Ball over hazard

[4Iron]

Gary,

Okay, you have had this one a hundred times for sure:

If I hit (yank) a ball over a hazard (yellow stakes), see it land fair (significantly), but the ball pops high in the air, and I lose sight of it. Can I ... Hit a provisional because I cannot deem the ball in the hazard, and therefore may have lost it. Or, is my provisional now the ball in play?

BTW when the original ball was found, although ugly, it was definitely not in the hazard.

Can you direct me in the rule, and/or decision.

Thanks in advance

[Gary Hill]

Rule 27-2 Provisional Ball
a. Procedure
If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1.

You may play a provisional ball anytime your ball MAY be lost OUTSIDE a water hazard (as in the case you described).

It is irrelevant where the ball is actually found.

If the ball is found, the provisional ball is no longer in play.

If the ball happens to be found in a water hazard, you may proceed under the water hazard rule.

If the ball is not found, you may play the provisional ball.

[1dash1]

If the ball is not found, you may play the provisional ball.

Point of clarification.

If the ball is not found, the player may continue play with the provisional ball - provided there is not Reasonable Evidence that the ball is lost in the water hazard.

The key being that facts in evidence are not static. Whereas there may have been no Reasonable Evidence on the tee of the ball being lost in the water hazard, the same may not necessarily hold true after the player has had the opportunity of examining the landing area.

[4Iron]

Thank you Gary.

There was a player in our group, insisting that you may not hit a provisional over a hazard.

[GarthM]

Point of clarification.

If the ball is not found, the player may continue play with the provisional ball - provided there is not Reasonable Evidence that the ball is lost in the water hazard.

The key being that facts in evidence are not static. Whereas there may have been no Reasonable Evidence on the tee of the ball being lost in the water hazard, the same may not necessarily hold true after the player has had the opportunity of examining the landing area.

Can you expand on your quoted text above? What would constitute sufficient new evidence to allow the player to proceed under the ball in hazard rule versus a lost ball?

[Gary Hill]

The "reasonable evidence" provision is absolutely static on the teeing ground.

However, upon reaching the landing area, if 100 spectators testify that they saw the ball enter the hazard, then the "reasonable evidence" that the ball may be lost outside the hazard is gone and the player must proceed under Rule 26-1.

[GarthM]

So unless there is someone (as opposed to something) to indicate that the ball either did or did not go in the hazard then the reasonable evidence remains the same as it did on the teeing ground?

Would there be any cases where this would not hold true?

[el tigre]

The "reasonable evidence" provision is absolutely static on the teeing ground.

However, upon reaching the landing area, if 100 spectators testify that they saw the ball enter the hazard, then the "reasonable evidence" that the ball may be lost outside the hazard is gone and the player must proceed under Rule 26-1.

What about situations where you have a blind tee shot? In some cases you may not realize that a water hazard was present in the landing area because it is not visible from the teeing ground.

Another situation that happens when you play an unfamiliar course is that you don't realize that a certain area is marked as a water hazard. Your tee shot disappears into the woods and may be lost, but when you get to the area in question you find red stakes just inside the tree line (sometimes there actually is a creek or stream in the woods - and sometimes not).

I rarely have 100 spectactors watching me play, so I have to make these judgement calls on my own. How reasonable is the "reasonable evidence" standard?

[Gary Hill]

If the total area around the water hazard is paved and sloping towards the water hazard, then you would have to re-evaluate your position on "reasonable evidence that the ball is lost outside the hazard".

Other than these and other obtuse examples, in general, if the ball may be lost outside the water hazard on the teeing ground, it would likely be lost outside the water hazard at the landing area.

In fact, the ruling bodies use their most rigid guidelines in the application of "reasonable evidence" in these types of cases. Unless you are 99 & 44/100 percent sure that it is NOT in the water hazard, then the ball is LOST.

[Gary Hill]

What about situations where you have a blind tee shot? In some cases you may not realize that a water hazard was present in the landing area because it is not visible from the teeing ground.

Another situation that happens when you play an unfamiliar course is that you don't realize that a certain area is marked as a water hazard. Your tee shot disappears into the woods and may be lost, but when you get to the area in question you find red stakes just inside the tree line (sometimes there actually is a creek or stream in the woods - and sometimes not).

You can ALWAYS play a provisional ball when your ball MAY be lost outside the hazard. You don't always know what is ahead. That is the whole point. Where the ball is actually found is irrelevant to the act of playing of a provisional ball.

I rarely have 100 spectactors watching me play, so I have to make these judgement calls on my own. How reasonable is the "reasonable evidence" standard?

"Reasonable evidence" is YOUR reasonable evidence.

If you cant find your ball, then it is reasonable to YOU that it is lost.

If you cant find your ball and you have 1000 witnesses telling you that they say it roll into the water hazard, then would YOU think it was reasonable to assume that your ball is lost outside the water hazard?

Spectators don't make decisions on these situations, YOU do.

[1dash1]

Thank you Gary.

There was a player in our group, insisting that you may not hit a provisional over a hazard.

4Iron:

The general guidance for dealing with players who misquote the rulebook is to show them the rulebook. The tact that you take is a personal matter.

- You could suggest playing a second ball under Rule 3-3 and settling the matter later at the clubhouse.

- You could take out your rulebook and show him Rule 27-2.

- You could take out your rulebook and challenge him to show you where it says that a provisional ball may not be played over a hazard.

- You could back down on the matter now and privately show him the rule later.

[4Iron]

Thanks Dash,

It was a quick argument at the time, and my provisional was allowed. I think it was one of those "the more you think about it in your mind, the more you second guess yourself". In my mind, it was clear that the ball was not in the hazard, however I did not know where it actually ended up, or what was actually over there where I had hit my ball. I guess one of the other players was not actually satisfied, and brought it to one of the local rule authorities for clarification.
I always carry a rule book, and refer to it more than I probably should while on the course. The matter was only presented again two weeks later, and I think the circumstances in the discussions that took place before it was brought back to my attention were misrepresented.

Situation will bring up some interesting comments, now that I can see more clearly now.