Weird ball position

[Maverick]

Yesterday, I shot my ball and kind of sliced it. It landed on the top of the cart shed. As we went to find the ball, we could not see it on the ground beside the building, so I walked a few feets back on top of a small hill and I could see my ball in the drain surounding the roof. There was no OB sticks and the ball was not theorically lost. Obviously, I could not climb on the roof to play it (no matter how nice that would of been). I just took a hazard penalty and dropped it 2 club lenghts.

Did I have another option? Unplayble lie?

[Kilroy]

How can you be sure that was your ball? Could you see your mark on it from that far away?

[Maverick]

I was not that far, the roof was low and the "hill" is right next to the building. I could clearly see it was my titleist with the logo and all.

[Kilroy]

It comes down to "reasonable evidence" Lots of people play Titleists.

Lost ball. Back to where you hit from.

If there were no stakes why would you treat it as a hazard? I have never heard of a lateral shed hazard.

[Maverick]

Why? Because we had no clue what to do. We are sort of new at golfing by the rules and are still learning. Unfortunately, I don't carry a rulebook with me.

[LobWedge]

See Rule 24-2, Immovable Obstruction, and get yourself a rulebook.

[Kilroy]

No offense intended. I'm just trying to lay out the thinking process for you.

1) you can't positively identify your ball so it is considered lost.

2) it's not a hazard, so it cannot be treated as one.

3) back to "the ball is lost"... the rule is to replay the shot. - that may be impractical and as beginners I don't really endorse returning to the tee for every lost ball, but that is the rule.

[Kilroy]

Also, get a sharpie and mark your balls for identification.

[LobWedge]

Actually, minor boo boo.

Dan, it's Rule 24-3. The ball would be lost in the immovable obstruction. He can take relief as prescribed in Rule 24-2b.

[Kilroy]

As we went to find the ball, we could not see it on the ground beside the building, so I walked a few feets back on top of a small hill and I could see my ball in the drain surounding the roof.

OK so he stated that they looked all around the building. Therfore they did not see it land on the roof and sit there, which could have been reasonable evidence, BUT he says he looked up and there was a titleist on the roof.

So does that mean that any Strata on the course that I cannot reach to identify must be my ball??? I think not.

It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward an obstruction is lost in the obstruction. In order to treat the ball as lost in the obstruction, there must be reasonable evidence to that effect. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.

No marking = no posative ID. Ball is lost.

[LobWedge]

Yeah, but Maverick said "It landed on the top of the cart shed" and "I could clearly see it was my titleist with the logo and all". If that's not reasonable evidence, I don't know what is. If he says that it's absolutely his ball, that's good enough for me, and for the rules.

[Kilroy]

Hehehe OK.
I don't see it quite that way but it's all just for the sake of discussion.

I am unclear as to why they'd look around the building if they were so sure it was on the roof in the first place, but that's just me

[LobWedge]

Hehehe OK.
I don't see it quite that way but it's all just for the sake of discussion.

I am unclear as to why they'd look around the building if they were so sure it was on the roof in the first place, but that's just me

Absolutely, it's definitely a good point of discussion. My line of thought here was, a) he's playing a Titleist, b) he hit it in the direction of the shed, and c) the odds against someone else's Titleist being on that same roof are a lot higher than the odds that it's his Titleist. The fact that there's an obstruction involved gives him some "room to move" in this situation. It would be completely different if the ball was lost in the rough or trees.

[Gary Hill]

Dan is correct. The ball is lost.

[Kilroy]

Thanks Gary. I am learning!

[LobWedge]

Dan is correct. The ball is lost.

Please explain Gary. How can the ball be lost if the player is certain that it is his ball he can see on that roof? The ball was not out of bounds, or in a hazard. The building is an immovable obstruction. How does Rule 24 not apply here?

[zoic]

While I would gladly agree it seems obvious it was that players ball, but I have to honestly say I can see how it could not be also. Last Friday I was playing Irish Hills, and looking for my ball in the rough (clover), I found 2 Titliest golf balls just inches apart. The odds of that on a roof seem no more astronomical really, since it is still on the golf course, and not in the fairway.

[Gary Hill]

How can the ball be lost if the player is certain that it is his ball he can see on that roof?
You cannot be certain unless you can identify the ball.

My line of thought here was,
a) he's playing a Titleist >>>> like 40 million other people.

b) he hit it in the direction of the shed >>>> like 1000 other people this year alone.

c) the odds against someone else's Titleist being on that same roof are a lot higher than the odds that it's his Titleist >>>> This is not Las Vegas.

This is not a matter of "more likely mine" or "probably mine". The Rules state that the player must be able to identify the ball as his ball and not just some random ball of a certain brand.

[AAA]

This is not a matter of "more likely mine" or "probably mine". The Rules state that the player must be able to identify the ball as his ball and not just some random ball of a certain brand.

Maverick actually wrote

I was not that far, the roof was low and the "hill" is right next to the building. I could clearly see it was my titleist with the logo and all.

[Gary Hill]

You cannot identify a ball by logo alone.

[AAA]

Perhaps Maverick will explain how he knew it was 'my titleist'

[Big Johnny69]

You cannot identify a ball by logo alone.

What if he means logo as in a ball marked with the logo of where he got the ball from? That would be conclusive enough would it not? Perhaps that is what Maverick meant. If he was playing a Titleist with an Ottawa Golf logo and that is what he saw on the roof, would he be able to play under the conditions LobWedge described?

[Golfbum]

I think poor Maverick has left the building.

[LobWedge]

What if he means logo as in a ball marked with the logo of where he got the ball from? That would be conclusive enough would it not? Perhaps that is what Maverick meant. If he was playing a Titleist with an Ottawa Golf logo and that is what he saw on the roof, would he be able to play under the conditions LobWedge described?

Nah. That's no good. OG-ers hit that roof all the time.

[sharkhark]

Funny thing is regarding people and the identification of their golf ball. I play as a single all the time and it's funny how often I help them look for lost ball, find one, call out asking what type they play and answer is.......
...."Top Flite!".
Then when I mention that there is probably 5000 different TF models, next reply is usually "well what is it?" Followed by "Yeah, thats mine!"
Hi la rious!

[AAA]

Our club was pushing members to put an identification mark on their balls. Notices were posted all over the place. The pro shop had a rush on - he then said nobody mentioned it to me, I haven't been able to get any indelible markers for over a month, next delivery another month.

[Shivas Irons]

What if he means logo as in a ball marked with the logo of where he got the ball from? That would be conclusive enough would it not?

I always thought that this was correct as well.
Am I to understand the marking on the ball must be something different than what it was when it came out of the sleeve ?

[AAA]

I always thought that this was correct as well.
Am I to understand the marking on the ball must be something different than what it was when it came out of the sleeve ?

The mark must be sufficient to differentiate one similar ball from another.

If two players had been to a corporate day and come back with a sleeve of logoed balls each, they could not safely use them when playing together without an additional mark. They would be pefectly legal but if after playing perfect drives just over the rise to the centre of the fairway, they found the two balls 6" apart, they have both lost their ball unless something is different.

[Shivas Irons]

If two players had been to a corporate day and come back with a sleeve of logoed balls each, they could not safely use them when playing together without an additional mark.

I understand that, but let's say I have a ball that has a logo from Dora The Explorer's world tour, and nobody else in my group has that logo on their ball, and I hit it on top of a shed, and can see the Dora logo from my vantage point, is this still a lost ball?

[Kilroy]

No. I don't think so.