Linda,
Sad but true story today. My buddy Lou drove way down the middle of the 18th hole par five which was actually his second hole of a shotgun start. His group also noticed that at some point the group in front of them kind of circled back in a cart way up the fairway. Lou's group looked and looked but could never find the good drive. They strongly suspected it had been picked up by the group in front them, but the group now was no longer near them to ask. Lou went back and re-teed under stroke and distance penalty. He hit it out in the bush, beat it around, and finished the hole with an 11. He was fairly much out of the tournament now after 2 holes. Eventually, in the scoring area, which is also the snack bar and table area, he found one of the players in front of him, who stated “yes,” he had picked a same brand x ball with a circled L, which is Lou’s ball mark, out of the 18th fairway. Now granted this is something that a golfer should never have done, but he did.
Driving home, I was talking to Lou, and wondered if he could have invoked Rule 3-3 and stated he would play a second ball, which he would prefer to count. He would play out first ball as lost, which he had done that scored the 11. But also drop a ball under 3-3 and play from a place his group agreed they best thought his drive had ended and been picked up from by the outside agency. After the round, Lou could have questioned the group in front of him. If as happened, he finds a player who admitted they picked up his ball, he asks for the rules committee to count his invoked 3-3 second ball for his score. And hypothetically, if he finds no one who picked us his ball, he tells the rules committee: “I invoked 3-3 because we really thought someone picked it up, but we found no proof.” Thus, I guess the committee should count the lost ball as an 11. Would this have worked if Lou had done this? Is there anything else Lou could have done?
Thanks for all the great educational answers over the years.
Lou's friend.
Lou from Rio Rancho, New Mexico
Dear Lou,
There is no penalty for invoking Rule 3-3 and playing two balls. However, in this situation, the ball played under stroke and distance would be ruled the ball to count. I originally thought otherwise, but I received a detailed and convincing argument from an Australian referee that I have pasted below, and I will defer to his expertise.
Linda,
The Committee's hands are tied. Only one ball has been completed under the Rules, the ball played under Stroke and Distance. So that is the only ball that can count.
Invoking R3-3 has no relevance or impact on this, so it is unhelpful. A player uncertain of what to do is free to invoke R3-3 and play under an alternate rules approach, but if only one of the two approaches is legitimate then that is the way the Committee must rule.
The rules do not permit any extension to the time limit for finding a ball or to establishing knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball has been taken by an outside agency, and any new facts that come to light after that time limit are irrelevant. R3-3 is not a mechanism that can deliver an extension of that limit, nor can it put a halt on the search time clock by simply invoking R3-3.
Under the current Rules, these principles are encoded in D27/7 and in a famous ruling discussed among aficionados similar to the story that Lou has brought in #1838: a player suspects an outside agency has lifted his ball but there is no virtual certainty of this when the search time expires. After time expiry, new information proves the ball was lifted by an outside agency but the ruling affirms that new facts that come to light subsequently are irrelevant.
Both of these cases are now enshrined in the 2019 Interpretation that I have copied below for information but this only provides improved clarity, they apply equally now.
Known or Virtually Certain/2 – Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires
Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.
Examples of when the player’s later findings are irrelevant include when:
• A player’s tee shot comes to rest in an area containing heavy rough and a large animal hole. After a three-minute search, it is determined that it is not known or virtually certain that the ball is in the animal hole. As the player returns to the teeing area, the ball is found in the animal hole.
Even though the player has not yet put another ball in play, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball (Rule 18.2b – What to Do When Ball is Lost or Out of Bounds) since it was not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the animal hole, when the search time expired.
• A player cannot find his or her ball and believes it may have been picked up by a spectator (outside influence), but there is not enough evidence to be virtually certain of this. A short time after the three-minute search time expires, a spectator is found to have the player’s ball.
The player must take stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball (Rule 18.2b) since the movement by the outside influence only became known after the search time expired.
Regards,
Lou from Australia
Linda
Copyright © 2018 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.
