Another Ruling!

Here is another question to ponder on....

A player hits his shot and it goes off the fairway, there is a pond near there and some trees.

The player then hits another ball as his provisional ball.

You walk down to the first ball but cannot find it.

Having a good luck around it is decided that the ball must have gone into the pond.

The player then decides that he is going to take a drop from the lateral water hazard!

Now, I said that as he had played a provisional ball he should play that as three off the tee.

His reply was that as his ball had gone into the lateral water hazard he had no need to hit a provisional ball.

I then said that if he hadn't played a provisional ball then he could take the drop as we had agreed that the ball had gone into the pond.

Who's right?

Russ

if the ball had gone into the pond then he can drop one behind it yes ,but if he had already taken 3 of the tee im sure he has to play that one but again im not 100% russell.

If the ball definitiely went into the pond, I am afraid, he is, Russ.

Russ,

John is right BUT you all have to be positive that the ball ha gone into the hazard.

I had a situation with someone where they hit there tee shot & as it was directly into the sun we all lost it. The player was positvie it was a good shot & would find it. We looked & couldn't find it, he then said "oh it must have gone into the ditch (which was a 300yd carry!!). The rest of us couldn't honestly say it did as none of us saw it so his only option was to take 3 off the tee which he did but then walked off after finihing the hole calling us all the names under the sun!!

John.

If no body can identify the ball as in the water then how can he take a drop from it. Got to be 3 from the tee.

Tony, they both agreed the ball had gone in the water, so he would be allowed a drop.

John F is also correct in that it has to be 100% certain that the ball went into the water or the normal procedure then applies. Three off the tee.

The difficulty with this rule is who determines the certainty.  In Russel's example the very fact that the player hit a provisional suggests to me that he was not certain that the ball entered the hazard.  If all the areas it might have gone are short mown you could argue the search provided that certainty but if there is long grass about or there is evidence of holes or indentations in the ground then there must be a doubt about the resting place of the ball and therefore it must be three off the tee.

I agree, Jon, but the two people involved agreed that it had gone into the hazard and, really, that is all that matters.

If they had disagreed who's view takes precedence John the player or the marker.