[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

Snedecker did not identify a ball as been his therefore it was LOST so he had to play from the bunker as the provisional ball was then automatically the ball in play. There is no great rules mystery about this. At the very most you could ask if Snedecker should have looked for his ball but having whacked one into the trees and another into a bunker maybe a third attempt did not look too appetising,

Jon

[John_Cullum]

A player is obligated to identify a ball if it is found within 5 minutes of the start of a search and he has not put another ball in play

[Jim Nelson]

Jim,

Snedecker did not identify a ball as been his therefore it was LOST so he had to play from the bunker as the provisional ball was then automatically the ball in play. There is no great rules mystery about this. At the very most you could ask if Snedecker should have looked for his ball but having whacked one into the trees and another into a bunker maybe a third attempt did not look too appetising,

Jon

John Cullum has it right, but the point I was surprised about was that the announcer said the ball was found.  Maybe I should be in the other thread which is bashing Strange/Azinger.  No one every explained whether it was or wasn't found.  I won't beat this anymore tho.

Jim

[Doug Siebert]

deleted

[Doug Siebert]

Another similar question is why didn't GMac hit a provisional when he snap hooked that shot into the gorse?  There is no way that ball was ever going to be found.

After you just hit a shot that ugly would you really want to step up and hit another one right away?  In his case, I'd probably want to wait a few minutes, but I probably hit more snap hooks than he does   Also, had he done so, and put the ball up on the green close with a chance of getting a par out of the situation, wouldn't it be quite the disappointment if a fan or marshal found the ball and he was forced to play the shot a third time under the unplayable rule?

This brings up what I see as a problem with the rules, certainly as applied to professionals playing with a gallery and marshals.  He doesn't have any way of abandoning that shot.  The ball was either lost or unplayable, and he would have to play again from the same spot in either case.  Since the rules for a lost ball, unplayable, OB and water all allow the same stroke and distance option of replaying the shot over again, there ought to be some sort of declaration under the rules that you are abandoning your ball without regard for whether it is lost, found but unplayable, OB or in a water hazard.  I can't see any case where being able to do this would give one any advantage over the current rules.


Just for the hell of it, I have to mention the most creative and hilarious use of the unplayable rule I've ever seen.  One of the courses I play in the area regularly has a hole with the green cut into a hillside.  It looks fairly flat due to the location, but actually has a severe back to front slope, particularly in the front of the green.  I was playing with a couple guys who were playing a match against each other, and on this hole one guy has a three footer from above the hole.  I know very well that you can't be aggressive in any way with that putt, as a miss will degreen about 30-40 yards down the hill and leave a very tricky pitch to that front pin position.  He hits it firm, it lips out, and rolls all the way down the hill.  Without missing a beat, he says "that's unplayable", and places another ball in the same spot, and after a quick objection from his friend, and me agreeing with the guy that nothing prevents you from taking an unplayable lie no matter where you are, he makes the putt, this time dying it into the hole as he should have the first time.  That was an amazingly smart move, as the odds of getting up and down from there are pretty long - if you are more than a few feet short of the hole, you will be playing the same pitch shot again, so the odds were good he would be left with a downhill putt longer than the three footer he had on the replay.

[Joe Stansell]

This brings up what I see as a problem with the rules, certainly as applied to professionals playing with a gallery and marshals.  He doesn't have any way of abandoning that shot.  The ball was either lost or unplayable, and he would have to play again from the same spot in either case.  Since the rules for a lost ball, unplayable, OB and water all allow the same stroke and distance option of replaying the shot over again, there ought to be some sort of declaration under the rules that you are abandoning your ball without regard for whether it is lost, found but unplayable, OB or in a water hazard.  I can't see any case where being able to do this would give one any advantage over the current rules.

You could just hit a second ball without declaring it as a provisional. See Rule 27-2.

[Michael Moore]

Carl, before the current rule was put into place golfers used to block the sun to get the grass to lie down, allowing the ball to fall into the hole.

I witnessed it on many occasions.

Pat -

Are you saying, that on many occasions during a round of golf, that you saw people hit the ball so close to the hole that this practice could be used, and that then they holed out by casting a shadow over the ball?

Or are you saying on many occasions you saw people win a bar bet doing this?

How long does it take for the grass to lie down far enough?

[Carl Nichols]

Carl, before the current rule was put into place golfers used to block the sun to get the grass to lie down, allowing the ball to fall into the hole.

I witnessed it on many occasions.

Pat -

Are you saying, that on many occasions during a round of golf, that you saw people hit the ball so close to the hole that this practice could be used, and that then they holed out by casting a shadow over the ball?

Or are you saying on many occasions you saw people win a bar bet doing this?

How long does it take for the grass to lie down far enough?

We're also talking about the ball casting a shadow sufficient to cause the ball to move, not a person.

[Jon Wiggett]

A player is obligated to identify a ball if it is found within 5 minutes of the start of a search and he has not put another ball in play

I do not know if this is so but will take your word on it. A player is not obliged to search for the ball however and I do not know if Snedecker did nor if he knew A ball had been found. I hesitate to believe that a commentator many yards away with no clear view of the ball found was able to identify it as Snedecker's. It seems to me that he could only assume rather then know.

Jim,

John is correct and the pope is catholic but neither has any baring on this case

Jon

[Will MacEwen]

A player is obligated to identify a ball if it is found within 5 minutes of the start of a search and he has not put another ball in play

I do not know if this is so but will take your word on it. A player is not obliged to search for the ball however and I do not know if Snedecker did nor if he knew A ball had been found. I hesitate to believe that a commentator many yards away with no clear view of the ball found was able to identify it as Snedecker's. It seems to me that he could only assume rather then know.

Jim,

John is correct and the pope is catholic but neither has any baring on this case

Jon

You are olbiged to identify it.  As I recall in the Mickelson Lickliter playoff, Phil had decided to abandon the search for the ball in the ravine and take his provisional sitting dead centre, and some helpful fan called out "found it Phil".  He declared it unplayable and re-teed.

[Howard Riefs]

Sesame Street has the "Letter of the Day."

The R&A has the "Rule of the Day."  The official word on Snedeker's lost ball...

http://www.theopen.com/en/News/LatestNews/2012/07/Ruling-of-the-Day-4.aspx

Snedeker, Daly, Grace and J M Singh all chose to play a provisional ball in the event the original was not found. In all cases, the players decided that it would be to their advantage not to find the original ball.

Accordingly, they did not search for the original ball and walked directly towards their provisional ball and played it. As per the Definition of Lost Ball, if a player plays a stroke with the provisional ball, that is nearer the hole than the place where the original ball is likely to be, this renders the original ball lost.

The player is entitled to play such a stroke. However, in the meantime if anyone – a spectator, a fellow-competitor or an opponent — finds the original ball before the player makes a stroke at the provisional ball and within five minutes, the player must inspect the ball that has been found. If it is the player’s original ball, he must continue play with it (or proceed under the unplayable ball Rule). The provisional ball must then be abandoned.

Therefore, as Snedeker, Daly, Grace and Singh had all played the provisional ball from a spot nearer to the hole than where the original was likely to be, the original ball was no longer the ball in play.

[Jon Wiggett]

A player is obligated to identify a ball if it is found within 5 minutes of the start of a search and he has not put another ball in play

I do not know if this is so but will take your word on it. A player is not obliged to search for the ball however and I do not know if Snedecker did nor if he knew A ball had been found. I hesitate to believe that a commentator many yards away with no clear view of the ball found was able to identify it as Snedecker's. It seems to me that he could only assume rather then know.

Jim,

John is correct and the pope is catholic but neither has any baring on this case

Jon

You are olbiged to identify it.  As I recall in the Mickelson Lickliter playoff, Phil had decided to abandon the search for the ball in the ravine and take his provisional sitting dead centre, and some helpful fan called out "found it Phil".  He declared it unplayable and re-teed.

Is there a parrot in the house???

Will, yes you are obliged to identify the ball but only if a ball is found!!!!! Snedecker was NOT obliged to LOOK for his ball and as he was apparently NOT AWARE that a ball had been found he was not obliged to identify it.

JON

[Joe Stansell]

Those of us watching the American telecast heard Paul Azinger say that Sneddeker's ball was found but that he opted instead to play his provisional. That is quite clearly different than what actually happened, according to the R&A explanation on its "Rule of the Day."

The real criticism here is that Azinger (and ESPN) gave the wrong impression of how the rules work, which means that when I'm out with the happy hackers next, I will have to debate the rule with someone who will think me an idiot because Azinger said something different.

[JMEvensky]

Those of us watching the American telecast heard Paul Azinger say that Sneddeker's ball was found but that he opted instead to play his provisional. That is quite clearly different than what actually happened, according to the R&A explanation on its "Rule of the Day."

The real criticism here is that Azinger (and ESPN) gave the wrong impression of how the rules work, which means that when I'm out with the happy hackers next, I will have to debate the rule with someone who will think me an idiot because Azinger said something different.

Yes,but anyone who cites Azinger as an expert at anything is an idiot himself--so you'll be even.

[mike_beene]

In an effort to be positive, can anyone name any rulings Azinger got right?

[Matthew Petersen]

In an effort to be positive, can anyone name any rulings Azinger got right?

He does seem to be aware that you have to tee it between the markers and you finish a hole by holing out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()