Known or Virtually Certain - Revisited

[gbower]

In a lot of situations, like #15 at Mississippi, you do not see the ball cross the hazard line and as the rough is deep enough to lose a ball in you cannot just asume that it's in the hazard. As the situation at the top of this thread said the ball was found later outside the hazard and just because everyone said "well it must be in the hazard", to me, it isn't known that it is in it. I hit a couple of shots today and without certainty I knew they were in the hazard and there was no way I was looking anywhere else as the possibility of finding my ball outside of the hazard was 0% and I wasn't going to waste 5 minutes looking anywhere else.

[Kilroy]

So by not looking (and therefore not finding) you are confirming it's presence in the hazard? I don't think so. Sounds more like turning a blind eye to me.

[gbower]

[Kilroy]

Yep. I know just how you feel.

[jvincent]

See, even the certified Rules guys have trouble with this one!

This was one that I was hoping would be made more clear on the last update, but apparently it's still an issue.

[gbower]

It's definitely not an issue for me.

[NoBack]

Need to know the definition of "virtual".

Definition: nearly: almost, but not quite

IMO That would leave a glimmer of hope and you should NOT be penalized for thaking a quick look on the other side.

[BC MIST]

See, even the certified Rules guys have trouble with this one!

This was one that I was hoping would be made more clear on the last update, but apparently it's still an issue.

Not from here. The figure the ladies used with us was 99% (virtual certainty). If a golfer starts to look for the ball, except near the hazard margin, he is showing a lot less than 99% certainty. On #15 today, had my ball gone in that area, I would have looked along the hazard margin, a distance of roughly 50 yards, and a width to the first cut of rough, approximately 20 - 25 yards, as the grass is quite long in that area. There is no way that looking over that large an area shows virtual certainty.

Now, had that area been cut portion of fairway, then obviously the ball would likely have been visible regardless of where I stood, and this shows virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard.

The practice that we use on course during tournaments is to simply ask, 'Where did you look? If the golfer was to describe a large enough area, thereby showing significant uncertainty that the ball is in the hazard, then the ball is lost. If he says, "Just there," meaning near the hazard margin, then the ball is in the hazard.

A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere otherwise every ball that is lost near a hazard, in is the hazard. Searching for the ball, except near the margin, seems to be it and until other criteria is added to the above to help decide what to do, this is what we'll use. Guess what we will be asking Dean, when we see him next?

BTW: The consensus of the group where this happened was that the ball was in the hazard. Firstly, regarding making this ruling, the consensus means nothing. Secondly, from the 15th tee, no one can see the ball go in the hazard or even if it may be close, so how can a consensus be made. It's nice to be nice, but rules is rules.

I wonder how many of these we will have at Arnprior tomorrow as there are hazards on almost every hole, many of which cannot be seen from the tee. Could be a busy day.

[Kilroy]

The practice that we use on course during tournaments is to simply ask, 'Where did you look? If the golfer was to describe a large enough area, thereby showing significant uncertainty that the ball is in the hazard, then the ball is lost. If he says, "Just there," meaning near the hazard margin, then the ball is in the hazard.

Well at least it seems taking a reasonable look is ... reasonable.

[AAA]

You don't need to take a look. If it's fairway up to the WH and you can't see it, it's either Known (if you see it in) or Virtually Certain (if you can't see it in).
If there is rough around we all know from experience balls 'disappear' in rough until just after 5 minutes elapse. In that case it's never virtually certain.

[Kilroy]

I have been thinking a lot about this one. I stand by my opinion that a decision should be written to clarify this. However I'll conceed that the higher level RO's are in agreement and I am on the losing side as far as the debate goes.

Thanks for hearing me out. I am still frustrated by this one but "The rules are what they are, like them or not."

I know for a fact that I'll be saying that to someone in the future so it's time for me to eat crow and drop it.

[Kiwi battler]

So we look AFTER we have dropped under rule 26 .....

[Kilroy]

Once you drop under rule 26 the dropped ball is in play.

[BC MIST]

Once you drop under rule 26 the dropped ball is in play.

If after doing this the ball is found IN THE HAZARD then the ball may be redropped if the reference point is affected, otherwise the player would be playing from a wrong place. If not in the hazard, then the ball is played as it lies.

The suggestion above that you look for the original ball after you have dropped the substituted ball would seem to avoid the perceived problems with the rule, however, once dropped, the SB is in play and the player has 40 seconds to make his next stroke, under the current RCGA pace of play guidelines. 6-7 covers Undue Delay.

[LobWedge]

I have been thinking a lot about this one. I stand by my opinion that a decision should be written to clarify this. However I'll conceed that the higher level RO's are in agreement and I am on the losing side as far as the debate goes.

Thanks for hearing me out. I am still frustrated by this one but "The rules are what they are, like them or not."

I know for a fact that I'll be saying that to someone in the future so it's time for me to eat crow and drop it.

Well said Dan. Sometimes we may not agree with the rules, but I still believe that they are the most fair rules in sport and are there to protect the majority, not punish the few.

[Kiwi battler]

The still would still have to have been KVC to be in the hazard ....but Dan so wants to find his ProV1 , as would we all no doubt , that he can look other places after dropping just in case it is hiding in that 1 %

[Mightiestmik]

I think you should be able to look as looking for the ball and not finding it lets you be virtually certain.

If you claim that it is virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard, take the penalty and drop a second ball, then go looking for your Original Ball, outside the hazard. Doesn't that make you seem quite hypocritical? even an outright liar....

My ball must be in the hazard (sweet I avoid going back to the tee)
Drop, shoot..... hmmm I wonder if I can find my first ball on the other side in that rough?


Or even better....

My ball must be in the hazard (sweet I avoid going back to the tee)
Drop, shoot..... hmmm I wonder if I can find my first ball on the other side in that rough? AND then You Find it in the rough on the other side... haven't you now proven that you ball was not in the hazard and that you should have either looked for it until you found it or deemed it lost and gone back to the tee... and Now that you have dropped haven't you just dropped illegally and played the wrong ball?

Seems to me that the only way to be Virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, is to be CERTAIN it isn't elsewhere.

[BC MIST]

I think you should be able to look as looking for the ball and not finding it lets you be virtually certain.

If you claim that it is virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard, take the penalty and drop a second ball, then go looking for your Original Ball, outside the hazard. Doesn't that make you seem quite hypocritical? even an outright liar....

Seems to me that the only way to be Virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, is to be CERTAIN it isn't elsewhere.

What we should be able to do is irrelevant. What we all need to learn is what we must do, according to the rules, depending on the situation in which we find ourselves.

If you are virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, why would you want to look elsewhere? But you do want to look elsewhere, so the obvious answer is, you are not sure where the ball is, not VC, and so therefore it's lost.

Answer this simple question - Where else could the ball be? If the answer is nowhere else, then you are VC it's in the hazard. If the grass is long enough for a ball to be hidden, or trees big enough to have deflected the ball away from the line where the ball would have gone in the hazard, it's lost.

[spidey]

Seems to me that the only way to be Virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard, is to be CERTAIN it isn't elsewhere.

Perhaps I can simplify for you.

Assume you look elsewhere.
Elsewhere includes rough or other places where the ball might be lost or losable.

1) Assume you don't find the ball.

Now, you have two places where the ball might be lost. One in the hazard, one in the rough (or wherever you searched).

Since you now have more than one place where the ball might be lost, you are no longer virtually certain about where it is. It is definitely lost, you will go back to the last place you played from.

2) Assume you find the ball.

Play the ball or invoke a rule to play the ball.


Assume you don't look elsewhere.

1) Assume you don't find the ball.

The ball must be in the hazard. You should proceed with the appropriate rule

2) Assume you find the ball.

Play the ball or invoke a rule to play the ball.


So, the issue is... that you cannot be certain a ball is NOT in an area that was searched, simply because you don't find it. There are very few ground conditions that preclude the losing of a ball. A ball may be plugged in the turf, a ball may have bounced sideways on hardpan. Simply because you don't find a ball in an area that has been searched is not proof that it isn't there. It's only proof that you were unable to find it.