Rule 26-1 Ball in hazard

[Not Yours]

Who decides what is reasonable evidence? If there are two water hazards from the tee with 60 feet of rough between the two and the player clearly sees the ball go over the first water hazard but doesn't see it land because of a viewed obstruction from the tee and can't find his ball, he assumes there is reasonable evidence he can't find it so it must be in the second hazard. Drops in front of the second hazard with a one stroke penalty. One of the others players says you must drop back infront of the first hazard back by the tee because that is the last place you saw it cross the hazard. What is the rule? Fact is he found his ball 70 yards past the first hazard, he had cleared both but what if he hadn't found his ball?

[Gary Hill]

Reasonable Evidence is very much misunderstood.

Reasonable Evidence means there is a 99% certainty that the ball is in the water hazard even though you did not actually see the ball enter the water hazard.

The fact that the player was looking for his ball automatically nullifies the "reasonable evidence" that the ball is in the water hazard.

Therefore, his ball is lost and he must return to the teeing ground.

After the player has proceeded under a Rule, it is irrelevant where the original ball, if found, lay.

Fellow-competitors are not Rules officials. They cannot tell you what to do.

Any disputes about reasonable evidence are ultimately decided by the Committee.