bilgesweeper kirjoitti: (2.6.2009 11:22:25)
Kinkkinen tilanne joka aiheuttaa helposti keskustelua. Oheinen dekkari mielestani soveltuu varsin hyvin tahan tapaukseen, eli varapallolla mennaan….
Q. A player’s ball carried over a water hazard into some trees. It could not be determined whether the ball bounced back into the hazard or came to rest in the trees. Therefore, it was neither known nor virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard.
The player did not search for his original ball. He assumed that it was in the hazard, dropped a ball behind the hazard at a spot that conformed to Rule 26-1b and played that ball onto the green. As he was walking to the green, he found his original ball in the hazard. What is the ruling?
A. The first paragraph of Rule 26-1 states in part: “ When the player dropped and played another ball behind the hazard, it became the ball in play and the original ball was lost. The player was required to proceed under Rule 27-1. In playing the ball dropped under Rule 26-1b, he played from a wrong place.
In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.” Therefore, the player was not entitled to assume that his original ball was in the hazard and the fact that it was subsequently found in the hazard is irrelevant.
Tossa on erona se, että vesiesteen takaraja on merkitty. Alkuperäisessä casessa pitäisi tietää se, millaista on maasto sillä alueella, mihin pallo on voinut puusta kimmota.