Reasonable Evidence 101

[Gary Hill]

When there can be no clear determination of the facts, the Rules state the procedure to be followed. In the case of a ball moving after the player has addressed it, the player is deemed to have moved the ball regardless of whether or not he caused it to move.

In other situations, the Rules provide that "reasonable evidence" shall be used to reach a conclusion where the facts cannot be known. For example, a splash does not prove your ball is in the water hazard. Was a high wedge shot hit into a large lake or was a driver skipped across a narrow creek? Reasonable evidence must be taken into account.

I cannot give you a precise definition of reasonable evidence. It is purposely and necessarily broad as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. However, you may be surprised to learn that the commonly claimed "might be" or "could be" in the water hazard is not sufficient. Reasonable evidence is sometimes referred to as the "Ivory Snow Rule" (you may have to ask your grandfather about these commercials). This means that 99 and 44/100 percent of the evidence has to be in your favor.

Here is a good rule of thumb: If you are searching for your ball in a water hazard AND in the area around the water hazard, then the searching of the area outside the hazard prohibits you from claiming the ball "must" be in the hazard.


Food for thought: If 99.9% accuracy is good enough, 12 parents will be given the wrong baby today.

[spidey]

Yes, but unfortunately, a lot more than 12 parents are probably going to get the wrong baby today, and the VAST majority of parents are going to get the right baby. Humans have a nasty propensity for being imperfect. (unlike rules officials)

(btw, is an adoption considered the right baby or the wrong one?)

By the same token, if the ball is in the hazard, but Joe Imperfect Golfer misses it, and proceeds to look in the surrounding region hoping to salvage his $8 Pro V1, he's getting burned by the rule of thumb imho.

spidey

[Gary Hill]

You seem to be confusing looking for an expensive ball with the purpose of recovery and the requirements for determining if your ball MAY be lost in a water hazard.

Joe Imperfect can look for his expensive ball anywhere he wants.

If he looks outside the hazard, he cannot claim that his ball "must" be in the hazard and he is therefore NOT entitled to invoke the water hazard rule. His ball is lost under the definition of "Lost Ball" and his only option is to invoke stroke and distance under Rule 27.

[spidey]

said by Gary....
If he looks outside the hazard, he cannot claim that his ball "must" be in the hazard and he is therefore NOT entitled to invoke the water hazard rule.

...even if his ball actually IS in the water hazard, and would be entitled if somebody found it there...

I admit it's a difficult rule to swallow, and as the opponent, I wouldn't want a golfer to deem a ball in a water hazard that's more likely lost.

Nevertheless, it obviously deems many balls lost that are actually in a hazard just as it correctly deems balls lost which are not in a hazard.

spidey

[Gary Hill]

Exactly.

The Rules consider only what is KNOWN within five minutes of searching or what is KNOWN up to the time the player puts another ball into play. It is irrelevant, from a rules point of view, where the ball is ACTUALLY found at some later time or date.