ankle deep water?

[tigger12]

Playing Falconridge 17th hole. Hit a bad tee shot, went right and landed in long grass maybe into light bush.
I hit a provisional ball.
Get up there and if I choose to look for my ball I'm in ankle deep water. There are no red stakes.
Couldn't find my ball but my playing partner agreed it was in the water.
Played my provisional.
What is the right thing to do?

[jvincent]

Tricky one.

If the ball is known to be in the casual water but not retrievable then you should have played under the casual water rule, i.e. dropped at nearest point of relief. The important assumption here is that the ball is not lost because you know where it is but simply can't retrieve it.

If you are not certain that the ball is in the casual water then you would have to go under the lost ball rule, in which case you would have played your provisional.

[Hacker]

Playing Falconridge 17th hole. Hit a bad tee shot, went right and landed in long grass maybe into light bush.
I hit a provisional ball.
Get up there and if I choose to look for my ball I'm in ankle deep water. There are no red stakes.
Couldn't find my ball but my playing partner agreed it was in the water.
Played my provisional.
What is the right thing to do?

jvincent - Given the explanation above, I'm not sure how you could say that it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the casual water.

I'd love to hear an "official" take on this situation, the known v/c situations mess me up every time, but given the lack of certainty in the explanation I'm going to go with lost ball

[jvincent]

I'm sure Gerry will chime in but here's the example I would use to explain a KVC situation.

There's as big, muddy puddle in the middle of the fairway and you see your ball land in it. Because it's deep and muddy you can't find your ball, but you know (KVC) that the ball is in it because it came straight down and there was no obstructed view.

In the scenario described, it's possible that the ball is lost in the rough/bush and not in the water. It splashed, but did it skip out? How big is the area with water?

Without actually seeing the area it's hard to know for sure but the usual test is COULD it be somewhere else. If the answer is that it could be, then it's not KVC.

[LobWedge]

Ah, KVC rears its head again.

If you were virtually certain that the ball was lost in the casual water, then you should have taken relief under Rule 25-1b. In the absence of known or virtual certainty, you must proceed under Rule 27-1. See the Decision below.

25-1c/1 Ball Not Found Is in Casual Water or Rough

Q. An area of casual water preceded by high rough is in a hollow not visible from the tee. A ball driven into this area is not found. The ball may be in the casual water or it may be in the high rough. May the player treat the ball as being in the casual water?

A. No. In such circumstances, it is neither known nor virtually certain that the ball is in casual water. The player may not proceed under Rule 25-1c.

[gbower]

I spent a fair bit of time this evening discussing the "known or virtually certain" situations with another high level rules official and you have to be positive that it's in the casual water. As John and Rich have said it has to be known that it is in the casual water. At our rules course the instructors again specified being 99.9% sure that it's KVC and that the ball couldn't be anywhere else. This is something that is causing lots of grieve and many players just aren't getting it and get very ticked off when they have to play the provisional or take the dreaded hike back to where the previous shot was from. I had a couple of situations at Loch March #1 on the left side last year that the ball was seen flying into the casual water so there it was KVC but if there happen to be trees and long grass in the area that the ball is hit the ball could possible be in a place other than the casual water. Really tough one to sometimes make the call on but the more I deal with it the easier I'm finding it to understand.

[Hacker]

I spent a fair bit of time this evening discussing the "known or virtually certain" situations with another high level rules official and you have to be positive that it's in the casual water. As John and Rich have said it has to be known that it is in the casual water. At our rules course the instructors again specified being 99.9% sure that it's KVC and that the ball couldn't be anywhere else. This is something that is causing lots of grieve and many players just aren't getting it and get very ticked off when they have to play the provisional or take the dreaded hike back to where the previous shot was from. I had a couple of situations at Loch March #1 on the left side last year that the ball was seen flying into the casual water so there it was KVC but if there happen to be trees and long grass in the area that the ball is hit the ball could possible be in a place other than the casual water. Really tough one to sometimes make the call on but the more I deal with it the easier I'm finding it to understand.

Thanks for the explanation

In terms of Tigger12's description above if you were the presiding Rules Official and that was the explanation given to you, would you rule KVC? I'm guessing not since it wasn't mentioned that the ball was seen entering the water.

As a side question, it seems that it is in players best interest to be as precise as possible in explaining the situation to the RO - choice of words seems critical

[jvincent]

Even more important than explaining it correctly is knowing what to do if you aren't sure, AKA Rule 3-3.

If you aren't sure and you guess wrong on the rule chances are you are looking at a DQ so taking advantage of 3-3 covers your bacon.

[LobWedge]

Even more important than explaining it correctly is knowing what to do if you aren't sure, AKA Rule 3-3.

If you aren't sure and you guess wrong on the rule chances are you are looking at a DQ so taking advantage of 3-3 covers your bacon.

Not necessarily. The player still has to declare which ball he wants to count when proceeding under Rule 3-3.

[gbower]

Hacker, you are correct in more than likely not giving casual water relief as it was said "Hit a bad tee shot, went right and landed in long grass maybe into light bush." This doesn't necessarily mean it's in the casual water so not KVC. The things that the player often says initially are critical in figuring out what happened and also the answers to specific questions are important in the decision. Also as John says you can alway invoke 3-3.
I'm sure a couple of others like BC and AAA will chime in on this one too. Good discussion!!!!!

[jvincent]

Yes, but if the Committee determines that the other ball should count he records the score for the other ball. If he doesn't proceed under 3-3 and they decide he made the wrong call, DQ.

[justsomeguy]

Having played the course about a week ago, I'm familiar with that particular hole and the area that he hit his ball into. Most of the hole is played in an old quarry.

First of all, the area in question is not a water hazard. Its the rough.

Secondly, that particular area does not drain well and there is often casual water there. In mid-summer you can usually go in there and retrieve your ball, although the grass can also get quite long and there are a few low bushes in the area. Under these conditions if the ball was not found I would say it was a lost ball. However, it was not in "mid-summer" form last week...

... because the OP is not exaggerating when he said the water was ankle deep. The long grass and bushes were basically flooded out, and the water was widespread throughout. If a ball went in there you may find it but only if you don't mind getting totally soaked looking for it. I wouldn't call that "retrievable."

To me this thread really illustrates how it is nearly impossible to answer a question about KVC without actually being there.

[BC MIST]

Hacker, you are correct in more than likely not giving casual water relief as it was said "Hit a bad tee shot, went right and landed in long grass maybe into light bush." This doesn't necessarily mean it's in the casual water so not KVC. The things that the player often says initially are critical in figuring out what happened and also the answers to specific questions are important in the decision. Also as John says you can alway invoke 3-3.
I'm sure a couple of others like BC and AAA will chime in on this one too. Good discussion!!!!!

From the perspective of a player who understands what KVC means, I would suggest that when you become aware that the ball is probably in the casual water, look ONLY in the casual water. By doing so you are saying that you are certain that the ball is in it. By looking elsewhere, you are saying that it is not.

[sensfan63]

From the perspective of a player who understands what KVC means, I would suggest that when you become aware that the ball is probably in the casual water, look ONLY in the casual water. By doing so you are saying that you are certain that the ball is in it. By looking elsewhere, you are saying that it is not.

See, this is cheating. Maybe you meant to word it differently. But, "you become aware the the ball is probably in the water" is a heck of a lot different than 99.9% certainty.

There's a difference between using the rules to your advantage vs. knowing one thing in your head and doing another.

[LobWedge]

See, this is cheating. Maybe you meant to word it differently. But, "you become aware the the ball is probably in the water" is a heck of a lot different than 99.9% certainty.

There's a difference between using the rules to your advantage vs. knowing one thing in your head and doing another.

It's not cheating. It's understanding how KVC works. That being said, if your ball flies in to a stand of trees disappearing from view, and then you discover upon arrival that there are areas of casual water in the trees and you think your ball may be lost in the AGC, you had better have iron clad evidence that the ball is lost in the AGC, and not just lost. If you can't prove to me that there's no other place that ball could be than lost in casual water, then your ball is lost after 5 minutes of search, and you're proceeding under 27-1.

You can't assume what someone may, or may not be thinking.

In any case, situations like these are extremely hard to rule on, sight unseen. I can guarantee that every poster here has a different picture of the scenario in their head.

[sensfan63]

It's not cheating. It's understanding how KVC works. That being said, if your ball flies in to a stand of trees disappearing from view, and then you discover upon arrival that there are areas of casual water in the trees and you think your ball may be lost in the AGC, you had better have iron clad evidence that the ball is lost in the AGC, and not just lost. If you can't prove to me that there's no other place that ball could be than lost in casual water, then your ball is lost after 5 minutes of search, and you're proceeding under 27-1.

You can't assume what someone may, or may not be thinking.

In any case, situations like these are extremely hard to rule on, sight unseen. I can guarantee that every poster here has a different picture of the scenario in their head.

I was going strictly by BC's choice of words, if that helps...

[BC MIST]

I was going strictly by BC's choice of words, if that helps...

Regarding KVC, we were taught:
Where else could the ball be? If there was a small area of casual water AND long grass, trees etc., then obviously there is some doubt as to where the ball may be.

Where did the player look? As an official coming on a scene, I either observe where the player IS looking, or, I will ask him where he looked. If the observation or answer is in the casual water, and if the answer to #1 is no where else, then the ball would be ruled lost in casual water. So if the player IS virtually certain that the ball is in the casual water, there would be no need to look elsewhere. Virtually certain obviously means high probability, hence the use of the word probably. If this is "cheating" in your mind, so be it, but it's what the pros and caddies have been told to do.

[PapaPat]

Where a player looks is one of the things we all use as part of our evaluation of a situation. The fact that the savvy players have figured this out at least indicates that there is a widening understanding of what KVC means and how strick a condition it is. Let's hope this trickles down to others.

[nokids]

I'd love these threads to end with an answer, like,

"In conclusion, tigger12 did the right thing by playing his provisional ball (3rd shot) because his first ball was lost and it was not known or virtually certain that his first ball was in water."

[AAA]

I find the easiest question to ask a player is 'Is there any possibility it is anywhere else?' I haven't yet had a player argue if his answer was 'Yes'. Even if he says 'Perhaps' or prevaricates, that is enough for it not to be KVC.