Ball "Moved" by Outside Agency

[BC MIST]

In a recent club tournament a player ducked hooked a ball out of view to the left and as the players were walking toward the area where the ball could have been, a non-competitor(green fee player) was seen picking up a ball.

The competitors asked to see the ball and the green fee player refused to show the ball to anyone and walked away. The owner of the ball that was lost claimed that the ball was taken by the green fee player, dropped another ball near the spot where the group thought the ball may have come to rest, and played on.

Decision 27 - 1 / 2.5 covers the situation where a ball is moved by an outside agency. It talks about there having to be "reasonable evidence" that the ball was moved by the outside agency. In the scenario described above, was seeing a green fee player pick up a ball reasonable enough evidence to warrant the player dropping another ball, or should the player have continued under the stroke and distance penalty?

[LobWedge]

Unfortunately, you only have "reasonable evidence" that the outside agency picked up "a" ball, and not "the" ball in question. Therefore rule 27-1 would apply and the 2 stroke penalty for proceeding incorrectly under 18-1 would also apply. The fact that the ball had disappeared from view would negate "reasonable evidence" unless your fellow competitor's ball was the only ball on the whole golf course, or the thief had produced the ball when asked.

Actually in this situation Rule 99, Reasonable Evidence for Severely Beating an Outside Agency, would apply.

[mkemila]

I think you would have to proceed with the beating under the SCA - Stunned C***s Act

Unfortunately, you only have "reasonable evidence" that the outside agency picked up "a" ball, and not "the" ball in question. Therefore rule 27-1 would apply and the 2 stroke penalty for proceeding incorrectly under 18-1 would also apply. The fact that the ball had disappeared from view would negate "reasonable evidence" unless your fellow competitor's ball was the only ball on the whole golf course, or the thief had produced the ball when asked.

Actually in this situation Rule 99, Reasonable Evidence for Severely Beating an Outside Agency, would apply.

[Deep Woods]

The competitors asked to see the ball and the green fee player refused to show the ball to anyone and walked away.

While this isn't in the rules, I'm sure, a person REFUSING to show a ball clearly has something to hide...that's evidence enough in my book. Especially if this person then proceeded to hit a ball further up the fairway...

[faldo]

The competitors asked to see the ball and the green fee player refused to show the ball to anyone and walked away.

QUOTE=Deep Woods]While this isn't in the rules, I'm sure, a person REFUSING to show a ball clearly has something to hide...that's evidence enough in my book. Especially if this person then proceeded to hit a ball further up the fairway...[/QUOTE]


Sounds good to me.......

Oh and by the way Mr. Mist you don't have to use the words "the green fee player" like a derogatory (curse-like) expression. I'm offended.

Ciao...Sorry make that "CHIMO" to so I AM CANADIAN.

[BC MIST]

Oh and by the way Mr. Mist you don't have to use the words "the green fee player" like a derogatory (curse-like) expression. I'm offended.

And quite easy, at that.

Playing at a semi-private club with a small membership, where members are known, if not by name, none of the foursome involved in the above recognized the offending party. Compared to that of a green fee player, what is the statistical probability of a member revealing the make and number of the ball after it was explained to the golfer that they were qualifying for their club's Intersectional team and that it was important to see whose ball the golfer had allegedly picked up?

As the above scenario was written in the "Rules" section of the forum, would you have been less offended if I had explained that a two legged "Outside Agency" may have picked up a fellow competitor's ball and refused to reveal it's make and number?

Having played many courses as a green fee player, and having been a member for too many years to remember, the reality is that if balls are going to be stolen, divots not replaced, ball marks not repaired, divots taken out of greens, power carts driven over tees and greens, and play to be slower, it is more likely to be done by green fee players than by members, and the reasons are obvious. Not exclusively, but more likely. If you are a green fee player who does not exhibit the above behaviours, then, while this is certainly commendable, why would you be offended?

Green fee players are the lifeblood of semi-private courses and public courses, however, to deny that they cause more unnecessary damage to a course that members do, while not politically correct, is a cold hearted fact. Also, green fee players are much more likely to consume alcohol on the course than members which also increases the likelihood of more damage being done. Another indisputable fact.

[Kilroy]

Gee no wonder lowly green fee players are looked on with such scorn by the high and mighty privilaged ones. They destroy the turf and steal from the members.

While it's nice that they are permitted to support your facility financially, and lower your membership costs. It's a shame that they have to be allowed to play on your sacred ground too. Maybe they should be only allowed in the bar, where they can drink themselves silly, support the club through their bar bills, and watch you play through the window.

I understand the situation where a "stranger" may be more rude than a player known to all in the group. Anonimity is a shield (just read some of the posts in here).

I had no issue with the use of "green fee player" in your first post. I understand where you were coming from, however I personally find your comments in the second post to be pretty arrogant. Perhaps you should join a real private club, like the Royal Ottawa and not have to deal with the peons.

[Deep Woods]

Having played many courses as a green fee player, and having been a member for too many years to remember, the reality is that if balls are going to be stolen, divots not replaced, ball marks not repaired, divots taken out of greens, power carts driven over tees and greens, and play to be slower, it is more likely to be done by green fee players than by members...green fee players are much more likely to consume alcohol on the course than members which also increases the likelihood of more damage being done. Another indisputable fact.

You've convinced me. I'm going to stop repairing all my marks, and other marks I find, on the green. I'm going to stop replacing divots. I'm going to start driving my cart up to the green. I'm going to take chunks out of the green. Thanks!!!

[broken27]

Green fee players are the lifeblood of semi-private courses and public courses, however, to deny that they cause more unnecessary damage to a course that members do, while not politically correct, is a cold hearted fact. Also, green fee players are much more likely to consume alcohol on the course than members which also increases the likelihood of more damage being done. Another indisputable fact.

I've played with members at their private courses who seemed shocked when I was replacing divots, repairing ball-marks, going 90-in 90-out on cart paths etc. Apparently he was one of the statistical abberations in your little elitist demographic.

Statistics will show (almost certainly) that greens fee players make more damage, but that's also likely because there's far more of them. If you looked at it in terms of "per capita", you're likely looking at a much smaller disparity.

Ask your local course beer cart girl if she'd prefer having us "raging alcoholic greens fee" players or you "twelve stepping member" players on her course. I'm fairly sure that if your research data is correct, she'd say she'd prefer the dailies. We drink, we spend, we tip. In the meantime, you're probably off fixing my divots or repairing my ball marks.

Sorry, can't afford to be a member anywhere, but don't assume I'm wrecking your course. I'm just a two legged outside agency!

Dan

[Colby]

Green fee players are the lifeblood of semi-private courses and public courses, however, to deny that they cause more unnecessary damage to a course that members do, while not politically correct, is a cold hearted fact. Also, green fee players are much more likely to consume alcohol on the course than members which also increases the likelihood of more damage being done. Another indisputable fact.

I know a number of members that consume alcohol at a pretty good clip while they play. They are also low handicap golfers who fix divots and ball marks as well as have a good time while they play.

I have also seen a lot of arrogant members that feel it is the job of the turf crew to fill divots and tee boxes. Ball marks get fixed, they like good greens, but they will walk away from a divot they created in the fairway, especially after a bad shot.

I don't have a problem with the daily fee players, at our course they have to be a guest off a member, I have a bigger issue with some tournaments that make it to the course, especially work tournaments that have a lot of non-golfers out. I've seen carts on greens, ponds, and bunkers. People taking massive chunks out of the ground when they swing the club, sometimes never touching the ball. This is when a lot of damage is done.

One other point. Your "indisputable" facts are closer to opinions than facts. If you have a respectable source that has done a study on this, with documented findings, that would bring it closer to fact than opinion/fiction.

This is my opinion.

[The Shtick]

BC MIST:

A little something you should know (as you probably already do):

Paying players, or regular green-fees, aren't all yuppies. If I play your course, would you label me? Case in point, describe EXACTLY who you are talking about before you judge them.

I am a low handicap player who sometimes likes to drink my face off and have a good time on the course. Why not, it's a day off from work for me. I'm also a member, and Club Captain of my course. Any problems with that??

[powerlefty]

Having played many courses as a green fee player, and having been a member for too many years to remember, the reality is that if balls are going to be stolen, divots not replaced, ball marks not repaired, divots taken out of greens, power carts driven over tees and greens, and play to be slower, it is more likely to be done by green fee players than by members, and the reasons are obvious. Not exclusively, but more likely. If you are a green fee player who does not exhibit the above behaviours, then, while this is certainly commendable, why would you be offended?

Green fee players are the lifeblood of semi-private courses and public courses, however, to deny that they cause more unnecessary damage to a course that members do, while not politically correct, is a cold hearted fact. Also, green fee players are much more likely to consume alcohol on the course than members which also increases the likelihood of more damage being done. Another indisputable fact.

I do not steal golf balls - most of the ones left lying around a course by members are not as good as those I prefer anyway (Titleist ProV1 and Strata Tour Ultimate).

I always replace my divots.

I always speak to the staff.

I clean my own clubs. I do not buttonhole the pro to complain that some poor high school kid did not clean my "chipper" properly as I have seen an ancient member of the Hunt Club do. As if a chipper is a club a real golfer carries anyway but that is another topic.

I walk from the parking lot to the proshop. I do not wait by the car tapping my foot impatiently waiting for those lazy employees to come and pick me up and drive me to the clubhouse.

I can afford to join any private club in the city. I prefer not to because I enjoy playing a variety of courses throughout the year and usually play more than 20 different courses ranging from $200 resort courses to $25 public courses.

I have never taken a divot out of a green.

I have never driven a golf cart over tees or greens, or for that matter anywhere within 30 yards of a green. In fact I disdain "cartball" and walk whenever I am allowed.

I don't run around the golf course, nor do I crawl around at a snail's pace either. A leisurely 4.5 hour round with a foursome is acceptable to me. 4 hours is better, 5 hours is to long. I always watch to ensure I am not holding anyone up and encourage others to do the same.

Apparently I am the lifeblood of semi-private courses, subsidizing the elitist members.

I never consume alcohol on the course. I do consume sports drinks and water on the course purchased from the roving food and beverage cart at inflated prices and I ALWAYS tip the staff. I do consume alcohol on occasion in the club's bar at inflated prices.

My name is Powerlefty. AND I AM A GREEN FEE PLAYER!!!!!

[broken27]

Powerlefty - Nice One!

Dan

[The Shtick]

I do not steal golf balls - most of the ones left lying around a course by members are not as good as those I prefer anyway (Titleist ProV1 and Strata Tour Ultimate).

I always replace my divots.

I always speak to the staff.

I clean my own clubs. I do not buttonhole the pro to complain that some poor high school kid did not clean my "chipper" properly as I have seen an ancient member of the Hunt Club do. As if a chipper is a club a real golfer carries anyway but that is another topic.

I walk from the parking lot to the proshop. I do not wait by the car tapping my foot impatiently waiting for those lazy employees to come and pick me up and drive me to the clubhouse.

I can afford to join any private club in the city. I prefer not to because I enjoy playing a variety of courses throughout the year and usually play more than 20 different courses ranging from $200 resort courses to $25 public courses.

I have never taken a divot out of a green.

I have never driven a golf cart over tees or greens, or for that matter anywhere within 30 yards of a green. In fact I disdain "cartball" and walk whenever I am allowed.

I don't run around the golf course, nor do I crawl around at a snail's pace either. A leisurely 4.5 hour round with a foursome is acceptable to me. 4 hours is better, 5 hours is to long. I always watch to ensure I am not holding anyone up and encourage others to do the same.

Apparently I am the lifeblood of semi-private courses, subsidizing the elitist members.

I never consume alcohol on the course. I do consume sports drinks and water on the course purchased from the roving food and beverage cart at inflated prices and I ALWAYS tip the staff. I do consume alcohol on occasion in the club's bar at inflated prices.

My name is Powerlefty. AND I AM A GREEN FEE PLAYER!!!!!

[NoBack]

Awesome writting powerlefty
Couldnt have said it better myself.

BC MIST
As an ex-member and now a "green fee player", I too am a little disappointed with your comments. I think your coupling "green fee players" as bad etiquette minded people which is not the case.

I have never driven my cart anywhere but the right spots on any golf course, even while having a few beers. I replace all my divots unless they disinegrate in front of me (if that does happen I use one of the old ones left behind by some "member" who was too busy to replace his own), I usually have the "make one - fix 3-4 ball mark rule" going, I pick up garbage and other things left behind by others and throw them out myself as I like the greenery of any golf course. I have played almost all the course (including many private course like Rotal Ottawa, Camelot, Clublink courses). To say I am a menace to a golf course is absurd and wrong.

[Christian]

And quite easy, at that.
Having played many courses as a green fee player, and having been a member for too many years to remember, the reality is that if balls are going to be stolen, divots not replaced, ball marks not repaired, divots taken out of greens, power carts driven over tees and greens, and play to be slower, it is more likely to be done by green fee players than by members, and the reasons are obvious. Not exclusively, but more likely. If you are a green fee player who does not exhibit the above behaviours, then, while this is certainly commendable, why would you be offended?

Green fee players are the lifeblood of semi-private courses and public courses, however, to deny that they cause more unnecessary damage to a course that members do, while not politically correct, is a cold hearted fact. Also, green fee players are much more likely to consume alcohol on the course than members which also increases the likelihood of more damage being done. Another indisputable fact.

Holy smokes! I think you guys are taking this a little out of context. Firstly, this was a "rules" question and btw I was part of the foursome of FC's that watched the "theft" of the ball. The alleged perpetrator picked up a ball in the "very near" vicinity of where we expected to find the FC's ball while I was about 30-40 yards away. As I approached, I politely asked if it was his ball and he mentioned "no". I then asked if he would produce the ball so that we may identify it as our FC's (a request that was vehemently denied). As I did not want to confront him any longer, the three FC's made a judgment that the picked up ball WAS the remaining FC's and we let him drop one as near as possible to that point and allowed him to continue on (no loss of stroke/distance etc.. for a lost ball).

As for the rest of this stuff, seems to me way too harsh. I think if you read BC MIST's post carefully you will see that it was intentionally crafted with words such as "it is more likely" "not exclusively" "green-fee players are the lifeblood" etc... I also believe that many of the described "negative" attributes are aimed towards "office tournaments" where there are participants who play once a year and do not know proper etiquette and course care (and don't care). This would be extremely surprising behaviour in regular weekly green-fee players (believe me, such players have been banned).

A little bit more diplomacy always works best. Christian

P.S. I must admit that I certainly don't post much as some people take this stuff way too personally. :shake

[spidey]

I must admit that I certainly don't post much as some people take this stuff way too personally.

Probably why Gary doesn't post much anymore. He's probably tired of the heat too, and his style is just as clinical. He's extremely friendly in person, probably something true of everybody here, but with the anonymity here, it seems that an atmosphere of piqued intolerance is becoming entrenched.

It would seem a much more productive discussion if we'd leave our consciences out. We've all forgotton to put back divots and fix ball mark and picked up balls that may have still been rolling. That's not to say we do it any more, nor that we should still feel guilty even though we don't do it any more.

Honestly, this is starting to sound like the North Side/South Side clans at Frank Clair.

[broken27]

As for the rest of this stuff, seems to me way too harsh. I think if you read BC MIST's post carefully you will see that it was intentionally crafted with words such as "it is more likely" "not exclusively" "green-fee players are the lifeblood" etc... I also believe that many of the described "negative" attributes are aimed towards "office tournaments" where there are participants who play once a year and do not know proper etiquette and course care (and don't care). This would be extremely surprising behaviour in regular weekly green-fee players (believe me, such players have been banned).

A little bit more diplomacy always works best. Christian

P.S. I must admit that I certainly don't post much as some people take this stuff way too personally. :shake

If YOU read the post carefully, you will find the usage of such phrases as "undisputable fact" and stuff like that is what hits people personally. It certainly came across in the initial post that there was an animosity towards daily greens fee players, or at least a difference in "class". Bottom line is that everyone's poop stinks, if only in various degrees, member or not.

If I'm wrong, fine.

Ultimately, regardless of rules, since your foursome decided to score things a certain way, it's likely too late to change it now!

Dan

[Christian]

If YOU read the post carefully, you will find the usage of such phrases as "undisputable fact" and stuff like that is what hits people personally. It certainly came across in the initial post that there was an animosity towards daily greens fee players, or at least a difference in "class". Bottom line is that everyone's poop stinks, if only in various degrees, member or not.

If I'm wrong, fine.

Ultimately, regardless of rules, since your foursome decided to score things a certain way, it's likely too late to change it now!

Dan

As for the first part of your post, what Spidey says works for me On the second part, although it is "too late" to change the scoring now, it is never too late to find out the finer points of the rules and the proper application of those points. Cheers. Christian

[LobWedge]

BC, I really have to agree with the responses here. It's generalizations like yours that create bad feelings everywhere.

I have been on both sides of the member/green fee player issue and I resent being painted as a common hoodlum who has no respect for the game or the fields that it's played on. I know you didn't name me specifically, but when you start to paint with such a large brush...

I've been playing for over 25 years and I have as much respect for the rules, etiquette, and positive traditions as anyone else. As far as members being above reproach goes, you're dead wrong there too. I've seen the other side of that coin close up.

Furthermore, you play at a semi-private course which means that green fee players are responsible for taking care of that "initiation fee" that you would have to pay at a fully private club, on a game to game basis. Those players who a) can't afford, or b) can't justify the cost of membership due to time constraints or other factors, may not enjoy the same privileges as a member, but they do have the same rights as any other player on that golf course.

BTW, the next time that situation arises in a tournament where the ball is hit outside what would be the "normal boundaries" of the hole, your friend should declare and hit a provisional ball. That will save time.

[broken27]

Summation: Shoulda kept it at "non-competitor" and left the "(greens-fee player)" part out of it.

I'm still interested in the rule part of the original question....

Dan

[PowerFade]

Wow. I'm new to this forum and don't know BCMist outside of this forum, and am a daily fee player, but I found nothing offensive about his comments. And after reading all the responses, I still don't understand what the problem is. I have found that email and forum discussions often get heated because you can't see the other person's face, and can't ask questions and get immediate answers. Typing on a screen is very impersonal so why should I take things personally unless it is absolutely clear offense was intended? I prefer to assume no offense was intended. And if someone really thinks they have been offended, why not prevent a blow-up like this by sending a PM and asking for clarification that way?

Being new to this forum I wonder if this sort of thing has happened before. I hope this is not the way things work here. I'm glad to have this local forum. Local insights, interesting discussions, even finding a few guys to make a foursome some time--all these things make this forum great. I hope it stays that way.

I'm interested in the original rules question. I can see it both ways, but it seems reasonably evident that it was his ball because the other guy refused to show it. I wonder what the RCGA would say if this happened on tour and a spectator refused to show a ball he/she just picked up.

[Deep Woods]

...Being new to this forum I wonder if this sort of thing has happened before.

Happens all the time, and you're absolutely right. It happens between people with emails too. Too much said and too much to respond to.

First, I didnt take offence because I know I don't do those things.

Second, I think almost anyone who spends time on a golf forum (ie: us) probably are exceptions to the rules...so I'm pretty sure everyone on here is careful about greens, etc.

Third, it does make total sense that a member (with a vested interest) is more likely to take care of something that he plans on using thoroughly, as opposed to green fee players (of which I am one).

I didnt really see anything totally offensive on either side. Everything on here needs a pound of salt. If you're going to post, expect responses...I personally enjoy the heated responses, so long as they are soundly argued as opposed to Tiger fanatics...oops.

[LobWedge]

Wow. I'm new to this forum and don't know BCMist outside of this forum, and am a daily fee player, but I found nothing offensive about his comments. And after reading all the responses, I still don't understand what the problem is. I have found that email and forum discussions often get heated because you can't see the other person's face, and can't ask questions and get immediate answers. Typing on a screen is very impersonal so why should I take things personally unless it is absolutely clear offense was intended? I prefer to assume no offense was intended. And if someone really thinks they have been offended, why not prevent a blow-up like this by sending a PM and asking for clarification that way?

Being new to this forum I wonder if this sort of thing has happened before. I hope this is not the way things work here. I'm glad to have this local forum. Local insights, interesting discussions, even finding a few guys to make a foursome some time--all these things make this forum great. I hope it stays that way.

I'm interested in the original rules question. I can see it both ways, but it seems reasonably evident that it was his ball because the other guy refused to show it. I wonder what the RCGA would say if this happened on tour and a spectator refused to show a ball he/she just picked up.

Point taken PowerFade. Why can't we all just get along?

As far as the ruling goes, I'm going to stick with my original thoughts. If this event happened on tour you'd have 50 witnesses to point the finger at the thief, so that argument is moot. In this case you only have one potential witness, and he's not talking. As soon as the ball disapeared from view the chain of evidence was broken, therefore the ball needs to be treated as lost (after the 5 minute search of course) and the stroke and distance penalty would apply. Because the player dropped and played from the wrong place, he needs to add 2 strokes to his score for the hole. If he doesn't and he signs an incorrect scorecard he should be disqualified.

[PowerFade]

You make a good point. Still not clear to me though. I wonder if different rules officials would have different opinions, or if it is clear. I don't know enough about the rules to say.

As far as the ruling goes, I'm going to stick with my original thoughts. If this event happened on tour you'd have 50 witnesses to point the finger at the thief, so that argument is moot. In this case you only have one potential witness, and he's not talking. As soon as the ball disapeared from view the chain of evidence was broken, therefore the ball needs to be treated as lost (after the 5 minute search of course) and the stroke and distance penalty would apply. Because the player dropped and played from the wrong place, he needs to add 2 strokes to his score for the hole. If he doesn't and he signs an incorrect scorecard he should be disqualified.

[broken27]

27-1/2.5 Lost Ball Treated as Moved by Outside Agency in Absence of Reasonable Evidence to That Effect

How ironic that they have a rule covering what to do when you DON'T have reasonable evidence, but they don't have "reasonable evidence" described in the Rules of Golf online site. It would seem as though an official should have been consulted if that was an option, and the corroborating testimony of what "likely" happened would be up to the official to base judgment on.

Dan

[Gary Hill]

I'm still interested in the rule part of the original question....

To treat a ball which cannot be found as moved by an outside agency rather than lost (Rule 27), there must be reasonable evidence to that effect. All available testimony should be considered. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as lost.

The term “reasonable evidence” is purposely and necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases.

So, the specific answer to your question is: I dunno. I wasn't there. I didn't see the situation. I don't have enough facts to give you an answer.

What I will say is that "reasonable evidence" is actually much more strict than most people understand it to be.

Reasonable evidence means there is (almost) NO possibility that the ball could be someplace else.

Examples:
1.
There is a blind hole with trees just in front a huge lake. You hit a beautiful high shot straight over the trees and hear a splash. The sound of the splash is pretty convincing evidence that the ball is in the water and the high trajectory of the shot verifies that the ball could not have reasonably "skipped" out of the water.

You would be 99 and 44/100% certain (<-- test for reasonable evidence) that the ball is lost in the water hazard.

2.
You are looking for your ball in an area where there is a large hazard with some rough around the hazard. You are pretty sure that the ball is in the hazard, but you take a quick look in the rough around the hazard.

Can you now claim "reasonable evidence" that the ball is lost in the hazard and could not possibly be lost in the rough outside the hazard?

No. The ball is probably in the water hazard, but there is not "reasonable evidence" that it could ONLY be in the hazard. The ball is lost and Rule 27 applies.

[NoBack]

Ok Gary................ so according to the original post on what happen that day, does the rule apply here or not.

According to what what described in the original post, what would you have rules if you were the committee at this event?

[Farzin]

The reasonable evidence is that , the outside agency was not a green fee player but he was a thief, therefore should dealt with accordingly.
But seriously, If all 4 players agreed that the stolen ball was the ball in play, then it is "the ball in play". Therefore no penalty applies. Please don't forget that after all, this is a game of honours and the roles can't cover every situation. IMO

[Kilroy]

That is pretty generous in view of Gary's definition of reasonable evidence.

I agree that it seems like a reasonable assumption, but that is not evidence.

If the ball were sitting (visible) in the rough, and you saw someone pick it up, then that would be reasonable evidence.

If the ball is in the fescue out of sight and someone picked up a ball in the general area, then that would not be reasonable evidence, unless the ball were identified.

If the ball was out of view, then all they are agreeing on is to assume that that was the ball. This is not in accordance with the rule as I see it.