"Known or Virtually Certain" KVC

[BC MIST]

Late in yesterday's golf telecast, there was a great example of KVC, "known or virtually certain." Robert Allenby was significantly PO'd on the ruling he got late in the 4th round. His ball headed toward a lateral water hazard, but no one saw it go in. The commentators indicated that it was heard hitting a tree and so because it was not "known or virtually certain" that the ball actually went into the hazard, his ball was deemed lost and he had to go back to the tee.

Even though Allenby was seen looking for the ball IN the hazard (Where was the player looking for the ball?) as the ball could have been in the tree (Where else could the ball be?) he was not permitted to assume that the ball was in the hazard. Good call by the official.

[gbower]

I happened to turn the TV on just as this was happening. Looking at the rough between the fairway and the hazard it could have easily been lost in there. The official gave the 5 minutes to find it to be certain that it was in the hazard. I was surprised to not see someone looking around in the rough. Let's hope that a lot of players that play in tournaments saw that situation develop.

[Kilroy]

It was the first time I had ever seen it happen like that on the PGA tour. Someone usually can attest to where the ball ended up when there are that many people and cameras around.

[sensfan63]

I happened to turn the TV on just as this was happening. Looking at the rough between the fairway and the hazard it could have easily been lost in there. The official gave the 5 minutes to find it to be certain that it was in the hazard. I was surprised to not see someone looking around in the rough. Let's hope that a lot of players that play in tournaments saw that situation develop.

I thought one of you who are officials had said that the best way to assert that it's in the hazard is to NOT look in the rough?

[gbower]

The only way they were going to prove it was in that hazard was to find the ball as he wasn't 100% sure where it went and there didn't seem to be proof that it went in after hitting the trees. If there had been someone in the area to see it go in then he would have been granted a drop. The marshals were all further away from the tee and as he hooked it the ball never got to the area where they were.

[BC MIST]

I thought one of you who are officials had said that the best way to assert that it's in the hazard is to NOT look in the rough?

True, but it also depends on the surrounding terrain. To the question, "Where else could the ball be," rough and trees are possibilities, in addition to the LWH, since the ball apparently hit the trees coming down. No KVC. Ball lost.

[mjf]

Resurrecting a kind of old thread here but I have some questions on this point.

What if Allenby was certain that his ball went into the hazard but nobody else (FCs, spotter, rules official, fans) was certain. Does he get the benefit of the doubt, or is there any doubt at all since HE is certain?

What if Allenby and his FCs were certain the ball was in the hazard but the spotter / rules official was equally certain it was not. For example, the spotter / rules official believes the ball is stuck in a tree because, from their angle, they did not see/hear the ball bounce into the hazard.

What if Allenby was certain it was in the hazard but everybody else was certain it wasn't? (I'm quite certain rules officials will win out on this one)


What I'm trying to get at here is... whose decision is it ultimately? For most of us, we're not going to have spotters and/or rules officials following us so it will only be the opinions of the player and the FCs that matter. So if I'm certain my ball is in the hazard but my FCs aren't certain... or they are certain it is NOT in the hazard, what happens?

[LobWedge]

The way I've had it explained to me is that, it's the difference between hard evidence ("look, there's my ball lying in the hazard" - 100%), and circumstantial evidence (the weight of all the evidence combined to create no other reasonable outcome... minus the "body" - 99%).

In the absence of hard evidence, if there is any evidence of the possibility of another reasonable outcome based on the existing facts (trajectory, distance, etc.), and the surrounding environment (trees, rocks, size of the hazard, etc.), then there is "reasonable doubt" and it must be considered that the ball did not enter the hazard, and may be lost outside the hazard. If that is the case, then KVC no longer applies.

Case in point. A couple of years ago while playing the 14th at Loch March, I hooked my tee shot towards the water hazard on the left side, specifically towards a thick stand of bull rushes and coarse reeds inside the hazard line. Outside the hazard line there is a large waste bunker that flows into the hazard.

From my view from the tee, my ball looked like it had disappeared into the rushes, and there was no splash to indicate it had cleared them. I went down to search. After looking around the waste area and not finding a ball, I took relief in the waste area within 2 club lengths of where I thought my ball had crossed the margin, and played my next stroke. As I started walking towards my ball, I took 2 steps outside the waste area in to the rough. I looked down, and saw my original ball lying there in the grass at my feet.

In taking "relief" I had incorrectly assumed that my ball was lost in the hazard. I had not even considered the notion that my ball could have deflected off the reeds and back into the rough.

[Kilroy]

Just as a point of interest to the rules students out there... What penalty did Lobbie incur in the above scenario? How should he proceed?

Was the waste area part of the hazard? If so would dropping in the waste area cause any additional issues?

After that I'd be interested in asking Lobbie: How did you proceed from that point?

[BC MIST]

The way I've had it explained to me is that, it's the difference between hard evidence ("look, there's my ball lying in the hazard" - 100%), and circumstantial evidence (the weight of all the evidence combined to create no other reasonable outcome... minus the "body" - 99%).

In the absence of hard evidence, if there is any evidence of the possibility of another reasonable outcome based on the existing facts (trajectory, distance, etc.), and the surrounding environment (trees, rocks, size of the hazard, etc.), then there is "reasonable doubt" and it must be considered that the ball did not enter the hazard, and may be lost outside the hazard. If that is the case, then KVC no longer applies.

Case in point. A couple of years ago while playing the 14th at Loch March, I hooked my tee shot towards the water hazard on the left side, specifically towards a thick stand of bull rushes and coarse reeds inside the hazard line. Outside the hazard line there is a large waste bunker that flows into the hazard.

From my view from the tee, my ball looked like it had disappeared into the rushes, and there was no splash to indicate it had cleared them. I went down to search. After looking around the waste area and not finding a ball, I took relief in the waste area within 2 club lengths of where I thought my ball had crossed the margin, and played my next stroke. As I started walking towards my ball, I took 2 steps outside the waste area in to the rough. I looked down, and saw my original ball lying there in the grass at my feet.

In taking "relief" I had incorrectly assumed that my ball was lost in the hazard. I had not even considered the notion that my ball could have deflected off the reeds and back into the rough.

I have only a vague recollection of the hole, but from the tee, you were virtually certain that the ball had entered the lateral water hazard near or through the waste area. As the ball could hardly be lost in the waste area where you looked, then what you did could be considered acceptable, even though you later found your ball and Decision 26-1/3.5 confirms this.

However, if the area in question was trees, rocks, thick rough, then if you searched there, it shows that you were NOT virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard and therefore you incorrectly substituted a ball under an inapplicable rule, and if played and the error not corrected, then the penalty would likely be disqualification.

There was a similar situation at Mississippi a couple of years ago on hole #15 when a ball was hit towards the hazard on the right and all 6 players (it was a mixed alternate shot) said that the ball was in the hazard. However, they were seen looking in the rough before the hazard and so were really saying that they were NOT virtually certain. Had they just looked at the hazards edge, played a ball and then found the original, then that procedure was acceptable. Unfortunately, the team in question was DQ'd.

[LobWedge]

I have only a vague recollection of the hole, but from the tee, you were virtually certain that the ball had entered the lateral water hazard near or through the waste area. As the ball could hardly be lost in the waste area where you looked, then what you did could be considered acceptable, even though you later found your ball and Decision 26-1/3.5 confirms this.

However, if the area in question was trees, rocks, thick rough, then if you searched there, it shows that you were NOT virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard and therefore you incorrectly substituted a ball under an inapplicable rule, and if played and the error not corrected, then the penalty would likely be disqualification.

There was a similar situation at Mississippi a couple of years ago on hole #15 when a ball was hit towards the hazard on the right and all 6 players (it was a mixed alternate shot) said that the ball was in the hazard. However, they were seen looking in the rough before the hazard and so were really saying that they were NOT virtually certain. Had they just looked at the hazards edge, played a ball and then found the original, then that procedure was acceptable. Unfortunately, the team in question was DQ'd.

I see your point, and I'm glad that there's a Decision to clarify, but it frustrates me that KVC still needs that kind of clarification. I find it hard to comprehend that KVC can be appropriately applied from a distance. The term itself implies that a more detailed investigation is required before making a determination, not a judgement made from hundreds of yards away. I've always thought that the original term "reasonable evidence" was more than appropriate, and lent to a more common sense approach to the rules, instead of cluttering things up with more legal-ese.

Thanks very much for pointing out that Decision, I totally missed it. I appreciate the help. Still learning every day.

[sensfan63]

The way BC MIST describes it, the player can so easily circumvent the spirit of the KVC rule by simply not looking for the ball. I find it, in theory, WAY too susceptible to players (to put it bluntly) cheating.

There's got to be a better way.

[BC MIST]

The way BC MIST describes it, the player can so easily circumvent the spirit of the KVC rule by simply not looking for the ball. I find it, in theory, WAY too susceptible to players (to put it bluntly) cheating.

There's got to be a better way.

And if you find one, then please let us know.

But consider two questions:
1. Where did the player look?
2. Where else could the ball be?

So while you say that the player could NOT look for the ball at all, as you indicated above, he still would need a reference point to use to drop the substituted ball and so I would want to know that he looked at the edge of the hazard. As a rules official, the first thing I would do is check out the surrounding terrain and if it WAS possible for the ball to be elsewhere, then there is no KVC. If the rough was for example, only 2" high, with no trees or rough terrain around, then KVC, but if it was 4" or obviously long enough for the ball to be hidden or down in it, then no KVC.

If the player looked any where other than near the hazard, then no KVC.

Personally, I prefer KVC over "reasonable evidence" because getting the answer to the two questions above makes it almost fool proof. The problem that we have encountered on the course is that most golfers do not know about nor do they understand KVC, yet.

In the 2008 Alexander of Tunis at the Royal Ottawa, a player's tee ball hit a tree near a hazard and was not found. He insisted that the ball must be in the adjacent lateral water hazard and the official indicated that the ball was lost. The player demanded a second opinion and the second opinion drove him back to the tee to play his 3rd shot under the lost ball rule. Because the ball hit the tree, the ball could still be up in the tree, therefore, no KVC. And it's that simple.

[LobWedge]

In the 2008 Alexander of Tunis at the Royal Ottawa, a player's tee ball hit a tree near a hazard and was not found. He insisted that the ball must be in the adjacent lateral water hazard and the official indicated that the ball was lost. The player demanded a second opinion and the second opinion drove him back to the tee to play his 3rd shot under the lost ball rule. Because the ball hit the tree, the ball could still be up in the tree, therefore, no KVC. And it's that simple.

In this situation, did the player see his ball hit the tree, or was he informed of it when he came forward?

[BC MIST]

In this situation, did the player see his ball hit the tree, or was he informed of it when he came forward?

I am no sure. Neither Gerry nor I were directly involved in this one, but Gerry did discuss it with the first official. Perhaps he can pipe in with that detail.

[gbower]

As far as I recall the player said the ball had hit the trees or in that area and they looked all around in the thick rough and then said that it had to be in the hazard. Too much rough around the area for it to be KVC that it was in the hazard.

[LobWedge]

As far as I recall the player said the ball had hit the trees or in that area and they looked all around in the thick rough and then said that it had to be in the hazard. Too much rough around the area for it to be KVC that it was in the hazard.

Doesn't the fact that he searched for the ball outside the hazard negate KVC in this situation anyway? If you're "virtually certain" that the ball is in the hazard, what the heck are you doing searching for the ball outside it?

IMO, the phrase "reasonable evidence" should have been retained, with KVC used to support it, not replace it.

[sensfan63]

If you're "virtually certain" that the ball is in the hazard, what the heck are you doing searching for the ball outside it?
.

Because we've all seen crazy bounces in our golfing lives. That's why I think KVC is really, really the wrong concept to employ.

Take today, for instance. On my 18th hole, I attempted to drive the green, it came out a little to the right, and looked to me like it fell into a hazard (the hazard borders the right side of the green). I walked up the hazard line, all the while looking in the hazard. My eyes wandered to the left, into a bunker. I walked back along the hazard line to the point of entry, asked my FC if he thought the point I selected was appropriate. He agreed, I dropped, hit my shot, and made the 20 footer for par.

Did I do anything wrong?

[gbower]

If the bunker was right next to the hazard and there was no other place the ball could be, I don't see anything that you would have done wrong in that situation. If there was lots of long grass outside the hazard in the area where the ball may have gone then there may be doubt as to the ball going in the hazard and then what you did would not have been correct. Again the question to ask is "where else could the ball be other than the hazard?"

[sensfan63]

If the bunker was right next to the hazard and there was no other place the ball could be, I don't see anything that you would have done wrong in that situation. If there was lots of long grass outside the hazard in the area where the ball may have gone then there may be doubt as to the ball going in the hazard and then what you did would not have been correct. Again the question to ask is "where else could the ball be other than the hazard?"

So you CAN peruse areas with short grass, bunkers, etc., where the ball would be easy to see?

[AAA]

If you look and can't see it in an area where you could not miss it if it were there, then OK.
If you look in an area where there is any possibility that it may be hidden, then there is no KVC that it is elsewhere (ie in the WH)