From: cdash@moet.cs.colorado.edu (Charles Shub)
Subject: Re: Rules question
Organization: University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:43:38 GMT

ian watson made the posting including...
=>  >I thought the same way until a few weeks ago.  I made a posting and as
=>  >part of a response, Charlie Shub pointed out that there is no such
=>  >thing as "declaring a ball to be lost".  We all seem to play it, and
=>  >most of the time it makes no difference.  
=>  >
=>  >This is because we "declare" the ball lost, then put another into play
=>  >(e.g. by hitting our provisional from a point farther on than where
=>  >the original was likely to have gone).  However, it is not the
=>  >declaration which makes the original lost -- it is the putting of the
=>  >other ball into play. 

right...

=>  >So what, you may say.  Charlie pointed out a rules decision where it
=>  >DOES make a difference :  You've stuffed a tee shot into the trees,
=>  >then hit your provisional to the lip of the hole.  You prefer to be
=>  >there for 3 than in the trees for 1.  Declaring the first to be lost
=>  >so that you get the second ball is NOT allowed.  The race is on
=>  >between you trying to put the second ball into play and your opponent
=>  >trying to find your original before you do so. 
=>  >On reading rule 27a, though, 
=>  >
=>  >[ A ball is lost if : 
=>  >   a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five
=>  >      minutes after the player's side or his or their caddies have begun
=>  >      to search for it... ]
=>  >   
=>  >it seems that an opponent finding a ball may not prevent the player from
=>  >rendering it lost through any of 27a, b, or c.  27a is not a terrific
=>  >piece of text : does the 'found' relate to 'by the player' in the same
=>  >way as 'identified as his' does ?  what if they don't begin a search
=>  >for it ?  It seems like the rule never takes into account that you
=>  >might NOT want to search and find a ball.  Any Rules marshalls out
=>  >there ?  Charlie, anyone else ? Help ! 

Ron Sercley added

=>  Charlie is correct.  The answer in decision 27/16 states "A player
=>  cannot render a ball lost by a declaration."  I also believe you are
=>  correct in stating that there can be a race between your playing the
=>  second ball which DOES render the ball lost, and your opponent finding
=>  the ball.  The most interesting aspect of this discussion to me is that
=>  I believe a player should be able to declare a ball lost.  For one
=>  thing this would eliminate the following (probably unethical)
=>  situation.  Your oppenent finds "a" ball, and asks you to identify it. 
=>  You look it over for 2 seconds and say, "I cannot identify that ball as
=>  "the" ball that I first struck", at which point your original ball is
=>  "still not found. 

Ron is getting almost as good as i am in finding arcane scenarios to
push the limits of what the rules say.  I think his scenario is covered by
decision 27/13 or decision 33-7/7.  27/13 covers when you think your
opponent has dishonestly not identified his ball, and 33-7/7 covers
two competitors conspiring to avoid a penalty.

=>  Relative to your last paragraph.  I believe that the "found" relates to
=>  any agency, i.e., player, opponent, caddy, fellow competitor,
=>  spectator, etc.  The "identified" clearly can ONLY be done by "the"
=>  player, i.e., the one who struck the ball. 
-- 

charlie shub  cdash@cs.Colorado.EDU       -or-         (719) 593-3492     
on leave at the University of Iowa  cdash@cs.uiowa.edu (319) 335-0739