Identifying your ball

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Sorry if I confused the situation.
What I was meaning was that the further Ball came from another player. Here in the UK we have sponsors Days where you are given some Balls on the first Tee. If everyone played with the Balls they were given then the chance of the origional senario can be added to. Not only does our Player hit two Balls of the same Make, Model and number, but he also hits them into an area were a previous Player had also hit a Ball of the same Make, Model and number but that Player couldn't find his.
The Decision is sound but doesn't cover all possibles.
For example:-
Our Player hits a Ball towards OOB and thinking that it could be Out plays a Prov (same Make etc as origional senario). Upon getting to the area he finds 3 Balls of the same Make, Model and number of which 2 are OOB. Are these Balls his or is the one in Bounds his?

In such a case, if he had played only 2 balls, an original ball and one provisional ball, then he's lying 3, hitting 4 with the one ball that's in bounds. As I see the ruling in the decision, the 3rd ball would be irrelevant. One of the 3 balls would simply be deemed an abandoned ball and not be factored into the equation. Here is where equity comes into play again. You can't punish him for a third ball if he only played 2 balls, and if there is a ball in play which could be his. All the decision does is to stipulate that he can't assume the best case scenario, that his original ball is the one that's in play. He must still play the ball as if it is his provisional ball and take the stroke and distance penalty.

If he had only played one ball and found 2 identical balls in play, then you have a different scenario and his ball is deemed lost, and he must return to the tee. But if he has already played a provisional ball, then it would be redundant to go back to the previous spot... just declare one of the matching balls as the provisional and play on with it. The ruling is in keeping with the reason for playing a provisional ball in the first place, to help maintain pace of play.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In such a case, if he had played only 2 balls, an original ball and one provisional ball, then he's lying 3, hitting 4 with the one ball that's in bounds. As I see the ruling in the decision, the 3rd ball would be irrelevant. One of the 3 balls would simply be deemed an abandoned ball and not be factored into the equation. Here is where equity comes into play again. You can't punish him for a third ball if he only played 2 balls, and if there is a ball in play which could be his. All the decision does is to stipulate that he can't assume the best case scenario, that his original ball is the one that's in play. He must still play the ball as if it is his provisional ball and take the stroke and distance penalty.

But if you hit your ball into the woods and hit a provisional down the fairway, then when you get to your ball in the woods, there are two right next to each other which are indistinguishable, your ball is lost, because you can't identify it. If you hit your provisional in the same place and there are now three identical balls there, two are yours and one is someone else's, then both have to be deemed lost and you have to go back to the tee. If you pick one of the three and call it your provisional, there's a chance you are playing neither of yours and in fact playing a wrong ball. Or have I missed something again?

To expand on that, what if his original ball and provisional are the ones out of bounds and the one in bounds is the superfluous third ball? Surely in that instance, he has to go back and play 5 from the tee.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

But if you hit your ball into the woods and hit a provisional down the fairway, then when you get to your ball in the woods, there are two right next to each other which are indistinguishable, your ball is lost, because you can't identify it. If you hit your provisional in the same place and there are now three identical balls there, two are yours and one is someone else's, then both have to be deemed lost and you have to go back to the tee. If you pick one of the three and call it your provisional, there's a chance you are playing neither of yours and in fact playing a wrong ball. Or have I missed something again?

No you are wrong. If you play a provisional ball and at least one ball is in play, then that ball is deemed to be the provisional. If 2 balls, or in your scenario, all 3 are in play, one is still deemed to be your provisional ball and you play that under stroke and distance penalty, plus whatever strokes may have been played with the ball which is now deemed to be lost.

It's only if you find 2 (or more) identical balls in the same area and you have NOT played a provisional ball that you would have to return to the tee.

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

To expand on that, what if his original ball and provisional are the ones out of bounds and the one in bounds is the superfluous third ball? Surely in that instance, he has to go back and play 5 from the tee.

How can you possibly tell which balls are the ones out of bounds? As this problem was presented, there is no way to tell which ball is out of bounds and which is in play. This is why the one ball in play is deemed to be the provisional ball and you play on with it and score it with the penalty. The player has already played a provisional under an applicable rule, so in equity, the ball that is in bounds is deemed to be that ball. It wouldn't matter if there were 50 identical balls found in the same area, half in bounds and half out of bounds. He picks one of the balls in bounds and it becomes the ball in play as if it was the actual provisional ball.

This is the whole reason for this decision... it seeks to eliminate any such question. Since there is at least one ball in play, this decision states that in the event of any question as to which ball is which, play continues as if it is known which ball is the provisional ball. What it does NOT allow is for the player to decide that the ball he plays is the original ball.

As I said above, the only time he returns to the tee is if there is no ball in play, or if he did NOT play a provisional ball.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No you are wrong. If you play a provisional ball and at least one ball is in play, then that ball is deemed to be the provisional. If 2 balls, or in your scenario, all 3 are in play, one is still deemed to be your provisional ball and you play that under stroke and distance penalty, plus whatever strokes may have been played with the ball which is now deemed to be lost.

It's only if you find 2 (or more) identical balls in the same area and you have NOT played a provisional ball that you would have to return to the tee.



How can you possibly tell which balls are the ones out of bounds? As this problem was presented, there is no way to tell which ball is out of bounds and which is in play. This is why the one ball in play is deemed to be the provisional ball and you play on with it and score it with the penalty. The player has already played a provisional under an applicable rule, so in equity, the ball that is in bounds is deemed to be that ball. It wouldn't matter if there were 50 identical balls found in the same area, half in bounds and half out of bounds. He picks one of the balls in bounds and it becomes the ball in play as if it was the actual provisional ball.

This is the whole reason for this decision... it seeks to eliminate any such question. Since there is at least one ball in play, this decision states that in the event of any question as to which ball is which, play continues as if it is known which ball is the provisional ball. What it does NOT allow is for the player to decide that the ball he plays is the original ball.

As I said above, the only time he returns to the tee is if there is no ball in play, or if he did NOT play a provisional ball.

I don't think I am. Suppose you hit a ball towards out of bounds, so you hit a provisional also towards the same out of bounds. You get down there and you find both of your balls are out of bounds, you have no choice but to go back to the tee and hit five.

Now suppose you hit a ball towards out of bounds, and it is out of bounds, but you don't know that, so you hit a provisional, and it is also out of bounds, but you don't know that. This situation is exactly the same as the previous one so far. Now you walk up and you're lucky enough that someone else has left an identical ball to yours in bounds, but you find both of yours out of bounds. Are you seriously telling me you can just play the ball in bounds as if it was your provisional? Even though in reality both your original ball and provisional are out of bounds? The point here is that there is another ball in question, which could be yours. All three are identical, so how can you possibly say that the one in bounds is the provisional? Do you have a decision that states this? This is a different situation from the one in 27/11. The difference is the other ball.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

I don't think I am. Suppose you hit a ball towards out of bounds, so you hit a provisional also towards the same out of bounds. You get down there and you find both of your balls are out of bounds, you have no choice but to go back to the tee and hit five.

Now suppose you hit a ball towards out of bounds, and it is out of bounds, but you don't know that, so you hit a provisional, and it is also out of bounds, but you don't know that. This situation is exactly the same as the previous one so far. Now you walk up and you're lucky enough that someone else has left an identical ball to yours in bounds, but you find both of yours out of bounds. Are you seriously telling me you can just play the ball in bounds as if it was your provisional? Even though in reality both your original ball and provisional are out of bounds? The point here is that there is another ball in question, which could be yours. All three are identical, so how can you possibly say that the one in bounds is the provisional? Do you have a decision that states this? This is a different situation from the one in 27/11. The difference is the other ball.

It makes no difference. How is it that you seem to know which balls you played and which were already lying there? Since they are all identical for the purposes of this discussion, you have no way of knowing that the 3rd ball is not one of the two you hit. The whole point of this decision is to explain how to proceed when you cannot tell one ball from another.

You seem to be making the assumption that you know that both of the balls you hit were OB. If that were the case then you would have played yet another provisional ball, or at least I would have. In fact, if I knew that the first one was OB, then the 2nd one would not be a provisional, and if I knew the first 2 were both OB, then the 3rd would not be a provisional.

This decision is simply to clarify procedure when there is no possible way to tell which ball or balls are in play and which are OB or in a hazard. If you can tell the difference then you are not going to employ this decision.

[Fileygolfer]

Thanks Ty,
At least I now know that what I am getting at is making sence to someone.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It makes no difference. How is it that you seem to know which balls you played and which were already lying there? Since they are all identical for the purposes of this discussion, you have no way of knowing that the 3rd ball is not one of the two you hit. The whole point of this decision is to explain how to proceed when you cannot tell one ball from another.

You seem to be making the assumption that you know that both of the balls you hit were OB. If that were the case then you would have played yet another provisional ball, or at least I would have. In fact, if I knew that the first one was OB, then the 2nd one would not be a provisional, and if I knew the first 2 were both OB, then the 3rd would not be a provisional.

This decision is simply to clarify procedure when there is no possible way to tell which ball or balls are in play and which are OB or in a hazard. If you can tell the difference then you are not going to employ this decision.

The point is that you can't tell the difference. Consider this situation:

You hit your tee shot towards the out of bounds.
You hit a provisional also towards the out of bounds.
You hit another provisional in the fairway.
You get up to where your first two shots went.
You find three balls. Two are out of bounds and one is in bounds.
You cannot distinguish any of them from each other.
You claim what you're saying, namely that you can assume the one in bounds is the provisional and play out the hole.
When you complete your round, someone in the group ahead of you tells you that he saw both your shots go out of bounds (if that doesn't cut it, suppose it's televised and both your balls are on tape going out of bounds). The ball you played is one that just happened to be lying there.

What happens? I say you get DQ'd for playing a wrong ball and not correcting it. What say you?

The whole point is that in the example given in the decision, you know, without any doubt that the ball lying outside the hazard is either your original ball or your provisional ball, so in equity you are allowed to play the ball as if it's the worst of the two possibilities.

In the example above, you do NOT know that the ball lying in bounds is either your original ball or your provisional. Therefore, you CANNOT claim anything in equity and you are stuck having to go back to the tee. It's the player's fault for not marking his ball in distinguishing fashion, but either way, you can't just pick a ball and play it.

If it comes down to it, please just respond to the question above.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Since they are all identical for the purposes of this discussion, you have no way of knowing that the 3rd ball is not one of the two you hit.

Rick - the point is you have to KNOW that the 3rd ball IS one of the two you hit and you don't know that. It might not be. That's the point.

[Fileygolfer]

Rick,
The decision is for two Balls hit and the Player finding two Balls but he doesn't know which is which or he hits two Balls and can only find one but doesn't know which one. In both cases the Ball\s is\are his.
What I am saying is that if a third Ball is put into the equation then the Player can't say for certain that ONE of Balls is his if he only hit two Balls into that area. So it would only be right if only one of the three Balls was in bounds that he should go back and play five off the Tee.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Rick - the point is you have to KNOW that the 3rd ball IS one of the two you hit and you don't know that. It might not be. That's the point.

I can see what you're getting at but I disagree. I see the key as being that you have played a provisional ball, so you get the benefit of the doubt. Decision 27/11 says you do. All you have to know is how many balls you actually played into the area and that at least the last one of them was a provisional ball. I don't know what the big deal is. It seems quite simple... you play 3 shots from the tee. One is the original ball, 2 are provisional balls. All seem to land in the same general area near the boundary stakes. You play another provisional ball (the 3rd) to the fairway. You get the boundary area and find 4 balls identical to the ones you played, 2 in bounds and 2 out of bounds. You pick one of the balls in bounds (the chosen ball is deemed to be your 2nd provisional ball), abandon all others, including the one in the fairway. You play your 5th stroke with the ball you have chosen as the ball in play. This is how the decision reads. Just because the decision only talks about 2 balls doesn't make it invalid when more balls are involved. You simply extend the logic to cover the actual scenario. It only applies when there is no way to tell one ball from another.

I'd send this to the USGA for a ruling except that they would know that it's a hypothetical and would likely not respond. The odds of such a scenario actually occurring are astronomical.

If you knew which ball was which, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One thing is for certain... nobody with any sense who reads this thread will ever play a ball in competition without his mark on it.

[Ty_Webb]

You hit your tee shot towards the out of bounds.
You hit a provisional also towards the out of bounds.
You hit another provisional in the fairway.
You get up to where your first two shots went.
You find three balls. Two are out of bounds and one is in bounds.
You cannot distinguish any of them from each other.
You claim what you're saying, namely that you can assume the one in bounds is the provisional and play out the hole.
When you complete your round, someone in the group ahead of you tells you that he saw both your shots go out of bounds (if that doesn't cut it, suppose it's televised and both your balls are on tape going out of bounds). The ball you played is one that just happened to be lying there.

What happens?

[Fileygolfer]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

One thing is for certain... nobody with any sense who reads this thread will ever play a ball in competition without his mark on it.

If that does happen, at least its been worth while.

[Fileygolfer]

Lets change the senario slightly.
You take out one of the nice new Wilson Staffs you had been given earlier and proceed to slice it towards an OOB fence. You don't see it finish so you declare a provisional but you don't want to use a new Ball so hit a Pro v1 into the fairway. You go over to the OOB fence and see two Balls, one 1' in bounds and one 1' out, you notice that both Balls are brand new Wilson Staff no 3's and you can't tell which was yours.
Now what are your options?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Lets change the senario slightly.
You take out one of the nice new Wilson Staffs you had been given earlier and proceed to slice it towards an OOB fence. You don't see it finish so you declare a provisional but you don't want to use a new Ball so hit a Pro v1 into the fairway. You go over to the OOB fence and see two Balls, one 1' in bounds and one 1' out, you notice that both Balls are brand new Wilson Staff no 3's and you can't tell which was yours.
Now what are your options?

This case you play the provisional ball lying 3. It's a different scenario.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

You hit your tee shot towards the out of bounds.
You hit a provisional also towards the out of bounds.
You hit another provisional in the fairway.
You get up to where your first two shots went.
You find three balls. Two are out of bounds and one is in bounds.
You cannot distinguish any of them from each other.
You claim what you're saying, namely that you can assume the one in bounds is the provisional and play out the hole.
When you complete your round, someone in the group ahead of you tells you that he saw both your shots go out of bounds (if that doesn't cut it, suppose it's televised and both your balls are on tape going out of bounds). The ball you played is one that just happened to be lying there.

What happens?

Fourputt?

[Ty_Webb]

Fourputt

Another question for you if you will. What if you do the same thing - hit original and provisional towards the out of bounds. You get up there and find two balls out of bounds and one in bounds. The two out of bounds are your original and provisional balls. The one in bounds is completely different. It's obviously not yours. Can you play that one? Or do you have to go back to the tee? What's the difference between this scenario and the one I described earlier? From a rules perspective.

Another question. suppose you stand on a tee. There is out of bounds left and right. You hit your first tee shot towards the out of bounds on the left. Hit a provisional towards the out of bounds on the right. Hit another provisional down the middle. You go to your first ball and find it out of bounds. You go to the second ball and find two balls there which are indistinguishable. One is in bounds and one is out of bounds. Can you play the one in bounds as if it were your provisional? If so, why? If not, why not? If not, how does this differ from my earlier situation?

Finally, if you hit your ball somewhere and when you get there, you find your ball and another one near each other. They are indistinguishable from each other. Do you agree that that ball is lost? If so, why do you think that the situation described earlier is more like decision 27/11 than like this particular situation?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

You hit your tee shot towards the out of bounds.
You hit a provisional also towards the out of bounds.
You hit another provisional in the fairway.
You get up to where your first two shots went.
You find three balls. Two are out of bounds and one is in bounds.
You cannot distinguish any of them from each other.
You claim what you're saying, namely that you can assume the one in bounds is the provisional and play out the hole.
When you complete your round, someone in the group ahead of you tells you that he saw both your shots go out of bounds (if that doesn't cut it, suppose it's televised and both your balls are on tape going out of bounds). The ball you played is one that just happened to be lying there.

What happens?

If a player proceeds in a situation like this correctly with the information available at the time, he will not be penalized later if the information changes after the fact. This is different from a case like the Michelle Wie or Craig Stadler situations where they acted in breach of a rule through ignorance or carelessness.

There are times when a player must make a decision on a procedure with the information at hand. We don't all have the luxury of a rules official on call, spectators to poll, etc., so we have to make do. In this case the player acted correctly for the facts as he was able to ascertain them at the time.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Fourputt

Another question for you if you will. What if you do the same thing - hit original and provisional towards the out of bounds. You get up there and find two balls out of bounds and one in bounds. The two out of bounds are your original and provisional balls. The one in bounds is completely different. It's obviously not yours. Can you play that one? Or do you have to go back to the tee? What's the difference between this scenario and the one I described earlier? From a rules perspective.

This time the ball in bounds is clearly identifiable as not being one of the two you played. Once again, when you change the scenario, you change the outcome.

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Another question. suppose you stand on a tee. There is out of bounds left and right. You hit your first tee shot towards the out of bounds on the left. Hit a provisional towards the out of bounds on the right. Hit another provisional down the middle. You go to your first ball and find it out of bounds. You go to the second ball and find two balls there which are indistinguishable. One is in bounds and one is out of bounds. Can you play the one in bounds as if it were your provisional? If so, why? If not, why not? If not, how does this differ from my earlier situation?

I would say yes, because equity applies. Although not exactly the same, the cases are similar enough to make the same ruling.

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Finally, if you hit your ball somewhere and when you get there, you find your ball and another one near each other. They are indistinguishable from each other. Do you agree that that ball is lost? If so, why do you think that the situation described earlier is more like decision 27/11 than like this particular situation?

Because under the rules, the situation changes if you haven't played a provisional ball. In any of these cases you must assess the stroke and distance penalty for a lost ball. That is clear under Rule 12-2 and 27-1. Decision 27/11 just extends that procedure if a provisional ball has also been played. The provisional ball is only abandoned if the original ball is found in bounds and identified. When the original ball can't be identified, the provisional ball becomes the ball in play. In the interest of expediency, it is deemed that one of the balls lying through the green is your provisional.

I can't explain it any better. If you still can't understand the reasoning, then you'll have to bug someone else. It makes perfect sense to me to extend the logic to any number of balls. What doesn't make sense is to continue debating it when you can't seem to see or accept that logic.

BTW, I think I made an error in my earlier scenario when I said that the last provisional ball played in the fairway would be abandoned. After further deliberation, I think that it would become the ball in play, once again because of the same logic. Since you can't identify any of the other four balls as to the order in which they were played, or even which ones were yours, then the one ball which was clearly identifiable because of it's location in the fairway, must by default be the one played for the remainder of the hole. As it was the fourth ball played, you would be lying 7, playing 8.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

This time the ball in bounds is clearly identifiable as not being one of the two you played. Once again, when you change the scenario, you change the outcome.

Couldn't agree more, which is why when you have a third ball, nothing to do with yours which is also indistinguishable, the scenario has changed and hence the outcome changes.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I would say yes, because equity applies. Although not exactly the same, the cases are similar enough to make the same ruling.

Just to clarify, my understanding here is that once you find your first ball out of bounds, the provisional ceases to be a provisional and hence becomes the ball in play. This situation would then be dealt with in exactly the same fashion as had you known you hit your first tee shot out of bounds and then hit three off the tee. At that point, the rules don't treat you any differently from how they would treat you if you had hit your first shot where your provisional/third shot went.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I can't explain it any better. If you still can't understand the reasoning, then you'll have to bug someone else. It makes perfect sense to me to extend the logic to any number of balls. What doesn't make sense is to continue debating it when you can't seem to see or accept that logic.

Okay, evidently we are spinning our wheels here. Let me set out why I think I'm right.

Here is the situation described in Decision 27/11:

Situation 4: Both balls are found in bounds, whether in a playable or an unplayable lie, and (1) one ball is in a water hazard and the other is not or (2) both balls lie through the green or in a bunker.

Solution 4: One could argue that both balls are lost. However, it would be inequitable to require the player to return to the tee, playing 5, when the player has found both balls but does not know which is the original and which the provisional. Accordingly, the player must select one of the balls, treat it as his provisional ball and abandon the other. (Revised)

Fair enough. You have two balls, can't identify between them, so you pick one and go with the provisional. The thinking here I think is that you know whichever ball you hit is either your provisional or your original. Given that that is the case, it would be unreasonable to make you go back to the tee and hit a fifth. The way I see that is it's 50:50 whether you're playing your provisional or your original. If you are playing your original ball, then you've played one, hitting two. If you're playing the provisional, then you've played three, hitting four. By assuming that it's your provisional, and marking your card as such, then in one case, you've marked a score two higher than the actual score and signed for it. No penalty and the score stands. In the other case, you have the correct score, so the end outcome is the same. Hence the reason for the decision.

In the example we're discussing here, there are three balls. One is your first, one is your provisional and one is another ball. You find all three. Now, the ball that you play could be your first ball, could be your provisional or it could be a wrong ball. If it's one of the first two, then the same reasoning as above applies. If it's the wrong ball, then you should be disqualified for playing a wrong ball. Now, there is no score that you can mark that will definitely cover all the bases (except DQ). That's the big difference here and why the decision here does not apply. The equity thing doesn't apply because the situations are not similar. The situation is much more similar to Decision 27/10, which deems both balls lost. Hence, back to the tee for a fifth shot.

[Bulls9999]

Ty, even though it works out that way in your interpretation, I doubt that was the reason for selecting "a" ball of the two and saying it is your provisional. I think the reason starts and ends at where the balls are, not at the level of signing score cards. The fact is, that the onus to mark in order to distinguish balls, is upon the player. Not having done that, then the 'penalty' so to speak for having two identical, but indistinguishable balls is that you don't get the 'benefit of the doubt', but simply you 'get the doubt'....ala, you pick one and it's played as the provisional. You can even look at it as having been saved from having to play the next ball as a "5", for if you can't 'identify your ball', you effectively haven't found it, and no matter how long you look at the two of them, your 5 min is up and you have a 'lost ball'....you should be going back to the tee to play your 5th shot. So effectively, the rules making you play "one of the two balls as your provisional" is actually saving you a) time (that otherwise would make you go back to the tee) and b) strokes (otherwise its playing 5 from the tee). All in my humble opinion.
Simple solution...make any additional ball you pull out easily identifiable from your previous one.

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Couldn't agree more, which is why when you have a third ball, nothing to do with yours which is also indistinguishable, the scenario has changed and hence the outcome changes.

Just to clarify, my understanding here is that once you find your first ball out of bounds, the provisional ceases to be a provisional and hence becomes the ball in play. This situation would then be dealt with in exactly the same fashion as had you known you hit your first tee shot out of bounds and then hit three off the tee. At that point, the rules don't treat you any differently from how they would treat you if you had hit your first shot where your provisional/third shot went.

Okay, evidently we are spinning our wheels here. Let me set out why I think I'm right.

Here is the situation described in Decision 27/11:

Situation 4: Both balls are found in bounds, whether in a playable or an unplayable lie, and (1) one ball is in a water hazard and the other is not or (2) both balls lie through the green or in a bunker.

Solution 4: One could argue that both balls are lost. However, it would be inequitable to require the player to return to the tee, playing 5, when the player has found both balls but does not know which is the original and which the provisional. Accordingly, the player must select one of the balls, treat it as his provisional ball and abandon the other. (Revised)

Fair enough. You have two balls, can't identify between them, so you pick one and go with the provisional. The thinking here I think is that you know whichever ball you hit is either your provisional or your original. Given that that is the case, it would be unreasonable to make you go back to the tee and hit a fifth. The way I see that is it's 50:50 whether you're playing your provisional or your original. If you are playing your original ball, then you've played one, hitting two. If you're playing the provisional, then you've played three, hitting four. By assuming that it's your provisional, and marking your card as such, then in one case, you've marked a score two higher than the actual score and signed for it. No penalty and the score stands. In the other case, you have the correct score, so the end outcome is the same. Hence the reason for the decision.

In the example we're discussing here, there are three balls. One is your first, one is your provisional and one is another ball. You find all three. Now, the ball that you play could be your first ball, could be your provisional or it could be a wrong ball. If it's one of the first two, then the same reasoning as above applies. If it's the wrong ball, then you should be disqualified for playing a wrong ball. Now, there is no score that you can mark that will definitely cover all the bases (except DQ). That's the big difference here and why the decision here does not apply. The equity thing doesn't apply because the situations are not similar. The situation is much more similar to Decision 27/10, which deems both balls lost. Hence, back to the tee for a fifth shot.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Bulls9999

So effectively, the rules making you play "one of the two balls as your provisional" is actually saving you a) time (that otherwise would make you go back to the tee) and b) strokes (otherwise its playing 5 from the tee). All in my humble opinion.

The rules don't generally seem to put much weight behind saving you time or strokes.

Originally Posted by Bulls9999

Simple solution...make any additional ball you pull out easily identifiable from your previous one.

Definitely

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Fourputt


Another question. suppose you stand on a tee. There is out of bounds left and right. You hit your first tee shot towards the out of bounds on the left. Hit a provisional towards the out of bounds on the right. Hit another provisional down the middle. You go to your first ball and find it out of bounds. You go to the second ball and find two balls there which are indistinguishable. One is in bounds and one is out of bounds. Can you play the one in bounds as if it were your provisional? If so, why? If not, why not? If not, how does this differ from my earlier situation?

I have again deliberated on this (I kept going over it before I fell asleep last night ) and feel that you are correct in that in this case the second provisional becomes the ball in play. When the original ball was definitely lost, the first provisional became the ball in play. Being unable to identify which of the two balls on the right was yours, and having played yet another provisional ball which is positively identifiable, it seems to me that one should be come the ball in play.

This discussion is why the USGA and the R&A refuse to answer hypothetical questions. You can keep throwing in unlikely changes to the scenario until the situation gets so muddled that a definitive answer becomes nearly impossible.

The next time you run across this in real life, send it on to the USGA for a ruling.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I have again deliberated on this (I kept going over it before I fell asleep last night ) and feel that you are correct in that in this case the second provisional becomes the ball in play. When the original ball was definitely lost, the first provisional became the ball in play. Being unable to identify which of the two balls on the right was yours, and having played yet another provisional ball which is positively identifiable, it seems to me that one should be come the ball in play.

This discussion is why the USGA and the R&A refuse to answer hypothetical questions. You can keep throwing in unlikely changes to the scenario until the situation gets so muddled that a definitive answer becomes nearly impossible.

The next time you run across this in real life, send it on to the USGA for a ruling.

I would, but I can't, because as I understand it, the request to the USGA has to go through the proper channels (ie the committee).

Sorry if I kept you awake

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

I would, but I can't, because as I understand it, the request to the USGA has to go through the proper channels (ie the committee).

Sorry if I kept you awake

You can ask for a ruling from the USGA just by submitting it through their website. I've done it several times. They usually get back within a week, two weeks is the longest wait I've had.

The link is: Ask a Rules Question

[Bulls9999]

Does the USGA have some kind of emergency "answer group"? Because in some of the jr. tournaments my son plays in, the Dir. of the tournament has (a few times) seemingly 'called in to USGA' for a confirmation on a ruling with a phone call (maybe he was calling someone at the state golf association level, but I swear he said one or more times he was calling USGA). I have done the email thing myself and perhaps a week or two later, received an answer.....which they ask you not to post to the internet.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You can ask for a ruling from the USGA just by submitting it through their website. I've done it several times. They usually get back within a week, two weeks is the longest wait I've had.

The link is: Ask a Rules Question

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Bulls9999

Does the USGA have some kind of emergency "answer group"? Because in some of the jr. tournaments my son plays in, the Dir. of the tournament has (a few times) seemingly 'called in to USGA' for a confirmation on a ruling with a phone call (maybe he was calling someone at the state golf association level, but I swear he said one or more times he was calling USGA). I have done the email thing myself and perhaps a week or two later, received an answer.....which they ask you not to post to the internet.

They ask you not to "quote" the response. I will paraphrase it when I post it.

I think that a tournament director would have to have a lot of pull to get an immediate answer from the USGA. I think it's more likely that what you heard was misrepresented, but that's just my impression.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

The rules don't generally seem to put much weight behind saving you time or strokes.



Definitely

I haven't followed all of this in detail, but have a basic opinion on two points.

If the player plays more than one ball (orig and provisional(s)) and then finds them close to each other but cannot distinguish one from the other, you take the worst one (last provisional) and play it under the theory that they are all his, and it would not make sense to apply stroke and distance. The one he selects may not in fact be the last provisional , but all of them are his so it is worth the risk.

However, if he gets to his balls and finds one more than he played, (stray or another player) and cannot ID his, you have to treat them all as lost. If you allowed him to treat one as the last provisional it might be the stray that he plays. He would be playing the wrong ball without a wrong ball penalty. That risk cannot be allowed.

I don't know if that helps this discussion or not.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

I haven't followed all of this in detail, but have a basic opinion on two points.

If the player plays more than one ball (orig and provisional(s)) and then finds them close to each other but cannot distinguish one from the other, you take the worst one (last provisional) and play it under the theory that they are all his, and it would not make sense to apply stroke and distance. The one he selects may not in fact be the last provisional , but all of them are his so it is worth the risk.

However, if he gets to his balls and finds one more than he played, (stray or another player) and cannot ID his, you have to treat them all as lost. If you allowed him to treat one as the last provisional it might be the stray that he plays. He would be playing the wrong ball without a wrong ball penalty. That risk cannot be allowed.

I don't know if that helps this discussion or not.

Good point.

[Fileygolfer]

Hi Atticusfinch, welcome to this debate which includes your hated "What If's" and Hypo's.
Sorry for keeping you up Fourputt, I had my nights sleep between two of your posts.

AF, it will be good to hear your opinion on this one.
Fourputt found the Decision and posted it and shocked some of us with its content. Some, including me went for the '5 off the Tee'.
When we were pointed at Decision 27\11 I questioned if infact it wasn't correct because of the possibility of a third Ball (not the Players) being involved. The debate went on from there. Some obscure hypothetical situations were posted to try and get our points across but the simple fact is.
"It seems that the Decision could allow a Player who hits two (or more) indentical Balls into a position to play a Ball that is not his and not be penalised for it?"

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Hi Atticusfinch, welcome to this debate which includes your hated "What If's" and Hypo's.
Sorry for keeping you up Fourputt, I had my nights sleep between two of your posts.

AF, it will be good to hear your opinion on this one.
Fourputt found the Decision and posted it and shocked some of us with its content. Some, including me went for the '5 off the Tee'.
When we were pointed at Decision 27\11 I questioned if infact it wasn't correct because of the possibility of a third Ball (not the Players) being involved. The debate went on from there. Some obscure hypothetical situations were posted to try and get our points across but the simple fact is.
"It seems that the Decision could allow a Player who hits two (or more) indentical Balls into a position to play a Ball that is not his and not be penalised for it?"

I don't think 27/11 helps in the case where one of the balls in question is not the players. That decision only works when all the balls belong to the same player. There may be more than two, so i think the outcome would be that the player takes the worst ball (the last provisional) and plays.

When the balls in question come from two players (no matter how many) dec 27/10 would be appropriate.

[Fileygolfer]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

I don't think 27/11 helps in the case where one of the balls in question is not the players. That decision only works when all the balls belong to the same player. There may be more than two, so i think the outcome would be that the player takes the worst ball (the last provisional) and plays.

Its this part of the Decision that alarms me.

Situation 3: One ball is found in bounds and the other ball is lost or is found out of bounds.
Solution 3: The ball in bounds must be presumed to be the provisional ball.


Golfers sometimes have no idea how far they actually hit the Ball (I sometimes play a Prov to give me some idea where to look for the origional) so if our Player came across a Ball (not his) that he thinks is his and invokes this Decision and plays his 4th shot with it, he is in fact playing a "wrong Ball" and gaining an unfair advantage. But it seems he would be doing that within The Rules?

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Its this part of the Decision that alarms me.

Situation 3: One ball is found in bounds and the other ball is lost or is found out of bounds.
Solution 3: The ball in bounds must be presumed to be the provisional ball.


Golfers sometimes have no idea how far they actually hit the Ball (I sometimes play a Prov to give me some idea where to look for the origional) so if our Player came across a Ball (not his) that he thinks is his and invokes this Decision and plays his 4th shot with it, he is in fact playing a "wrong Ball" and gaining an unfair advantage. But it seems he would be doing that within The Rules?

If he believes the ball is his and no one is there to tell him differently there is no problem..or rather, there is no solution to the problem.

[Fileygolfer]

I have just spent today at Turnberry and had the chance to have a chat with some of the R&A Rules Officials. I mentioned this debate and my thinking and was interested in the responce.
Apparently they are aware of the need to look at that Decision and are in fact are looking at it at the moment. What they said is that in the Decision the Player CAN indentify his Balls but doesn't know which was the origional and which was the provisional and in the solution where only one Ball is found then that Ball is either the origional or the Provisional. The fact that another Ball could enter the situation is known to them and they are looking at making everything clearer.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

I have just spent today at Turnberry and had the chance to have a chat with some of the R&A Rules Officials. I mentioned this debate and my thinking and was interested in the responce.
Apparently they are aware of the need to look at that Decision and are in fact are looking at it at the moment. What they said is that in the Decision the Player CAN indentify his Balls but doesn't know which was the origional and which was the provisional and in the solution where only one Ball is found then that Ball is either the origional or the Provisional. The fact that another Ball could enter the situation is known to them and they are looking at making everything clearer.

That's interesting.... good to know.

[Fileygolfer]

Yes apparently the bit about "Identical Markings" is a major part of the Decision because it implies that the Player has put personal Markings on both of his Balls.

Another Rule they are looking at is Appendix III - The Ball, part 3 Size.
Can you see why?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Yes apparently the bit about "Identical Markings" is a major part of the Decision because it implies that the Player has put personal Markings on both of his Balls.

Another Rule they are looking at is Appendix III - The Ball, part 3 Size.
Can you see why?

All I know about that is that the R&A has never been happy with the 1.68" ball. I think that a lot of it has to do with the prevailing conditions at most of the Open Championship sites. The 1.62" ball was definitely a better wind ball, but apparently in the bargaining when they merged the Rules into one, the USGA won that battle and probably gave in on something else. But that doesn't mean that any rule can't be revisited... maybe they are even trying to deaden the ball... make it shorter?

Both organizations can be pretty tight-lipped when it comes to their rules discussions.

[Fileygolfer]

Rick,

The wording states that a ball can't be smaller than 1.68" in diameter, which seems that it could be bigger.
It then states that the Ball must fall through a hole 1.68" in diameter most times in a set Temp. They now believe that a Ball 1.67" in diameter could be passed as legal.
There is no hurry to change things but it does show what they do discuss.

BTW Here is one from The Fench Open.
When is a Dropping Zone not a Dropping Zone?
Today on the 15th a Player came up short and wet, he went to the DZ and was told he couldn't drop it there. They spent several minutes (too long?) working out where his Ball last crossed the margin of the WH and he had to drop his Ball some 40yds away from the DZ, so why have one if they are going to play by the letter of the Rule. Strange.

David

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Rick,

The wording states that a ball can't be smaller than 1.68" in diameter, which seems that it could be bigger.
It then states that the Ball must fall through a hole 1.68" in diameter most times in a set Temp. They now believe that a Ball 1.67" in diameter could be passed as legal.
There is no hurry to change things but it does show what they do discuss.

BTW Here is one from The Fench Open.
When is a Dropping Zone not a Dropping Zone?
Today on the 15th a Player came up short and wet, he went to the DZ and was told he couldn't drop it there. They spent several minutes (too long?) working out where his Ball last crossed the margin of the WH and he had to drop his Ball some 40yds away from the DZ, so why have one if they are going to play by the letter of the Rule. Strange.

David

Was the DZ intended for a WH ball or a TIO?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

Rick,

The wording states that a ball can't be smaller than 1.68" in diameter, which seems that it could be bigger.
It then states that the Ball must fall through a hole 1.68" in diameter most times in a set Temp. They now believe that a Ball 1.67" in diameter could be passed as legal.
There is no hurry to change things but it does show what they do discuss.

BTW Here is one from The Fench Open.
When is a Dropping Zone not a Dropping Zone?
Today on the 15th a Player came up short and wet, he went to the DZ and was told he couldn't drop it there. They spent several minutes (too long?) working out where his Ball last crossed the margin of the WH and he had to drop his Ball some 40yds away from the DZ, so why have one if they are going to play by the letter of the Rule. Strange.

David

That is something you'd have to take up with the tournament committee. Nothing in the Rules of Golf would cover such a ruling without knowing the conditions of the competition.

[Fileygolfer]

AF,

I was a DZ for a WH. Come to think of it, it may have been put in for Balls that landed Green side and then found the WH.