Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

The note to Rule 18-1 is the key.

Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1.

As nobody saw the ball come to rest and no one owned up to moving it, IMO it was not KVC that the ball had been moved. However that is subject to the qualification of my not being there and knowing the nature of the area in which the ball was thought to have been. If there was no KVC then he gets a S&D penalty under 27-1 and a further 2 stroke for a breach of that rule. He could be subject to DQ if it was a serious breach.
See Decision 27-1/3
USGA: Rules and Decisions

26-1/1 Meaning of “Known or Virtually Certain”
When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be “known or virtually certain” that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of “knowledge or virtual certainty” that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must
be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
When a player’s ball cannot be found, “knowledge” may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie
or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable
witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other
outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide “knowledge” that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.
In the absence of “knowledge” that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be “virtual certainty” that the player’s ball is in the
water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike “knowledge,” “virtual certainty” implies some small degree of doubt about the actual
location of a ball that has not been found. However, “virtual certainty” also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.
In determining whether “virtual certainty” exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include
topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.
The same principles would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c).
(Revised)

Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

Since neither A nor B made any effort to go and ask a question of the Players in the passing group that were alleged to have taken the ball, I agree that it could not be KVC that an OA had taken A's ball and as such, in playing another ball, he would be deemed to have played a wrong ball and as such, lost that hole.

That said, seeing as both A & B had agreed that it was KVC that A's ball had been taken by the OA and proceeded accordingly, would the fact that they subsequently found A's original ball, thus negating the previous assumption that rule 18-1 applied, mean that unless B actually wanted to dispute the decision made, and have the Committee issue a ruling, then A was free to continue playing the substituted ball and the result of the Match, once posted would stand.....??

Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

1) I didn't realise it was match play :-(

However, it wasn't a wrong ball. The ball he dropped was a substituted ball. As the only rule available to him allowing substitution was rule 27-1, he has dropped at and played from a wrong place. As it happens that is also loss of hole in match play. (See Rule 20-7 and Decision 20-7/1).

USGA: Rules and Decisions

2) Yes. Although A should have been penalised, B did not make a claim at the time and the Committee can not consider a later claim. See Decision 2-5/8.5

USGA: Rules and Decisions

and 1-3/5 may be of interest

USGA: Rules and Decisions

Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

The fact that A's original ball was found after A & B had agreed that A was entitled to proceed under 18-1 is causing me my headache at the moment.

So, once A & B agreed (even with an apparent lack of KVC) that A can proceed under 18-1, the dropped ball becomes the ball in play once A plays his 2nd shot.

Then, when they locate A's original ball, if I understand correctly, A is still entitled to proceed with the substitued ball, however, he would incur the general penalty for playing a ball from the wrong place, but, only if B lodges a protest with the committee before the result of the Match is posted.

Thanks once again for your input aaa, very much appreciated.

Cheers

Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

You must remember this is match play. If both A & B are happy there is KVC then they are OK. If B was not happy he could make a claim. The fact they got it wrong makes no difference. In strokeplay it would be different as there are others in the field to consider. Decisions 26-1/3.5 and 26-1/3.7 would come into play here.

The lack of KVC was not apparent to them it seems. But yes.

Not quite. B had to tell A that he was making a claim before either made a stroke from the next tee.
He can only make a claim after the match if it becomes known that A gave wrong information. eg he failed to inform B of a penalty he had incurred.

USGA: Rules and Decisions

But the rule (9-2) has a let out clause for A

A player is deemed to have given wrong information if he:

(i) fails to inform his opponent as soon as practicable that he has incurred a penalty, unless (a) he was obviously proceeding under a Rule involving a penalty and this was observed by his opponent,

B did observe the breach and had the opportunity to say something. His ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

In the old days, golf used to be a simple game... now there seems to be a lotta newfangled rules.

Re: Ball Moved By Outside Agency.......

I think there were upwards of 50 a few decades ago. Now down to 34.