Rules Question: Incorrect drop

[blugold]

And now this decision:

[h=2]26-1/3.7[/h]
[h=4]Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule Without It Being Known or
Virtually Certain Ball in Hazard; Original Ball Then Found[/h]
Q.A player's ball is struck towards
a water hazard and is not found. It is neither known nor virtually certain that
the player's ball is in the water hazard, but he drops a ball under Rule 26-1b. Before he plays the
dropped ball, his original ball is found within the five-minute search period.
What is the ruling?

A.It was neither known nor
virtually certain that the player's ball was in the water hazard when he put the
substituted ball into play, and, therefore, that ball was incorrectly
substituted under an inapplicable Rule.

The player must correct his error under Rule 20-6 by abandoning the
substituted ball and continuing play with the original ball. If the original
ball was found inside the water hazard, the player may proceed under Rule 26-1.

If the player failed to correct his improper procedure
and played the dropped ball, he has proceeded under an inapplicable Rule and
incurred a penalty (see Decision 34-3/6). The ruling
would be that the player has proceeded under Rule 27-1 (the only Rule that
applied to his situation), incurring the one-stroke penalty under that Rule.
Additionally, as he played the ball from a wrong place (i.e., a place not
permitted by Rule 27-1),
he incurred the general penalty, loss of hole in match play or two strokes in
stroke play, for a breach of Rule 27-1. In stroke play, the
Committee must determine whether the player committed a serious breach when he
played from the wrong place (Rule 20-7c).

 

[SharkHat]

And now this decision:

26-1/3.7


Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule Without It Being Known or
Virtually Certain Ball in Hazard; Original Ball Then Found


Q.A player's ball is struck towards
a water hazard and is not found. It is neither known nor virtually certain that
the player's ball is in the water hazard, but he drops a ball under Rule 26-1b. Before he plays the
dropped ball, his original ball is found within the five-minute search period.
What is the ruling?

A.It was neither known nor
virtually certain that the player's ball was in the water hazard when he put the
substituted ball into play, and, therefore, that ball was incorrectly
substituted under an inapplicable Rule.

The player must correct his error under Rule 20-6 by abandoning the
substituted ball and continuing play with the original ball. If the original
ball was found inside the water hazard, the player may proceed under Rule 26-1.

If the player failed to correct his improper procedure
and played the dropped ball, he has proceeded under an inapplicable Rule and
incurred a penalty (see Decision 34-3/6). The ruling
would be that the player has proceeded under Rule 27-1 (the only Rule that
applied to his situation), incurring the one-stroke penalty under that Rule.
Additionally, as he played the ball from a wrong place (i.e., a place not
permitted by Rule 27-1),
he incurred the general penalty, loss of hole in match play or two strokes in
stroke play, for a breach of Rule 27-1. In stroke play, the
Committee must determine whether the player committed a serious breach when he
played from the wrong place (Rule 20-7c).

So, that seems to add up to three penalty strokes, right?

 

[blugold]

So, that seems to add up to three penalty strokes, right?

I just reread decision 26-1/3.7. It doesn't apply here. Because the dropped ball was played. My mind is spinning. I still don't believe "virtual certainty" should apply here.

 

[TheWoo]

I just reread decision 26-1/3.7. It doesn't apply here. Because the dropped ball was played. My mind is spinning. I still don't believe "virtual certainty" should apply here.

I think that's fair, but if the group playing believed it did, I'm not sure we can judge after the fact that it didn't.

 

[blugold]

I think that's fair, but if the group playing believed it did, I'm not sure we can judge after the fact that it didn't.

Right. I agree. But I believe from what I read regarding the definition of "virtual certainty", if the hazard wasn't know or visible from the tee, it cannot be assumed with "virtual certainty" that the ball is in the hazard.

 

[wadesworld]

I just reread decision 26-1/3.7. It doesn't apply here. Because the dropped ball was played. My mind is spinning. I still don't believe "virtual certainty" should apply here.

You're right blugold.

I believe not adequately considering virtual certainty was my key mistake.

Should I have hit a provisional? Absolutely. However, everyone in my group thought the ball would be sitting in the next fairway, so that's why I didn't.

With that said, once I came over the hill and could not locate my ball, I should have treated it as a lost ball and returned to the tee. While I think everyone in my group would have agreed that my ball was going to be in the next fairway and likely would have agreed that if it was not there it must have gone into the water hazard, that doesn't meet the standard for virtual certainty. It could have been driven over by a cart and embedded. It could have been somewhere in the rough I did not see, or as was the case, it could have been on a totally different line than I thought. But, at the time I simply surmised too quickly that the ball must have entered the hazard.

 

[blugold]

You're right blugold.

I believe not adequately considering virtual certainty was my key mistake.

Should I have hit a provisional? Absolutely. However, everyone in my group thought the ball would be sitting in the next fairway, so that's why I didn't.

With that said, once I came over the hill and could not locate my ball, I should have treated it as a lost ball and returned to the tee. While I think everyone in my group would have agreed that my ball was going to be in the next fairway and likely would have agreed that if it was not there it must have gone into the water hazard, that doesn't meet the standard for virtual certainty. It could have been driven over by a cart and embedded. It could have been somewhere in the rough I did not see, or as was the case, it could have been on a totally different line than I thought. But, at the time I simply surmised too quickly that the ball must have entered the hazard.

Please don't get me wrong brother. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything. This is actually an interesting question that doesn't quite fall under the definitions of virtual certainty that I have read. I may very well be wrong, it happens often. At this point, it's water under the bridge.

 

[wadesworld]

Please don't get me wrong brother. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything. This is actually an interesting question that doesn't quite fall under the definitions of virtual certainty that I have read. I may very well be wrong, it happens often. At this point, it's water under the bridge.

No, not at all. I appreciate the discussion and the attempt to hash it out. Nobody could accuse me of anything - I did what I thought was right at the time. If I was wrong, I would have accepted whatever penalty the committee imposed.

 

[blugold]

No, not at all. I appreciate the discussion and the attempt to hash it out. Nobody could accuse me of anything - I did what I thought was right at the time. If I was wrong, I would have accepted whatever penalty the committee imposed.

Just don't hit a flag stick.

 

[Mulligan9111]

The thing that's so frustrating about all of this is that the rules of golf have such convoluted wording that leaves a lot up to interpretation. Case in point, what is virtual certainty to one player is completely different to another. Same goes with a lot of the rules.

But at the same time, how do you come up with rules for every possible scenario without leaving some of it up to interpretation?

For what it's worth, I think you did the right thing here Wadesworld. You proceeded under your understanding of the rules and then questioned the ruling during the scoring. All you can do is accept the committee's ruling regarding the infraction.

 

[Fourputt]

Ignore the fact that you found the tee ball eventually.

Where you dropped the ball is the issue not the fact that you took a drop. You thought your ball had entered the water but we're not 100% sure of where. When you take a drop it has to be done as near the spot where the ball crossed the hazard. Because you didn't know where that point was the only option was to return to the tee as any drop without knowing where to drop would most likely be an illegal one.

This is wrong, as shown in a later post. You do have the right to drop at the best estimated point. The player has the responsibility of doing his best to determine that point before making an estimate.

From my understanding there was virtual certainty the ball was in the hazard in that case the decision fits exactly:

In the unlikely event that the original ball was found outside the water hazard, the player must continue with the dropped ball under penalty of one stroke (Rule 26-1).

It was not Wades fault there was no spotter to determine his ball was not in the water. If not it is up to him and his fellow competitors to decide if the ball could likely have gotten to the hazard. That would make for virtual certainty as the hazard was out of sight. If that was the case it is one stroke.

Going back to the tee would have been the better plan but as he did not it was a wrongly substituted ball. When a wrongly substituted ball is dropped it is in play. Since it is in play it can not be a wrong place to play from, just a wrongly substituted ball.

If I'd read your first post sooner, I'd have shut up rather than make a poor and hasty ruling. Ted is right in this all the way.

 

[Fourputt]

Ignore the fact that you found the tee ball eventually.

Where you dropped the ball is the issue not the fact that you took a drop. You thought your ball had entered the water but we're not 100% sure of where. When you take a drop it has to be done as near the spot where the ball crossed the hazard. Because you didn't know where that point was the only option was to return to the tee as any drop without knowing where to drop would most likely be an illegal one.

You're right blugold.

I believe not adequately considering virtual certainty was my key mistake.

Should I have hit a provisional? Absolutely. However, everyone in my group thought the ball would be sitting in the next fairway, so that's why I didn't.

With that said, once I came over the hill and could not locate my ball, I should have treated it as a lost ball and returned to the tee. While I think everyone in my group would have agreed that my ball was going to be in the next fairway and likely would have agreed that if it was not there it must have gone into the water hazard, that doesn't meet the standard for virtual certainty. It could have been driven over by a cart and embedded. It could have been somewhere in the rough I did not see, or as was the case, it could have been on a totally different line than I thought. But, at the time I simply surmised too quickly that the ball must have entered the hazard.

Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time you thought that virtual certainty was established, and that is really the primary requirement under the rule. Next time your definition of virtual certainty may be a bit more strict, but I still think that what you did was acceptable in this particular incident. Apparently the committee saw it the same way.

 

[Nate]

Blue, I think you are doing a wonderful job in explaining out the rules and which ones would apply here.

Play with a couple of rules officials in our Saturday morning group and they will tell you, if you or someone your playing party can't confirm the ball indeed go into the hazard then it's a lost ball and must be hit from the previous spot again. We have this hole at our course, 17th, a short par 4 that has a hazard running on the left side of the hole and then OB (houses) right after that. When guys hit it over there and can't find it, they "guess" that it went into the water and just can't be located, however maybe it's just plugged, or lost in the grass or hit a tree and bounced OB. Thus is why you always rehit when it's unknown and not for certain.

 

[blugold]

I sent an email to the USGA asking about this situation. My email to the USGA:

If a player hits his tee shot in an area and comes to that area to search for his ball, but finds a lateral water hazard that was not visible from the tee can that player assume with virtual certainty that his ball entered that hazard and proceed under rule 26.1?

The situation specifically:

“I hit a drive that I pulled way left, into an adjacent fairway I thought. We drove over the mounds separating my fairway from the other hole, and my heart sunk. The other fairway was very skinny, and there was a lateral water hazard on the far side. Not seeing my ball in the fairway and not believing it could be anywhere else, I picked the spot where I thought the ball was most likely to have entered the hazard, dropped within 2 club lengths and hit my third shot.

However, as we were driving to my cart-mate's ball, we found my original ball in the mounds between the holes. Apparently the angle was not near as severe as I thought, so my ball had simply stopped between the holes. Disgusted, I picked it up and finished the hole with the substituted ball. I hit the green with my next shot and two-putted. We recorded a triple for the hole (2-stroke penalty for what we thought was playing a wrong-ball)”

What should be the outcome for this scenario?

I hope you don't mind Wade. Their response:

In reply to your email, 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 – see Decision 26-1/1. “Virtual certainty” 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 is justified.

Based on the information you provided, it appears the player did not have knowledge or virtual certainty his ball was in the water hazard. Therefore, in the situation you described, the player was required to put another ball into play under Rule 27-1 (“stroke and distance”). In playing the ball dropped under Rule 26-1, the player played from a wrong place – see Decision 26-1/3 for analogous situation.

Thank you for your interest in the Rules of Golf, which can be found on the USGA’s web site at www.rulesofgolf.com. Additionally, we invite you to watch the “Rules of Golf Explained” video series, which provides explanations of several of the most commonly applied Rules of Golf in easy-to-understand language, at www.usga-rules.com.

Rules of Golf Associate
United States Golf Association

 

[wadesworld]

I sent an email to the USGA asking about this situation. I hope you don't mind Wade. Their response:

No, of course not. However, this part of the decision referenced confuses me:

In stroke play, he incurred the stroke-and-distance penalty prescribed by Rule 27-1 and an additional penalty of two strokes for a breach of that Rule (Rule 20-7c).

Is that saying that once I found the original ball, I should have cancelled all strokes made with the ball played from the wrong place, gone back to the tee and played my 5th shot? (original drive, plus stroke and distance for lost ball, plus 2 for playing from wrong place). If so, ouch. It wouldn't have actually mattered since we had a triple-bogey max, but that would certainly hurt in a real stroke play tourney.

 

[blugold]

No, of course not. However, this part of the decision referenced confuses me:



[/FONT][/COLOR]Is that saying that once I found the original ball, I should have cancelled all strokes made with the ball played from the wrong place, gone back to the tee and played my 5th shot? (original drive, plus stroke and distance for lost ball, plus 2 for playing from wrong place). If so, ouch. It wouldn't have actually mattered since we had a triple-bogey max, but that would certainly hurt in a real stroke play tourney.

Not how I read it. Once you played your dropped ball, the original found ball is no more. What I think it means is that when you played your drop, you were laying 4, hitting 5. Tee shot (in pond - sort of), penalty (lift out of pond), penalty, penalty, next shot. I think. I'm so darned confused.

 

[gillesam]

Here is the ruling our pro gave for my situation which was similar but different as I had finished the hole before I found my original ball.

Alistair. What I have attached below seems to cover the penalty for the original breech.

Although you didn’t knowingly break the rule your presumption that the ball was in the hazard would mean that you have proceeded under the wrong/ an inapplicable rule. It does seem that it is up to the Committee to decide exactly what action to take based on your actions. I would say that although it seems harsh, you should probably be disqualified for failing to correct the mistake before the end of the hole (even although you didn’t know at the time).

34-3/6
Player Proceeds Under an Inapplicable Rule; Committee's Decision

When a player proceeds under a Rule that does not apply to his situation and then makes a stroke, the Committee must determine the Rule to apply in order to give a ruling based on the player's actions.

For examples of appropriate Committee decisions in such cases, see Decisions 18-2a/3, 20-7/2, 25-1b/13 and 25-1c/2 and the explanations below:

In Decision 18-2a/3, the player has proceeded under an inapplicable Rule (Rule 24-2). As Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable) requires the player to have the intention to proceed under it before lifting the ball, the Committee may not apply Rule 28 to the player's actions. As there was no Rule that allowed the player to lift his ball in such a situation, the Committee determined that Rule 18-2a must apply.

In Decision 20-7/2, the player deemed his ball unplayable in a water hazard, dropped it according to the procedure of option b or c of Rule 28 and played it from the water hazard. As Rule 26-1 was the only Rule that allowed the player to lift his ball for relief in that situation, the Committee determined that Rule 26 applied and ruled accordingly. As a result, the player was considered to have played from a wrong place (i.e., a place not permitted by Rule 26-1).

In Decision 25-1b/13, the player's ball lay in casual water that he mistook for a water hazard. He dropped and played a ball according to the procedure of option b under Rule 26-1. As Rule 25-1 was the only Rule that allowed the player to lift his ball for relief in that situation, the Committee determined that Rule 25 applied and ruled accordingly. As a result, the player was considered to have played from a wrong place (i.e. a place not permitted by Rule 25-1) and to have wrongly substituted a ball in breach of Rule 25-1 (see Rule 15-2).

In Decision 25-1c/2, the player did not know the location of his original ball but assumed, without knowledge or virtual certainty, that it was in ground under repair. He dropped and played another ball under Rule 25-1c. As the player did not know the location of his original ball, in these circumstances, Rule 27-1 was the only Rule that the player could have proceeded under. Therefore, the Committee determined that Rule 27-1 applied and ruled accordingly. As a result, the player was considered to have put a ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance and to have played from a wrong place (i.e. a place not permitted by Rule 27-1).

Not sure if that helps or not.

 

[Fourputt]

No, of course not. However, this part of the decision referenced confuses me:



[/FONT][/COLOR]Is that saying that once I found the original ball, I should have cancelled all strokes made with the ball played from the wrong place, gone back to the tee and played my 5th shot? (original drive, plus stroke and distance for lost ball, plus 2 for playing from wrong place). If so, ouch. It wouldn't have actually mattered since we had a triple-bogey max, but that would certainly hurt in a real stroke play tourney.

What I read from the USGA response is you incurred a 2 stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place and one more stroke under stroke and distance for the lost ball. It's a question for the committee to determine if you gained a significant advantage from your mistake, meaning did the wrong place result in a lower score than the accumulated penalties accounted for? Usually the DQ is only imposed when a significant distance advantage is gained by playing from the wrong place. It is possible that if there are intervening trees that no advantage may have occurred despite the distance gained, so DQ may not be warranted. That would have to be decided based on the specific situation.

You can see from this that although the rules involved in this situation are pretty easy to understand and follow, when you fail to follow them, that's when things get complicated. All would have been avoided had you just played a provisional ball. You would probably have found your original ball as you walked over to the provisional. Even if you hadn't found the original ball, continuing play with the provisional would have eliminated all of the confusion.

This is why I got involved in the Rules. I find these situations to be fascinating, even though my understanding gets a bit foggy at times. You almost have to live and breathe the rules to be able to come up with the right answer on some of these compound mistakes.

 

[JLit]

Luckily we have the committee decision rule now, ie. Tiger at the Masters, that can keep honest mistakes like this from being a DQ.

 

[Nate]

Not how I read it. Once you played your dropped ball, the original found ball is no more. What I think it means is that when you played your drop, you were laying 4, hitting 5. Tee shot (in pond - sort of), penalty (lift out of pond), penalty, penalty, next shot. I think. I'm so darned confused.

I agree, the fact that the ball was found after means nothing unless you want to discuss the incorrect drop, but then I guess that is incorrect too.

 

[SaffaClint]

Ignore the fact that you found the tee ball eventually.

Where you dropped the ball is the issue not the fact that you took a drop. You thought your ball had entered the water but we're not 100% sure of where. When you take a drop it has to be done as near the spot where the ball crossed the hazard. Because you didn't know where that point was the only option was to return to the tee as any drop without knowing where to drop would most likely be an illegal one.

This is exactly what I said in my post :bulgy-eyes:

 

[Tedfroop]

You're right blugold.

I believe not adequately considering virtual certainty was my key mistake.

Should I have hit a provisional? Absolutely. However, everyone in my group thought the ball would be sitting in the next fairway, so that's why I didn't.

With that said, once I came over the hill and could not locate my ball, I should have treated it as a lost ball and returned to the tee. While I think everyone in my group would have agreed that my ball was going to be in the next fairway and likely would have agreed that if it was not there it must have gone into the water hazard, that doesn't meet the standard for virtual certainty. It could have been driven over by a cart and embedded. It could have been somewhere in the rough I did not see, or as was the case, it could have been on a totally different line than I thought. But, at the time I simply surmised too quickly that the ball must have entered the hazard.

Just two things there:

- You can not play a provisional for a ball lost in a hazard or out of bounds. If you do the second ball hit is in play and you must finish the hole with it. Your next stroke will be your fourth. If you find your first in the hazard and play it after hitting another from the tee that is a wrong ball and you must correct it before you tee off on the next hole.

- This is the kind of situation where it is very good practice to involve your fellow competitors in deciding what happened. Someone else may know the course better and be better able to determine if your ball made it to the hazard. That and you make it easy on the official to give you a bit of a break as their main function is the protection of the field, and having your fellow competitors have a voice here can really help. If you said you thought you made the water and someone else said you didn't you may have kept looking in the right place.

 

[wadesworld]

- You can not play a provisional for a ball lost in a hazard or out of bounds. If you do the second ball hit is in play and you must finish the hole with it. Your next stroke will be your fourth. If you find your first in the hazard and play it after hitting another from the tee that is a wrong ball and you must correct it before you tee off on the next hole.

That is only true for balls known or virtually certain to be in a hazard or out of bounds. If there is any doubt whatsoever, then playing a provisional is permitted:

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule27-1.

In my case, my ball was hit towards another fairway, with mounds in between, towards a water hazard that we could not see. I'd say there was plenty of potential for the ball to be lost outside the water hazard and thus, it was a mistake not to play a provisional. Had I found my ball within the hazard, I could have proceeded under the relief options for balls in a hazard.

 

[TripleBogieTim]

This is one of those crazy situations where even though we have an offical ruling from the USGA (good work Blu), we still can't come to a consensus as to what the actual penatly and result are....sometimes the rules of golf are too complicated.

 

[wadesworld]

Going back to blugold's response from the USGA, I think I now have a complete picture of the situation:

To summarize:

1) When the original tee ball was played, a provisional ball should have been played since it was not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard.
2) When the ball was not located, and absent virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard, I was subject to 27-1 stroke and distance, and should have returned to the tee to play my third shot.
3) Since I dropped a ball where I was not permitted to drop a ball, I played from a wrong place and was subject to a two-stroke penalty.
4) Had the breech been a serious one, I would have been required to correct the error by playing a second ball under 20-7c or could face disqualification.

So, for those keeping score at home, that's:

Stroke one: original tee ball
Stroke two: penalty stroke under 27-1 for lost ball (distance part of this penalty was negated by my incorrect drop)
Strokes three and four: 2 stroke penalty for playing from wrong place

So I was playing my 5th stroke with the ball I dropped.

Now, with all that said, Fourputt was correct that I proceeded in a correct manner for what I thought had happened. Given that and the location of my original ball (in a much more favorable location), I don't think the committee would have ever considered what happened a serious breech. I was only hurting myself by my incorrect application of the rules.

As Fourputt said, my application of "virtual certainty" will definitely be more strict in the future.