Hi Linda,
I have a question regarding the Unplayable Ball Rule and would appreciate your interpretation.
In a recent tournament one of the players in my tee group tried to play over a palm tree but didn't make it and the ball buried in the tree. Three of us saw the ball go into the tree and we all agreed with 100% certainty that it didn't come out. We couldn't see the ball at rest, but we all saw it enter.
We agreed that, as he was not able to see and therefore couldn't identify his ball in the tree, he should play another ball under the penalty of stroke and distance, which he did.
However, when I got home I decided to look up the rule and I compared the wording of the new rule with that of the old rule and this is what I discovered:
Old Rule - Decision 28/1 - When Necessary to Find and Identify Ball Deemed Unplayable
Q...May a player deem unplayable a ball which has not been found?
A. Yes. A player may proceed under the stroke and distance option (Rule 28a) without finding his ball. However, since Rules 28b and 28c require reference to where the ball lay, the player must find and identify his ballin order to proceed under either of these options.
New Rule - Rule 19.2 - Relief Options for Unplayable Ball in General Area or on Putting Green
• The player may take stroke-and-distance relief under 19.2a even if the original ball has not been found and identified
• Butto take back-on-the-line relief under 19.2b or lateral relief under 19.2c, the player must know the spot of the original ball
The notable difference here is the fact that the new rule doesn't actually state that you must 'find and identify' the ball in order to use 19.2b and 19.2c, only that you must know the spot of the original ball. The fact that the first bullet point infers there is no requirement to find and identify the ball is somewhat redundant, because under stroke and distance there is no requirement to know the location of the original ball, i.e., lost ball situation.
So, having established that in order to used Rule 19.2b or 19.2c, all that is required is to know the spot of the original ball, I referred to the Rule 7.2 - How to Identify Ball:
Interpretation - 7.2/1 Identifying Ball That Cannot be Retrieved
If a player sees a ball in a tree or some other location where he or she is unable to retrieve the ball, the player may not assume that it is his or hers but rather must identify it in one of the ways provided in Rule 7.2.
This may be done even though the player is unable to retrieve the ball such as by:
• Using binoculars or distance-measuring device to see a mark that definitely identifies it as the player's ball, or
• Determining that another player or spectator saw the ball come to rest in that specific location after the player's stroke
The second bullet point is suggesting that, if another player or spectator can verify that the ball came to rest in the tree, that is sufficient to identify the ball. So this brings me back to my original question, would this meet the requirement under Rule 19.2b and 19.2c of knowing the location of the original ball?
Note: There is a slight difference between our situation and the example given as we saw the ball enter the tree but couldn't see it from the ground - would it have made a difference if we could have seen the ball?
I guess what I am trying to understand is whether there has been a deliberate relaxation in the application of this rule or has it just been re-worded with less precision, but with no intended change of application.
I look forward to your response and apologize for the length of my question, but I wanted to include all of the information of my research into this situation,
Regards,
Lou from Bermuda
Dear Lou,
I consulted a highly regarded senior official to find an answer for you. Here is his response:
I think there is a requirement to know the specific location of the ball in the tree in order for the second bullet of 7.2/1 to be applicable. In other words, you need to see a ball in the tree and have someone verify that the player’s ball is in that specific location. Just knowing (or suspecting) that it is somewhere in the tree is not sufficient.
Linda
Copyright © 2019 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.
