Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

I'm not a rules expert but:

1. You cannot declare the ball lost (in or out of a hazard), the ball is only lost after the 5-minute period has expired. Sometimes it is better not to look ... maybe you do find the damn thing!
2. There is no penalty for extracting a golf ball to identify it, even in a hazard.
3. If the ball found in the mud isn't yours, no problem ... you keep it, no penalty. You can hit it into the next hazard as a 'water ball'!.
4. If it is your golf ball you find, you need to replace it as best you can to recreate the lie you had before you extracated it and then proceed from there.

So, if it was your ball ... you have to dig it back into the mud as best you can to recreate the initial lie. By digging the ball out, you are testing the surface - 'testing' is understood to be an intentional act to discover conditions of the playing surface, not an action or a set of actions you do to extracate a golf ball to identify it.

No penalties apply, except maybe if you declare it unplayable in the hazard and drop in the normal way.

That's what I think ...

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

You can't declare a ball unplayable in a Water Hazard. He should have said he was proceeding under Rule 26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard. He could then recover the ball in any way he wants as he will be playing from outside the hazard and has already incurred the penalty for taking relief.

The following only applies if he intends to play the ball in the hazard.

However Rule 12-1 says
In searching for his ball anywhere on the course, the player may touch or bend long grass, rushes, bushes, whins, heather or the like, but only to the extent necessary to find and identify it, provided that this does not improve the lie of the ball, the area of his intended stance or swing or his line of play.
A player is not necessarily entitled to see his ball when making a stroke.
In a hazard, if a ball is believed to be covered by loose impediments or sand, the player may remove by probing or raking with a club or otherwise, as many loose impediments or as much sand as will enable him to see a part of the ball. If an excess is removed, there is no penalty and the ball must be re-covered so that only a part of it is visible. If the ball is moved during the removal, there is no penalty; the ball must be replaced and, if necessary, re-covered. As to removal of loose impediments outside a hazar d, see Rule 23.
If a ball lying in an abnormal ground condition is accidentally moved during search, there is no penalty; the ball must be replaced, unless the player elects to proceed under Rule 25-1b.
If the player replaces the ball, he may still proceed under Rule 25-1b if applicable.
If a ball is believed to be lying in water in a water hazard, the player may probe for it with a club or otherwise. If the ball is moved in probing, it must be replaced, unless the player elects to proceed under Rule 26-1. There is no penalty for causing the ball to move provided the movement of the ball was directly attributable to the specific act of probing. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a.

That could be construed as testing it is not part of the act of probing

See Rule above

by probing or raking with a club or otherwise,

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

While I understand the nature of the rules of golf, I believe the above is mostly semantics ... in this case anyway, since I also mentioned declaring the ball 'lost in the hazard'.

26-1 and 28 defines the same penalty (admittedly with slightly different options for relief.

But ok ... to be exact about it, the ball is 'declared lost'.


Good answer this far.

'Could be' ... that's a very uncommon term in a rules decision, isn't it?

In general - I would have no doubt. If you go into a hazard and lean on your club, you're definately 'grounding' and 'testing the hazard', BUT ...

...There is no ball in play!

The ball has been declared lost, and no new ball has been put into play.

Furthermore, rule 13-4 only talks about it being prohibited to test the hazard 'before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard'. Is there any mention of testing the hazard when not making a stroke at a ball in a hazard somewhere?

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

To take the second part first; I did make the following note before commenting on the actions in the hazard
The following only applies if he intends to play the ball in the hazard.

If an option under 26-1 is being used it is all irrelevant to this case but I was just adding it for info. In addition the exception to Rule 13-4 Prohibited Action does not preclude the action described in retrieving a ball in a WH

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

Back to the first part

A ball cannot be declared lost (see definition). However if there is reasonable evidence that it is lost (ie not findable) in a WH Rule 26-1 kicks in. Rule 28 plays no part.

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

Yes, my words should have been more positive.

You are correct.

I am now puzzled as to why you asked the question. If the intention was to take relief under 26-1 regardless of whether the ball was actually the player's or just an abandoned ball, all the shenanigans in the WH was irrelevant. If there was no stroke in the hazard 13-4 does not apply and there is no other constraint on actions in the hazard.

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

Because it's all tied together, and somehow keeps boiling down to semantics.

Ok - so you can't declare a ball unplayable in a water hazard, and you can't declare it lost either.

If you can't do any of those, then - despite any intent - the ball is still in play until a substituted ball has been played in accordance with 26-1.

But if the ball is still in play, then surely a player leaning on a club in the hazard is still about to 'hit a shot from the hazard', and subject to 13-4.

So he would be 'testing' and incurs a penalty of 2 strokes, right?!

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

I see your problem. However Decision 13-4/40 helps.

Provided he makes clear his next stroke will be played outside the hazard, he is permitted to retrieve the ball, or touch the hazard
The "no doubt or reasonable to assume" language in the answer to 13-4/40 puts the burden on the player to make clear he will not play that ball from the WH.

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

Ok ... so you have to state that you're not going to play the ball, which was pretty much what I meant when I said 'declared it lost' ... semantics will kill me one day - I swear.

Thanks for taking the time to sort it out. I've put 'Decisions on the Rules of Golf' on my christmas wishlist

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

Try

www.usga.com or www.randa.org

You can view Rules & Decisions on both. The methods are slightly different, each has its advantages, try them both.

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

Mighty difficult to bring to the course though

Re: Testing the hazard ... or what?

I don't think you'd want to carry the Decisions without a buggy.
They are a 1 1/2" thick hardback