Known or Virtually Certain - Revisited

[BC MIST]

Hole #15 - Mississippi GC - Blind tee shot - Lateral Water Hazard (swamp) all along the right side which cannot be seen from the tee. Trees on the right about 100 yards from the tee.

Situation: A player hits his tee shot towards the trees on the right in the direction of where the hazard is, even though the hazard cannot be seen. He and his FC's search for the ball both in the hazard and in the nearby rough, cannot find it and then mutually agree that the ball must be in the hazard.

Player drops ball withing two club lengths of where they felt the ball crossed the margin and plays the stroke to the green.

After playing the shot the player walks forward and finds his original ball in the rough.

A ruling is called for. How would you rule?

[Kiwi battler]

Back to the tee , plus penalties or face DQ if he tees off at the next hole without correcting his mistake

[sensfan63]

Hole #15 - Mississippi GC - Blind tee shot - Lateral Water Hazard (swamp) all along the right side which cannot be seen from the tee. Trees on the right about 100 yards from the tee.

Situation: A player hits his tee shot towards the trees on the right in the direction of where the hazard is, even though the hazard cannot be seen. He and his FC's search for the ball both in the hazard and in the nearby rough, cannot find it and then mutually agree that the ball must be in the hazard.

Player drops ball withing two club lengths of where they felt the ball crossed the margin and plays the stroke to the green.

After playing the shot the player walks forward and finds his original ball in the rough.

A ruling is called for. How would you rule?

How long is the rough? Is it even possible to lose the ball in it? That's a valid piece of information, isn't it?

[BC MIST]

Back to the tee , plus penalties or face DQ if he tees off at the next hole without correcting his mistake

It was my understanding that "Hypothetical Rulings" were to be written by those who have a reasonable knowledge of the rules for those who were interested in learning more about them, want a challenge and don't think the rules are "dumb." Based on your previous answers and on the fact that some of us who do have some paper qualifications and/or have actually officiated at some local Ottawa tournaments, were unsure of what you wanted regarding 24-2b and it's exception, it is obvious that your knowledge is superior to ours and participating in the "Ruling Wanted" is the place to contribute. The test: If you wrote your answer without looking anything up in the RB or B of D, then leaving it for others should have been done.

It reminds me of the teacher who asks the class a question, requiring some deeper level of thinking and reasoning, and attention seeking Johnny blurts out the answer rather than putting up his hand and be called upon.

My stance is simple: If I can create a hypothetical situation that may occur on the course where someone has to learn or lookup the appropriate rule, and learn how to follow the correct procedure, then I am happy to help and make a contribution. However, if the challenge is taken away by someone who obviously knows the answer, then I am wasting my time and my contributions are over!

[BC MIST]

How long is the rough? Is it even possible to lose the ball in it? That's a valid piece of information, isn't it?

The ball was, in fact, lost in it.

[sensfan63]

The ball was, in fact, lost in it.

Oh ok. It's just that we had a similar situation the other day. Player pulls his second shot on par 5 left of green. There is about a 10 foot by 10 foot area of rough, not long grass, left of the green. That area is sloped toward a hazard filled with long grass. Nobody really saw the ball go into the hazard, but because the ball wasn't in the rough, the assumption was made that it was in the hazard.

At this point, I remembered a previous discussion on this board that you shouldn't look where you think the ball isn't (ie. don't look in the rough, concentrate in the hazard). But we had looked in the rough for about a minute and a half. So, just as I was about to say that if we looked in the area of rough, then it was POSSIBLE the ball was there, we found the ball in the hazard after all. Situation resolved.

BC, what would have been your ruling if we hadn't found the ball? Would you be OK with the group saying the ball was in the hazard, presented with the facts as I've stated?

[gbower]

I had a situation a week ago where the ball was hit towards the hazard and when I got up to help the guy look I asked if he had carried into the hazard and he said he didn't know and was looking around in the rough and then he said that since he couldn't find it he was probably in the hazard. I said that when I first asked he said he wasn't sure if it was in the hazard or not. I told him that he would have to find the ball or head back to the tee. With less than a minute left in his five minutes he did find the ball just inside the hazard line. He wasn't too happy with me telling him he would have to head back if he didn't find the ball but the fact is he wasn't sure and there was lots of space to have lost the ball outside the hazard.

On the other side at Loch March there were a few situations where the ball had to be in the hazard as the rough was so short that a ball would be easily seen unless that's where it had gone.

Sometimes it's good and sometimes bad.

I'm anxious to have a look at the area at Mississippi tomorrow to see how long the rough is in that area.

[LobWedge]

We had a similar discussion today at Mont Cascades. In the attached picture of the first half of #13, there is a not-so-densely treed area that is staked as a lateral water hazard, because within the trees there is a ravine that's approximately 15 feet deep, and only about 15 yards wide. The red line approximates the hazard line, the blue line approximates the water course flowing downhill, away from the fairway, and the yellow line is a potential ball path from a tee shot hit from the back tees. The trees within the hazard are about 40 feet tall. Immediately beyond the far side of the hazard is large area of deep fescue.

Now, lets say that Player "A" hits his drive along that line and the ball "disappears" in the trees within the hazard approximately 3/4 of the way up. It's quite breezy so the neither the player, or his FCs are able to determine if they heard any significant impact of ball meeting tree. The distance to where the yellow and front hazard lines intersect is 240-ish yards, so reachable by most standards.

Player "A" insists that his ball is within the hazard and wishes to take his relief and stroke penalty, but his FCs argue that the ball could have easily carried the hazard area, through the trees and come to rest in the fescue beyond, and think that "A" should go forward to search for his ball and proceed under Rule 27-1 if required.

How do you see "virtually certain" applying, or not, in this situation?

[gbower]

From your picture and if you didn't see it drop in the hazard he'd better find the ball or head back to the tee. Since his FC thinks it could have gone through the trees and the player from 230 yds can't be sure it is in the hazard I don't think you can be virtually certain it is in the hazard.

This happened at the Tunis a couple of weeks ago and the player made the trip back to the tee.

[LobWedge]

From your picture and if you didn't see it drop in the hazard he'd better find the ball or head back to the tee. Since his FC thinks it could have gone through the trees and the player from 230 yds can't be sure it is in the hazard I don't think you can be virtually certain it is in the hazard.

This happened at the Tunis a couple of weeks ago and the player made the trip back to the tee.

That was my thought as well. Thanks G.

[Kilroy]

Actually, the situation was not quite as described.

Player A's ball went in only about 1/3 of the height of the trees. To all present it was deemed most likely in the hazzard.

We took a look at the far side of the hazard to see if, by some stroke of luck, it had gone through.

The question posed was... did that search constitute being uncertain within the application rule of "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the hazard. In my opinion it was prudent to look, and upon not finding the ball, to conclude it was in the hazard. (I was not player "A")

[LobWedge]

Actually, the situation was not quite as described.

Player A's ball went in only about 1/3 of the height of the trees. To all present it was deemed most likely in the hazzard.

We took a look at the far side of the hazard to see if, by some stroke of luck, it had gone through.

The question posed was... did that search constitute being uncertain within the application rule of "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the hazard. In my opinion it was prudent to look, and upon not finding the ball, to conclude it was in the hazard. (I was not player "A")

Dan, I honestly thought we were talking about my group because we had nearly the same situation, LOL!

[Kilroy]

No I was talking at the table about Pop's ball.

The question remains. If you don't look past the hazard you may be taking an undeserved penalty. Looking beyond the hazard should not instantly negate the return to the drop and play from there if you conclude it must have gone in.

[gbower]

If you start looking on the other side you are then not certain that it is in the hazard. You're best to not look anywhere other than the hazard. If everyone is certain it is in why look somewhere else because then you are showing uncertainty.

[LobWedge]

No I was talking at the table about Pop's ball.

The question remains. If you don't look past the hazard you may be taking an undeserved penalty. Looking beyond the hazard should not negate the return to the drop and play from there.

But then the argument becomes, it's either lost, or it's in the hazard, not both. You can't look for 5 minutes in knee-high and matted fescue and then decide that it must be in the hazard.

[Kilroy]

I hear the argument, but honestly I don't think it's correct to essentsailly deny the player the opportunity to look for his ball beyond the hazard, in hopes of a lucky break or bounce that was out of sight???!!!. I don''t think that is within the spirit of the rule. A player should be entitled to look for a ball especially when his vision is blocked by an obstacle or a blind shot. I woulld think it foolish not to take a look.

[LobWedge]

I hear the argument, but honestly I don't think it's correct to essentsailly deny the player the opportunity to look for his ball beyond the hazard, in hopes of a lucky break or bounce that was out of sight???!!!. I don''t think that is within the spirit of the rule. A player should be entitled to look for a ball especially when his vision is blocked by an obstacle or a blind shot. I woulld think it foolish not to take a look.

IMO, if you do that, then you'd better find your ball in the hazard, otherwise you are at cross purposes with "virtually certain", and your ball should be considered lost outside it.

In my mind, "virtually certain" means that even though it is not "known" for certain that your ball lies within a hazard, you are willing to stake your reputation that it does. Looking elsewhere calls that into question.

[Kilroy]

Looking is just looking. It could arguably turn virtual certainty into absolute certainty.

• It was on line for the creek.
• It's not over the creek (I looked)
• It must therefore be in the creek

Is a reasonable conclusion.

[gbower]

All I can say is that if you start looking you'd better find it.

[Kilroy]

I did the serch for "Known or virtually certain" on the rules site and Virtulally all refrences stay " If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball that has not been found "
To me this implicitly says that you should attempt to find it before you draw a conclusion as to it's location.

27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
Exceptions:
1. If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball that has not been found is in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or is in an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c), the player may proceed under the applicable Rule.

2. If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball that has not been found has been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or is in a water hazard (Rule 26-1), the player must proceed under the applicable Rule.

24-2. Immovable Obstruction
a. Ball in Movable Obstruction Not Found
If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in a movable obstruction, the player may substitute another ball and take relief without penalty under this Rule. If he elects to do so, he must remove the obstruction and through the green or in a hazard drop a ball, or on the putting green place a ball, as near as possible to the spot directly under the place where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the movable obstruction, but not nearer the hole.

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball is in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c), the player may proceed under the applicable Rule.

24-3. Ball in Obstruction Not Found
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward an obstruction is in the obstruction. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the obstruction. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

[gbower]

Dan, I agree with all of those that you found but if you looking outside the hazard then you are not virtually certain that it is in it. You answered your situation as far as I'm concerned.

[sensfan63]

Dan, I agree with all of those that you found but if you looking outside the hazard then you are not virtually certain that it is in it. You answered your situation as far as I'm concerned.

Dan, I agree with your train of thought. Something that was posted awhile back dealing with hitting it into a GUR patch in the middle of the fairway got my attention. I asked that if you looked beyond that GUR, on the off chance that the ball hit a sprinkler head and pitched 30 yards ahead, does that negate "virtual certainty" that the ball was lost inside the GUR?

In my opinion, there are shades of grey here that are NOT addressed by the rules. Decisions should be based on equity, not on a player's state of mind when he's searching for his ball. I mean, the player could just think to himself "I won't look ahead because that means I might have to return to the tee." How is that in the spirit of the rules?

[Kiwi battler]

Ive seen a ball plug into the ground withen the rough and vanish ...Ive heard a ball hit a pinecone , fly miles into the air and land 150mtrs sideways from where the entire group were looking "almost on my head lol" , Ive also seen a ball land on water and skip over a creek

Was there any possibly the ball was not in the hazard ? ....

[Kilroy]

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18...virtually.html

virtually
vir·tu·al·ly [ vúrchoo ?lee ]
adverb

Definition: nearly: almost, but not quite

• At that time he was virtually unknown as a writer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual

The term virtual is a concept applied in many fields with somewhat differing connotations, and also, differing denotations.

Colloquially, 'virtual' has a similar meaning to ' quasi-' or 'pseudo-' (prefixes which themselves have quite different meanings), meaning something that is almost something else, particularly when used in the adverbial form e.g., "He's virtually [almost] my boyfriend". The term recently has been defined philosophically as "that which is not real" but may display the full qualities of the real. However, virtual is ultimately fake.

Seems to me that would leave enough room for looking around... just in case.

I also can not find anything in the decisions where it states that the act of a player looking around a hazard leads to the ball being treated as lost.

[BC MIST]

I also can not find anything in the decisions where it states that the act of a player looking around a hazard leads to the ball being treated as lost.

Perhaps it is too early for a decision on this, however, the idea of not looking comes specifically from the instructors of our L3 course, and I gather in taking to other officials, from how it is taught at the L4 courses, as well.

While my original scenario above is down as hypothetical, it did actually happen recently, and the player was disqualified. Interestingly, Gerry and I just finished playing Mississippi and in taking a close look at the area in question, we both agreed that the rough was long enough, and with some depressions where a ball could hide, that it was quite possible for a ball to be lost outside the hazard. But, two L4 ladies, both members at Mississippi, were of the opinion that that ball could not be lost. We don't know who was consulted before the ruling was made.

In looking at the hole from the tee, there are two possible margins of the hazard over which the ball could fly, the second being invisible from the tee, making accurately finding where it may have last crossed the margin, impossible.

I can understand consulting a dictionary to get specific meaning of the significant words, however, those meanings do not always apply to how they are used when rules are written. Compare "lost" in the dictionary to "lost" in the definitions.

[Kilroy]

I would suggest then, that a decision be added to the book. This is an arguable point and a decision would add clarity. I would not want to have to present this to a player as an official without a decision to support it.

For the record, I remain unconvinced. Virtulal certainty that it's in the hazzard should not preclude a search just in case of a lucky break out of the players view.

[Kilroy]

I can understand consulting a dictionary to get specific meaning of the significant words, however, those meanings do not always apply to how they are used when rules are written. Compare "lost" in the dictionary to "lost" in the definitions.

So here are the "Lost" and "Lost ball" lookups. The term "Lost" (by itself) is not in the definitions.

Not sure I see where you are going with this example though, or how it relates to the proper use of the word "Virtual" within the rules of golf. I cannot find "Known or Virtually Certain" or any combination of these words in the golf definitions.

lost [ lawst, lost ]
verb
Definition:
Past participle, past tense of lose
adjective

Definition:

2. mislaid: unable to be found temporarily
3. gone: no longer in existence or use

Lost Ball
A ball is deemed "lost" if:
a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player's side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or
b. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place (see Rule 27-2b); or
c. The player has put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance (see Rule 27-1a); or
d. The player has put another ball into play because it is known or virtually certain that the ball, which has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (see Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (see Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (see Rule 25-1c) or is in a water hazard (see Rule 26-1); or
e. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball.
Time spent in playing a wrong ball is not counted in the five-minute period allowed for search.

[Kilroy]

Seems to me you are reading virtual certainty in the rules but in application you are requiring absolute certainty.

There should be no question that virtual is not absolute. This obviously leaves room for at least a .0001% shadow of a doubt. That should be enough to allow a look.

[gbower]

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)

[Kilroy]

Thanks gbower. Not sure why my searches did not find that.

I don''t see where it says looking is an admission of uncertainty, but I do see these:

"If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found,"

Does this not imply that a permissible search has taken place?

"there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard"

"Almost no doubt" is not "without doubt".

"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 "

Again, why should the fact that the player looks at the fairway beyond the hazard negate his virtual certainty? It confirms it.