Hello All,
Following on from DC's post,I detect some disagreement on what or who decides RE. We have in the past discussed this topic, but may perhaps in reopening it result in a consensus.

Here are a few questions:

1. Who decides there is RE.
2. Is Local Knowledge or the lack of it, instrumental in detrmining RE.
3. Perhaps you can think of other questions.

I look forward to your comments, and a good Rules of Golf Disscussion. Thanks, Ron.

Not having been around on this forum when this was last discussed I look forward to all of your comments.

1. Who decides there is RE?
This is interesting because it relates to the GUR thread that we had recently. This did not get that far but I think it is relevant. In the GUR discussion I mentioned that relief under 25-1 seems to be the competitor’s call (however I mentioned Paramore vs. Ballesteros) unlike 5-3 and 12-2 situations. The RE for a ball lost in a water hazard, according to the RoG does not seem to require concurrence from a FC or opponent.
2. Is Local Knowledge or the lack of it, instrumental in determining RE?
LK must help because a player will know that the probability of him finding a ball hit to point X is either going to be straightforward or that there is a possibility that the ball will be lost. (D.27-2a-3 is relevant). He will also know, because of the lie of the land whether or not a ball may e.g. find its way into a WH.

HI DC,
Thanks for starting the discussion.
From memory, I think the last discussion on this forum regarding RE, was from memory centered on a PB played for a ball in a WH.
Most players when asked "what is RE" will probably rattle off the "stock or general perception of RE".
In practice though I think the treatment given to RE is one of "If in doubt, play a PB". Arguably a fairly reasonable attitude to adopt.
Who Decides. As you say DC the rules are not clear on this. The nearest I am aware of is in D26-1/1 which states in part," A player may not deem his ball lost in a WH, simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard". So, I think in the absence of a "rule" a concensus seems a reasonable way to proceed.

In the case you cited, re John Paramor, that is IMO a slightly different situation. Here Seve is asking for a ruling re the status of the hole, and quite rightly so IMO as a player would probably err on his own side.
A perfctly natural reaction, considering,he ended up taking a penalty stroke and came second in that tournament, losing by 1 stroke.

Local Knowledge. I agree DC it can be useful, but why, should LK be acceptable if you know the course,are you saying under this condition you are sure the ball is where you think it is? or reasonably so?. I, like you and possibly others can recall saying "I never thought I would lose a ball in this area".
Paul questioined your 95% certainty. So at what level of certainty do you as a player or indeed the group on a consensus basis deem to be reasonable?

A lot of questions I admit, but leads me to my asking, "Why not play a PB as in D27-2c/1". IMO the most sensible decision on RE.
I cannot see the need to differentiate, unless there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt the ball is in the WH.In that case, NO PB.

Unless you are on an elevated tee and clearly see the ball enter and end up in the WH, a player should automatically be allowed to play a PB, as implied by D27-2c/1. Regards, Ron.

Q, 1 "who decides"?
It has to be the player! At the end of the day it is between him and the committee, there is no room in the rules of golf for majority or consensus oppinion. Matters are judged according to "it is a matter of fact" or "there is reasonable evidence"!
Q2. Local knowledge?
This could play a part, in as much as " could the ball be anywhere else?".
A player who plays a PB is at the least admitting that the ball could be lost (or OOB) outside of a water hazard, and as such has created an element of doubt, to the extent that, if no further evedence comes to light regarding "resonable evidence" of ball being lost in a water hazard, then we have to take it that RE does not exist!
Otherwise ;- why the PB?
Don
PS. It is nice to see the forum growing, I am sorry that I cannot get involved too much myself at the moment. If anyone can get allong to a "Celtic Pro Golf tour" event, come and introduce yourself, I am the resident rules official.
Web site Celic Pro Tour

Where do you play golf Pennard

I agree with Don. There is no provision in the rules for markers or FCs to make any decisions in respect of this.
Other than giving factual information like 'the pond over the brow is surrounded by long grass', would any opinion be counted as 'advice' I wonder.

DON & DOUG,
Thanks for joining the discussion. Good to have your comments too Don.
My view on consensus was suggested in the absence of a directive under the rules such as in R28. "A player is the sole judge etc etc..". I also referred to D26-1/1 in part, stating it only refers to "A player". It could be interpreted the player is the only one, but only by inference.
It was getting late while I was typing , but was going to add, in the absence of agreement between players in a match or SP comp. it would have to be resolved either in a 2-5 or 3-3 situation. Maybe , that is what you are alluding Don , when you say "it is between the player and the committee".

I must admit, however,I cannot see a problem with a consensus in determining RE, but that is a personal view.
WRT Local Knowledge, I feel the player, unless as described earlier, is absolutely certain, should always be allowed the option of a PB.The grass in the area may have grown considerably since the last visit to the course etc.

Lets take a case where a player is reasonably sure (not certain) the ball is in the WH, as in DC's case, but, again in DC's case 95% certain (from memory of the hole) the ball is not lost outside the WH. He now plays a ball which according to the rules (27-1), D27-2a/2 says correctly it is the ball in play, not a PB.

The player now gets to the area where his second ball is and sees his OB outside the WH.That ball has to be abandoned, and continue to play with the second ball from the tee, the ball in play.It has cost him a "penalty stroke" for his RE assumption from the tee.

Another player , from the same tee, plays a similar stroke, but this time states he is not sure where his ball has ended up, so elects to play a PB.
He approaches the area where his OB may be ,and finds it outside the WH. He now and correctly abandons his PB and proceeds with his OB. No penalty stroke.

I think it is unreasonable to expect a player to asses the topography, from the tee some 100- 200 yds away, as illustrated in my example above. In one case a penalty,and in another,from the same tee no penalty.

I ask you, would it not be far simpler or fairer, if a player be allowed AUTOMATICALLY to play a PB,(unless it is a cold stone certainty where everyone present saw the ball end up in the water) and leave the RE UNTIL he gets to his ball and make a realistic and honest appraisal of where the ball has ended up in the conditions prevailing?
If my understanding is correct, this is in effect exactly what D27-2c/1 is saying.

Doug, WRT to the "advice" implications, IMO I think on balance, it could be deemed to be "public knowledge". Regards, Ron.

Ron
My point was that the player (and his caddy) is the only person who may make any decision about reasonableness. Rule 27-2 of course uses the word 'may'. Again it is entirely upto the player.
Others may give factual information and the player may use his discretion about what weight he gives it.
An opponent may of course register a 2-5 claim or a FC may report any possible infringement. But in the end is is down to the committee and the player to sort out.

Incidentally, who said golf was fair

HI DOUG,
I take your point on consensus. We actually agree, only we call it by a different name.

I am, however, rather pleased with the tacit agreement of a player being allowed to play a PB.

Always good to hear from you.

Regards, Ron.

IMO consensus is not relevant to the discussion. However, I see no reason why a player may not ask his marker or FCs their opinion on e.g. whether they think there is RE that a ball is lost in a WH. Ultimately it is up to the player to decide there and then what he is going to do and if the matter is later referred to the committee then it is up to the committee to decide. In reaching its decision, the committee might ask the opinion of all those who were present. Therefore, I would argue that it is in player's best interests to know the opinion of his marker/FCs before he gets to the committee. In this case I don’t think it is asking for advice to say something along the lines of “Do you think that my ball is in the water hazard?”

I mentioned the Paramore vs. Ballesteros situation because here was a situation that required reasonable evidence. They would have been looking for animal droppings or something like that to support Seve’s claim for free relief. Again, the rules do not require a player to consult FCs on this but should the situation come to the attention of the committee then it’s best to get the opinion of those you are playing with. Seve could get an irreversible ruling there and then. That is the luxury of professional golf.

Going back to my personal situation, after I had played my tee shot I was 95% sure my ball was in the LWH behind the green. This left 5% chance of the ball being outside the water hazard (I don't think it would have been lost outside the water hazard but let us say for the sake of argument that it could have been and that I have proceeded with D27-2c/1 in mind).
What happened next was that I played a 'provisional' from the tee and it finished in another LWH. At this point it would obviously be to my advantage to say that the OB is lost in the first LWH so that I could drop by that WH for two. However, what if the provisional ball had landed in the hole? Have I scored a 3 if I go and pick the PB out of the hole? Given that there is a 95% chance that my OB is actually in the LWH behind the green I don't think it would be fair to do that. IMO I can't expect to be able to take a provisional ball in this situation and then proceed based on whether or not I like the position of that PB once played, particularly because it is 19:1 that the OB is in the LWH behind the green. This is why I think D27-2c/1 is not always appropriate.

DC

The rules are clear.

If there is a chance that the ball may be lost outside a hazard, then a provisional may be played.

If, having arrived at the area, there is reasonable evidence that the original ball lodged in a hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 26.

If not, the player may proceed with the provisional. If it's in the hole, good luck to him.