Rules Question

TheFarneyman

If there is an area under GUR and your ball seems to go into it but cant be found , do you go back to the tee or can you play as if it went into the GUR and continue?

cgh

see rule 25-c, this is a grey area. as you need to be certain that it did go into it.

TheFarneyman

so if your partner/fellow competitor agrees its gone in then its fine?

ShriekingSheet

cgh wrote: »

see rule 25-c, this is a grey area. as you need to be certain that it did go into it.

Well, it's not a "grey area". It's the same as a water hazard like a deep lake or river. The ball disappears but if its "known or virtually certain" that it went in, you take a drop. A penalty obviously applies for water and not GUR.

If the GUR is over a hill, or behind trees and you don't see it go in, and subsequently don't find the ball , you can't claim it's in and take a drop. Again, the same is true for a water hazard. If its hidden and you can't be certain the ball went in, the ball is lost.

Roger_007

The interpetation of the rule is:-

"If the ball is not found but is known to be in the abnormal ground condition, the player may drop or place a substitute ball as if it were lifted from the abnormal ground condition, except when the abnormal ground condition is in or borders a water hazard".

So if your playing partner(s) agree the the ball is in GUR and not in a hazard then you just take your free drop.

ShriekingSheet

Roger_007 wrote: »

So if your playing partner(s) agree the the ball is in GUR and not in a hazard then you just take your free drop.

Sorry to be pedantic, but "once there's agreement" is one of those myths that's either based on an old wording of the rule, or just nonsense altogether.

Your two mates can't just agree that your ball is in a certain spot. "It's a question of fact", and has to be "known or virtually certain", not agreed based on playing partners assumptions.

In my experience, the widely held interpretation of this is that someone has to SEE the ball go in.

There's rare fair exceptions where you see the ball go at the hazard, but not quite in, and there's nothing else but short grass around it, and no chance of plugging. That's also fair IMO. But any kind of rough, bush or OB near the hazard means doubt, which means no certainty.

Sorry to nit pick but important point.

Roger_007

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic, but "once there's agreement" is one of those myths that's either based on an old wording of the rule, or just nonsense altogether.

Your two mates can't just agree that your ball is in a certain spot. "It's a question of fact", and has to be "known or virtually certain", not agreed based on playing partners assumptions.

In my experience, the widely held interpretation of this is that someone has to SEE the ball go in.

There's rare fair exceptions where you see the ball go at the hazard, but not quite in, and there's nothing else but short grass around it, and no chance of plugging. That's also fair IMO. But any kind of rough, bush or OB near the hazard means doubt, which means no certainty.

Sorry to nit pick but important point.

I was assuming that the "agreement" that the ball is in GUR has to be based on some evidence i.e. either somebody saw the ball go in or it could not conceivably be anywhere else. In other words it has to be virtually certain. I was not suggesting that they toss a coin or just assume that the ball could be in there.

Almaviva

Roger_007 wrote: »

I was assuming that the "agreement" that the ball is in GUR has to be based on some evidence i.e. either somebody saw the ball go in or it could not conceivably be anywhere else. In other words it has to be virtually certain. I was not suggesting that they toss a coin or just assume that the ball could be in there.

Shrieking's point is important though.

Agreement doesnt come in to it one way or another. It is up to you to be virtually certain of the outcome. Too often people either do not know the rules, or simply chance their arm, putting the pressure (expected to be minimal to nil in most handicap golf) on playing partners not to object to the conclusion being suggested. And then taking their lack of objection to mean their choice of course of action to be OK. Not necessarily so.

Almaviva

On the original question.
For example, are you certain that there is no possibility that while the ball went into the GUR, that it could not have come out again? And you just can find it. If you are not certain, then the ball is lost, so no free escape.

nomunnnofun

What is the ruling if you are proved wrong afterwards?
For instance, if I see my ball go into a hazard/GUR and cannot find it so take a drop and play, then move on and find my ball past the hazard, am I penalised. I knew or was virtually certain at the time that it went in but due to whatever reason ( eyes playing tricks on me ) I was wrong. Which ball is in play in this circumstance?:(

ShriekingSheet

nomunnnofun wrote: »

What is the ruling if you are proved wrong afterwards?
For instance, if I see my ball go into a hazard/GUR and cannot find it so take a drop and play, then move on and find my ball past the hazard, am I penalised. I knew or was virtually certain at the time that it went in but due to whatever reason ( eyes playing tricks on me ) I was wrong. Which ball is in play in this circumstance?:(

You continue to play the dropped ball without penalty.

Because you "knew or were vurtually certain" the ball went in, you were right to drop a ball, and as soon as that ball was dropped it was in play, and the original ball did not matter.