

On Oct 24, 9:29 am, Ron Todd  wrote:
> On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Leon Chamae  wrote:
>
> > Mark, those words are present in Rule 26-1 but not in Decision 26-1/1
> > (title: Meaning of "Reasonable Evidence" in Rule 26-1).  If you have
> > not read the Decision, I still recommend it.
>
> In case Mark doesn't have access to the Decisions, here's 26-1/1
> (taken from the R & A website,http://tinyurl.com/d9nmx.):
>
> <quote>
> The term "reasonable evidence" in Rule 26-1 is purposely and
> necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on
> the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. As
> applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost in a
> water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard.
> The evidence must be preponderantly in favour of its being in the
> hazard.
> Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost outside the hazard and the
> player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
> Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For
> example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball
> could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the
> ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep
> rough in the area.
> Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily
> provide reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of
> hazards. It would depend on all the circumstances.
> </quote>
>
> Although in practice you would almost certainly come to a consensus
> with other witnesses - such as playing partners - the consensus per se
> would have no standing in the committee accepting that you did the
> right thing. This makes perfect sense in terms of "protecting the
> field": amiable playing partners can't be allowed to convey a playing
> advantage over sterner players. (Except possibly in their amiability.)

Thanks for all your replies guys. I think I've got that in the old
noggin, especially agreeing with your point Ron about protecting the
field as oposed to one player having an advantage over others because
of the amiablity of their playing partners, excellently put.

Thanks once again for all your input & advice. Mark..