Get a Ruling • Re: Bal in water hazard

quincy wrote:I don't think the Committee could assign R. 26-2 as the ball is neither unplayable nor is it in a WH, lost or OB

quincy

Sorry for not replying earlier-- but I have been away ---disappointed that none of the contributors to this question have expressed an opinion as to my ruling.

Quincy
You could also have easily have said
" I don't think the Committee could assign 27-1 as the ball is neither unplayable outside a water hazard, lost or OB."
In fact if a player , in ignorance and with no prior intention, plays another ball without knowing the location he is deemed to be proceeding for a lost ball!

Anyway more important;

If you were a referee called by the player  after he had played a ball from the water hazard --- and who wanted to then play another stroke without knowing the location of the original ball ----you would not refuse to allow him to play correctly from outside the hazard .
So why cannot the Committee assign  this procedure when it produces a lower score.
Surely that is their duty.

This remains my view but the scenario is an interesting variance to the more common substituted ball / location problem

Regards

Statistics: Posted by Chippings — 1 minute ago

---