Reasonable Evidence

[BC MIST]

Pretend that you are playing #17 or #18 at Mountain Creek where there are water hazards to the right of the holes, but not visible from the tee. You hit drives towards those areas but you cannot find your ball. Is the ball LOST, or is it in the hazard(s)?

What reasonable evidence does one need to be able to proceed under the water hazard rule?

Decision 26-1/1 is purposefully vague in its description of what reasonable evidence is and I was wondering if someone had come across something more definitive. I had a brief discussion with two Level 3 officials yesterday but still could get an exact answer.

[jvincent]

I don't think there is ever a "definitive" answer to reasonable evidence. Each situation has to be considered individually and there are lots of variables to consider (ball flight, type of terrain around the hazard, etc)

[AAA]

A number of senior rules officials use a criteria of 95%+ certainty.

But how they quantify it I don't know

[Kilroy]

What if I am 100% sure it was headed in the direction of the hazzard, 70% sure I could have reached it, 10% sure I could have cleared it and 0% sure I'm not lost in the rough, fescue or clover patches around the hazzard?

My head hurts.

[gbower]

With yours Dan there's at least a 30% chance that the ball is lost especially if there is fescue and clover around. I've seen my ball go in some fescue and thought I knew exactly where it was and not found it. The 70% to me is not reasonable evidence that it is in the hazard.
I was officiating at a Junior Tournament this week and watched a ball heading left and although we didn't see the ball go in the hazard there was no deep rough in the area and as far as I was concerned the ball had gone in the hazard. Another situation the hazard markers started where we couldn't see them and the boy when asked wasn't exactly sure where the ball had carried to so in this case there was no reasonable evidence that it had carried far enough to go into the hazard so a trip back to the tee was necessary as we never found the ball.

[Kilroy]

That' exactly the reply I was hoping someone would make. You can't assume it's in the drink in such a case. Many would do so.

[Big Johnny69]

What about if you are a member at MC and know by the contact you've made? I was a member there for two years, and when my ball went towards the ponds on 18 and I didn't see it bounce I knew it was in the water. In two years I never found a ball along the edge line of the pond. Would that be considered reasonable evidence?

[BC MIST]

That' exactly the reply I was hoping someone would make. You can't assume it's in the drink in such a case. Many would do so.

The common solution to this problem is that if all the members of the group agree that the ball likely went into the water, it went into the water. This is not acceptable as this is tantamount to an agreement to waive the rules.

A point was made yesterday by one of the rules officials who indicated that on the PGA Tour, the official watches the caddie very closely. If he even appears to be looking for a ball, the ball is lost, outside the hazard.

While the 95% certainty makes some sense, how would you rule if the two holes at Mountain Creek that I mentioned above, were involved? #18 is bordered by both fairway and rough, while #17 is surrounded by rough. Again, both hazards are invisible from their respective tees.

[1972Apex]

The common solution to this problem is that if all the members of the group agree that the ball likely went into the water, it went into the water. This is not acceptable as this is tantamount to an agreement to waive the rules.

A point was made yesterday by one of the rules officials who indicated that on the PGA Tour, the official watches the caddie very closely. If he even appears to be looking for a ball, the ball is lost, outside the hazard.

While the 95% certainty makes some sense, how would you rule if the two holes at Mountain Creek that I mentioned above, were involved? #18 is bordered by both fairway and rough, while #17 is surrounded by rough. Again, both hazards are invisible from their respective tees.

You've just given every sandbagger in Ottawa a great idea on how to bump up their handicaps... play every non visible hazard on the course as a lost ball
Seriously though, it is a tough call. 95%... geez if you can't see the hazard, how can you really be 95% sure... how do you quantify it?
My personal opinion is that really, like most things in golf, it comes down to honor does it not? We've all hit a ball off the tee and instantly said 'oh, man, that is in the water...' You might take a cursory 'hope and prayer' glance around in case it hit a turtle's back and bounced out, but otherwise you're headed down there to drop a ball LOL. In that case you play it as in the hazard. If on the other hand you think, even for a moment 'you know, there's a chance that might not have gone in?' and you look around for it a bit... well, it's a lost ball
Tournament officials and others who take the game a bit more seriously than myself may of course disagree

[Wknd_Warrior]

If you can't find it it must be in the hazard...

seriously, if my ball was headed in that direction with what I personally think is enough to put it right in then I'd call it in and I think in the general spirit of the game playing a regular round I wouldn't be wrong.

In a tournament or something I have no idea.

[BC MIST]

Seriously though, it is a tough call. 95%... geez if you can't see the hazard, how can you really be 95% sure... how do you quantify it?
My personal opinion is that really, like most things in golf, it comes down to honor does it not?
Tournament officials and others who take the game a bit more seriously than myself may of course disagree

I appreciate what you are suggesting but honour has nothing to do with what the ruling should be. The ball cannot be found and "it is a matter of fact" that it is in the water or it isn't. What proof is required?

(Weekend Warrior said) seriously, if my ball was headed in that direction with what I personally think is enough to put it right in then I'd call it in and I think in the general spirit of the game playing a regular round I wouldn't be wrong.
In a tournament or something I have no idea.
The suggestion here is that there are rules for me and my friends playing a regular round and rules for tournaments, however, this is not the case. There is one set of rules for golf, universally applied, regardless of the who is playing. Golfers routinely "break" the rules for a host of reasons, but this makes nothing right.

A golfer whose ball rolls more than two club lengths after a drop and plays the ball has played from a wrong place for which there is a penalty of two strokes. Saying that he had a 4 when he really had a 6, does not change the FACT that he had 6. While his intent was not to deliberately cheat to gain an advantage, he still broke the existing rule.

[jeffc]

I have no idea how you quantify 95%. It's easy on an exam score, but impossible on a golf course. It is unquantifiable (if that is even a word).

[Wknd_Warrior]

I didn't really mean to imply that there are two sets of rules, I just have no idea what officially constitutes reasonable evidence.

After considering this conversation I think reasonable evidence means although didnt' see the ball enter the hazard, given the circumstances it would have taken an act of God for it to not have gone in. So you're as sure as you can be without actually witnessing the event first hand.

So if there is any doubt you must consider the ball lost. Since you can't play a provisional in this situation you have to walk back or forfeit the chance that the ball may be provably in the hazard, ie, fish it out.

Most of the these rules seem designed to prevent a player from taking the best of two shots, not torturing the weekend golfer who can't see the hazard from where he plays and can't walk back when the ball is lost. It's always a problem.

[LobWedge]

IMO, it's a combination of these two definitions...

1) The term “reasonable evidence” in Rule 26-1 is purposely and necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. As applied in this context, a player may not deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard. The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard. Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1. Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of hazards. It would depend on all the circumstances.


2) Unlike many sports, golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

[jvincent]

Boy did we have this one in spades today at Rivermead.

I caddied for MJF and it came into play twice.

The first time FC1 snap hooked one off the tee on #12 towards the hazard that's between #12 and #13 green. There was no way we could see the ball come to rest. He played a provisional and when he couldn't find the first one he wanted to play as if it went into the hazard.

Everyone else was aware of the ruling here, i.e. if not certain that it's in the hazard it's lost, but he was NOT happy about the decision and things were tense after that. He should have played a second ball and gotten a ruling but he chose not to. I'm not sure he was even aware that was an option.

On #17 FC2 hits a drive that hits the cart path and bounces towards the hazard between #17 and #18. We don't see it come to rest. At first we don't find it, so we were about to declare it lost, which FC2 knew was the correct procedure, when we found it on the 18th hole. A clear example of why the ruling specifies "reasonable evidence".

[big easy]

95% sounds quite unreasonable to me as this amount to a "beyond a reasonale doubt" kind of threshold...it is not a question of coming to an agreement to waive the rules. It is only common sense IMO. The rule is obviously very subjective and is based on reasonableness, nothing more. Would a reasonable person conclude that the ball went into the pond, taking into account the direction, flight and distance.

[LobWedge]

Here's an example. I played Loch March on Sunday morning, first time of the day and out on my own. #14 is a par 5 with big water down the left that also comes into play on #13 and #10 on the far side. There's a large waste area on the left as well that meets the water and has some high grass and bullrushes/reeds that grow in the sand at the water's edge. The left edge of the waste area is red staked so that the grass, etc. lies within the hazard.

I hit a big looping hook from the back tees that was headed towards the hazard in the direction of the reeds. I lost sight of the ball when it got there. Definitely no splash. I went down to have a look, assuming that my ball was in the hazard. I walked around in the reeds for a couple of minutes (less than 5) to see what I could see, finding a few other balls, but not mine.

I was coming back out to get another ball and a club to measure for my drop, and I happened to look to my left. I saw what looked like a ball lying at the front edge of the waste area where it transitions back to rough, so I went to have a look. Sure enough, it's my ball, lying at the edge of the wet sand and rough, outside the hazard line. I stood by the ball and looked back towards the tee. There's absolutely no way my ball could have got there as a result of the line of flight that it took without me seeing it the whole way. It must have banged through the hard stalks of the reeds and squirted out the other side.

According to the definition of reasonable evidence that "The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard"(my ball was not plugged in the sand before the reeds outside the hazard line, there was no reasonable explanation to say that it wasn't lost in the hazard), I would have been able to proceed under Rule 26-1, drop another ball, take my 1 stroke penalty and play on, even if I had found my original ball after doing so. So says Decision 26-1/3.5.

The word "preponderantly" is the operative term in the definition. It's like the difference between a criminal and civil trial. In a criminal trial, the jury must come to a unanimous decision before a verdict can be rendered. A civil jury must only reach a majority (75%, or so) decision based on a preponderance (the evidence only need point to a strong likelyhood of guilt or innocence, not absolute and beyond a reasonable doubt) of the evidence in order to end the trial.

Bottom line, I saved myself a stroke by finding my first ball. But, "reasonable evidence" would have allowed me to proceed otherwise if I hadn't, even if my ball wasn't actually lost inside the hazard.