Jump to content


 

Photo

Conflict With Dec 26-1/3 And 26-1/3.5


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 hamk

hamk

    Suspect

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 August 2018 - 05:59 PM

Had a situation on the other day where a player opened with a long drive (250m+) on a a par 4 with lateral water hazard on the left side. The drive was slightly curving to the right, but going towards the water hazard. Unable to see exactly where it landed the group estimated that if it wasn't found from the given area it would be virtually certain for ball to be in the water hazard.

 

The search was not successful and ball was dropped under rule 26-1c and the player played the ball. When we proceeded towards the hole the original ball was found (within 5 minutes from the start of the search) just a little bit further from the area we were searching the ball and it was outside the water hazard.

 

I'm having difficulties to interpret decisions 26-1/3 and 26-1/3.5 which both would seem to be applicable for the situation. By the decision 26-1/3 the ball was played from the wrong place and it would result in penalty of two strokes. Also given that the drive was very long the player might be eligible for DQ under rule 20-7c.

 

On the other hand decision 26-1/3.5 describes similar situation with the one stroke penalty under 26-1c. What's the main difference between the decisions? Is it that for 26-1/3 the player only believed that the ball was in water hazard and wasn't virtually certain?

 

I think the group made a mistake by being virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard, but what would be the correct ruling given that virtually certain was established even though it was a wrong call?



#2 Schmuck

Schmuck

    B grade Chopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10872 posts
  • Location1 club shorter

Posted 06 August 2018 - 07:10 PM

Mug opinion: play on, decision stands.
Nothing makes sense, except GOATS, they ALWAYS make sense

Ever noticed that Ducks swagger?

I am only half trying

"Be brave if you lose and meek if you win"

#3 ink

ink

    Pawsome

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35381 posts

Posted 06 August 2018 - 07:52 PM

https://www.golfdige...rovisional-ball



#4 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1881 posts

Posted 06 August 2018 - 08:32 PM

I can’t reference the Decisions at the moment. However when players do their best to decide to proceed under the Water Hazard Rule and estimate the point where the ball last crossed the Margin that is acceptable.
They looked where they thought the Ball could be outside the WH And the evidence was strongly supporting the Ball was in the WH.

If the player dropped a ball but did not make a stroke situation is still fluid.

If the ball is found outside the hazard inside the 5 minute search time he does not have to proceed with the Ball dropped under the WH rule. He can play his original ball found within the search time limit.

As soon as he makes a stroke at the Ball dropped under the WH Rule that Ball becomes the Ball in play.

His original ball is then a Wrong Ball.

#5 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1881 posts

Posted 06 August 2018 - 09:48 PM

I got that wrong. Sorry.Rethink.
When the player dropped the ball with sufficient certainty that the Ball was in the Hazard the Ball dropped was in play. The original Ball is then a Wrong Ball.
If on the other hand the Known or Virtualy Certain requirement was NOT there the ball dropped is not in play until a stroke is made at it.
You have to know the exact circumstances to judge whether it was reasonable to proceed under 26-1,
You have to consider the conditions of the area around the WH. Could the ball be outside the WH and not easily seen? How well could the group see 250 metres away.
I should have waited till I had access to Decisions. Will check the D BOOK
later. Hopefully someone will do a better job with you query.

#6 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3082 posts

Posted 06 August 2018 - 11:32 PM

The two decisions cover two slightly different situations.

 

26-1/3 is primarily about whether it was Known or Virtually Certain (KVC) that the ball was in the WH.

 

It explains if there was KVC, the correct action is to play under the 26-1 options.

 

It goes on to explain that if KVC doesn't exist, then taking relief under 26-1b or c is not permitted and S&D under 27-1 (ie 26-1a) is the correct procedure. It then describes the penalties involved in having taken the forbidden relief.

 

26-1/3.5 is all about KVC existing and relief under 26-1 being the correct procedure and the original ball now being lost by definition.

 

It goes on to explain that if the original ball is found outside the WH no further action is required as KVC was known at the time the second ball was dropped and played.

It the original was found in the WH this may affect the determination of the entry point and mean that the second ball was dropped in a wrong place. This must be corrected under 20-6. There is no penalty for this error.


  • 12shoc and jeffw like this

#7 hamk

hamk

    Suspect

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 07 August 2018 - 01:32 AM

Thank you AAA for pointing that out. I read the decisions carefully again and I agree with this. So it boils down to the question whether KVC was established or not. In this case the group agreed that it was virtually certain for the ball to be in the hazard. Based on the grass height and other environmental indicators it was "certain" for ball to be in the hazard, but the drive was relatively longer what the given player had generally driven in the round which explains why the group was incorrect in "virtually certain" judgement and looking for the ball in the wrong place.



#8 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3082 posts

Posted 07 August 2018 - 03:51 AM

So it boils down to the question whether KVC was established or not. In this case the group agreed that it was virtually certain for the ball to be in the hazard.

Really the test of KVC is not 'Is it virtually certain likely to be in the WH?' but 'Could it possibly be anywhere else?'


  • pom, languid and jeffw like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users