Grounds Under Repair

[BC MIST]

Due to a break in an irrigation line, the greens keeper has cordoned off an area of long grass and placed a “Ground Under Repair” sign in the middle of this area. Gerry hits his ball towards this area of long grass from the tee, looks in the GUR for his ball and cannot find it. He searches the area adjacent to the GUR, but still cannot find it. Insisting that his ball is lost in the GUR, he drops a ball within one club length of the outer most margin of the roped off area and plays the ball. What is the ruling?

[BC MIST]

Due to a break in an irrigation line, the greens keeper has cordoned off an area of long grass and placed a “Ground Under Repair” sign in the middle of this area. Gerry hits his ball towards this area of long grass from the tee, looks in the GUR for his ball and cannot find it. He searches the area adjacent to the GUR, but still cannot find it. Insisting that his ball is lost in the GUR, he drops a ball within one club length of the outer most margin of the roped off area and plays the ball. What is the ruling?

Since the ball was not found in the GUR and since Gerry looked extensively in the rough adjacent to the GUR and still could not find the ball, it was neither known nor was he virtually certain that his ball was actually lost in the GUR. If the area was surrounded by fairway, then it could be reasonably assumed that the ball is in the GUR, because "Where else could it be?" But, because the area is all rough, it really could be anywhere and because he looked all over, his ball is lost and he MUST proceed under Rule 27 1c, stroke and distance.

[Baxter]

Wish to make sure I understand this.

If he only checked in the GUR for his ball and not eanywhere else. Could he have dropped outside the GUR and not broken any rules?

[Kilroy]

BC, You have made this point in a few posts now and I am a bit confused too. I don't agree with the notion that looking for the ball outside the hazard or GUR would constitute proof that the ball is not "virtually certain" to be in the hazard. As I pointed out in the previous example skipping through a pond is one possiblility. Anyway this is not about opinions so I'll just ask you to back up your ruling.


The terminology was changed from "reasonable evidence" to "known or virtually certain" in order to allow a bit more latitude than the former phrasing.

Rules Of Golf Changes For 2008 Set By USGA And R&A | USGA
the term "reasonable evidence" has been replaced by "known or virtually certain" when determining whether a ball that has not been found may be treated as lost in an obstruction (Rule 24-3), an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a water hazard (Rule 26-1).

Decision 26-1/1 Meaning of “Known or Virtually Certain”
If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term “known or virtually certain” indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area.
Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.
The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

Highlighted phrases confirm that looking is permitted prior to determining the ball could only be (virtually certain) in the hazard.

This is the same argument I presented in the other thread.

I do not see any example in the decisions of a ruling that supports the position that a player who looks for his ball is admitting that he does not know anything about it's location. It seems to me that if I see a ball headed for trouble I'd be obliged to look around to confirm that it was indeed lost in the hazard or GUR and did not run through or pop out of the trouble (as in the previous discussion).

Help me out if you have found a decision that I have missed.

[BC MIST]

Gerry hits his ball towards this area of long grass from the tee, looks in the GUR for his ball and cannot find it. He searches the area adjacent to the GUR, but still cannot find it.
Where is Gerry's ball? Is it in the GUR? We don't know. Is it in the surrounding rough? We don't know? Therefore, how can we say that it is "virtually certain" that the ball is in the GUR? We cannot, and so the ball IS lost.

Play number 6 gold at Greensmere, the dogleg right with the pond to the right and a pond through the fairway. You hit a 280 yard drive down the middle and the ball disappears. Did you see it go in the hazard? No. But, if it is not short of the hazard, then it must be in it, because there is no other place that it can be. So you are virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard.

Play # 8 Gold where the pond left is out of sight, behind the trees from the tee. You hook you ball over the trees. Is the ball in the trees? Maybe. Is it left of the trees? Maybe. Is it in the hazard? Maybe. It is then neither known nor virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard, so it is LOST.

#18 Mountain Creek. Your normal drive travels 225 yards and you hit your tee shot 10 yards lright of the post that indicates the left side of the hazard. Is the ball in the hazard? Don't know. Is it short of the hazard? No. Because you don't hit the ball long enough to either bounce over or carry the hazard, then you can say with virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard.

Now, you can carry the ball 280 yards, are playing the same hole and your line is again, 10 yards right of the marker. Is the ball in the hazard? Don't know. Is it short? No. Is it long? Very well could be. So you look long in both the fairway and the rough and cannot find the ball. Could you now say with virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard? If being honest, I don't think so. Therefore, the ball is lost.

There was a program on the Golf Channel where there was a discussion with a Tour pro, his caddie and I forget who else, and the routine of walking along the line the ball was hit and where the ball may have gone in the hazard using that line, was emphasized. There was also a comment to the effect that if an RO saw the player or his caddie looking too far away from where the ball should have gone in the hazard, that the ball would be considered lost as they showed uncertainty.

Considering all of the above, this is how I see "known or virtual certain."

Regardless, this is one question that I will ask the L3 instructor next weekend in Montreal and will report back here about how this expression is to be "interpreted." My stand will be confirmed or I will be put in my place, but no matter what, I/we will learn.

[Kilroy]

I am looking forward to what they have to say. As you know my intent is also to learn.

[Kilroy]

There was also a comment to the effect that if an RO saw the player or his caddie looking too far away from where the ball should have gone in the hazard, that the ball would be considered lost as they showed uncertainty.

That I would certainly agree with.

[Kilroy]

BC, did the instructors at the L3 course have anything to say on this?

[BC MIST]

BC, did the instructors at the L3 course have anything to say on this?

Yes. Using their percentages, "known" means 100% and "virtually certain" means 99%. They stated that looking for a ball lost in the area in question means virtual certainty, standing by the area and taking a quick glance around if the immediately surrounding area if fairway, is also acceptable. However, if the golfer looks anywhere else, particularly if the surrounding area is rough, this indicates uncertainty and the ball is LOST.

They also described a couple of examples from their own on course experience where they ruled, after ascertaining where players looked for their balls, that the balls were lost.

Again, the message to tournaments players is to walk assertively to the area in question and look no further. If the ball is found by someone outside the area, even after another ball is dropped but before the next stroke is played, then the ball can be dropped again in the correct spot, and played, without penalty. Rule 20-6

[Kilroy]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[sensfan63]

Yes. Using their percentages, "known" means 100% and "virtually certain" means 99%. They stated that looking for a ball lost in the area in question means virtual certainty, standing by the area and taking a quick glance around if the immediately surrounding area if fairway, is also acceptable. However, if the golfer looks anywhere else, particularly if the surrounding area is rough, this indicates uncertainty and the ball is LOST.

They also described a couple of examples from their own on course experience where they ruled, after ascertaining where players looked for their balls, that the balls were lost.

Again, the message to tournaments players is to walk assertively to the area in question and look no further. If the ball is found by someone outside the area, even after another ball is dropped but before the next stroke is played, then the ball can be dropped again in the correct spot, and played, without penalty. Rule 20-6

Since the thread is "hypothetical rulings", what if, given the situation you posed above, the player looked thru the fairway because he thought, well maybe the ball hit a sprinklerhead and went an unusually long distance on that particular shot. Doesn't that cloud the "virtually certain" phrase? And also, the assertion that the player should "walk assertively" to his ball kind of gives me the willies...I mean, he could do that and get relief, all the while thinking "I'd better not look thru the fairway even though it's entirely possible that my ball could be there..."

Just a thought...

[gbower]

If you think it may have gone long and it's only fairway and no rough around have a glance for it but you are then not virtually certain it is in the hazard. If you are virtually certain it is in the hazard and play a ball under the hazard rule there is no problem if the ball is later found when walking further up the fairway as you were originally 99% sure it was in the water. Just pick up the ball and put it back in your bag.

[BC MIST]

Since the thread is "hypothetical rulings", what if, given the situation you posed above, the player looked thru the fairway because he thought, well maybe the ball hit a sprinklerhead and went an unusually long distance on that particular shot. Doesn't that cloud the "virtually certain" phrase? And also, the assertion that the player should "walk assertively" to his ball kind of gives me the willies...I mean, he could do that and get relief, all the while thinking "I'd better not look thru the fairway even though it's entirely possible that my ball could be there..."

Just a thought...

And it's a reasonable one. Situations like these perhaps come down to selecting the option that is the lesser of the two evils. Most golfers will look somewhere outside the area in question for their ball and if not found in 5 minutes, the ball is lost.

However, there may be an occasional one who may be uncertain where the ball is and yet walk to the edge of the hazard or GUR, look no where else and say with virtual certainty, that the ball is in the hazard or GUR. This is where YOU, as a fellow competitor and whose job it is to protect the field, must act. There is nothing preventing you from looking where you think the ball may be and if the player says, "Oh, never mind looking," red flags should go up. If you happen to find his ball and if he has dropped and played a ball from the wrong place, then he is penalised. You MUST protect the filed.

[hackzaw]

This is a really intereseting ruling I wasn't aware of, and I bet the majority of golfers you'd ask would give an incorrect ruling.

At my home course (King's Forest in Hamilton), first hole, if you hit a really crappy drive, you could be faced with a 200+ yard shot into the green. The left side of the green has rough, followed by red stakes and a creek with thick brush on the banks. I've seen this many, many times, whereby the golfer would hit this 200+ yard approach, pull it left towards the hazard, and it may even bounce once or twice in the rough, but when we get up to the area, we cannot find the ball. In my opinion, it would not be known nor virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. It may be lurking in the rough. We would have played this that the ball must have gone in the hazard, and played it likewise.

My buddy is going to kill me when I tell him he's actually faced with a lost ball. I'm sure in the case as I've written it, if I said to him "you can't be 99% certain the ball is in the hazard", he'll surely come back with "yes it is.... I'm 100% certain it is, because it isn't anywhere around here in the rough".

Comments? What if he was adiment that he really hit the ball pure, and there would be no way it would finish in the rough? Or if he said, I saw it go into the hazard (from 200+ yards away)?

[BC MIST]

This is a really intereseting ruling I wasn't aware of, and I bet the majority of golfers you'd ask would give an incorrect ruling.

At my home course (King's Forest in Hamilton), first hole, if you hit a really crappy drive, you could be faced with a 200+ yard shot into the green. The left side of the green has rough, followed by red stakes and a creek with thick brush on the banks. I've seen this many, many times, whereby the golfer would hit this 200+ yard approach, pull it left towards the hazard, and it may even bounce once or twice in the rough, but when we get up to the area, we cannot find the ball. In my opinion, it would not be known nor virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard. It may be lurking in the rough. We would have played this that the ball must have gone in the hazard, and played it likewise.

My buddy is going to kill me when I tell him he's actually faced with a lost ball. I'm sure in the case as I've written it, if I said to him "you can't be 99% certain the ball is in the hazard", he'll surely come back with "yes it is.... I'm 100% certain it is, because it isn't anywhere around here in the rough".

Comments? What if he was adiment that he really hit the ball pure, and there would be no way it would finish in the rough? Or if he said, I saw it go into the hazard (from 200+ yards away)?

From 200 yards away, if the area is clear of bush or heavy rough and the ball was headed towards the hazard and not found, then one could say with virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard. But, in your situation, it seems that the ball could be anywhere, including the hazard and so if the ball is not found, it is lost. There is probably no way that you are going to convince your friend that the ball is lost, if he is already in the habit of just saying that it must be in the hazard. Showing him 26-1/1 and the other related decisions may help, but it just depends on his attitude and willingness to learn what is correct. Good luck.

[Kiwi battler]

BC , been a while huh , I vaguely recall some brief talk about splitting the rules forums but hadnt realised it had happen lol

Anyways , I feel some attention needs to be paid as to where the player took relief in the original post , assumming of course he was 100% sure blah blah
Newcommers to the game may not realise the in's and out's of the drop

[BC MIST]

BC , been a while huh , I vaguely recall some brief talk about splitting the rules forums but hadnt realised it had happen lol

Anyways , I feel some attention needs to be paid as to where the player took relief in the original post , assumming of course he was 100% sure blah blah
Newcommers to the game may not realise the in's and out's of the drop

If it was "known or virtually certain" that the ball was lost in the GUR, the spot where the ball last crossed the last outermost limit of the GUR is deemed to be where the ball lies. (25-1c). Relief, (25-1b) of one club length from the nearest point of relief, is taken from there.

If it is not K or VC that the ball is in the GUR, stroke and distance applies. (27-1c)

[1dash1]

Again, the message to tournaments players is to walk assertively to the area in question and look no further.

I think that message was intended for Rules Officials on how to conduct an investigation, not for Players on how to conduct their play. Ultimately, the facts in evidence as to whether the standard of virtual certainty was met will outweigh the player's behavior in the situation.

I'd recommend players conduct themselves earnestly and with due consideration that the privilege of treating-the-ball-as-lost-in-a-condition requires a very high standard of proof-that-it-is-indeed-in-the-condition.

If the ball is found by someone outside the area, even after another ball is dropped but before the next stroke is played, then the ball can be dropped again in the correct spot, and played, without penalty. Rule 20-6

If KVC existed and the player proceeded properly under Rule 25-1, then the dropped ball is properly in play. Rule 20-6 would not apply. The following decision is similar:

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/bo....html#26-1/3.5