12 replies to this topic

[TxFrog]

I had this happen recently and never encountered it before. Calling all rules guru's.

Par 4 with pond right of the fairway. Slice drive and its heading right for the middle of the pond. It was an overcast day, I was tracking my ball and lost sight of it right before it "went" into pond. The other golfer I was playing with said, "yeah that went in". I asked him if he saw it splash, he said "No, but it has to be in there". I agreed, and determine it to be Virtually Certain it went into the hazard. Take my drop and salvage a bogey.

2 holes later, I found my ball that supposedly went into the pond. I guess I sliced it soo bad that it sliced completely to the other side of the pond near the green of a par 3, 2 holes later. Huh? Both my FC and I saw it tracking for the middle of the pond. I was a windy, overcast day, and maybe that caused it to clear the hazard.

I can't go back and replay the hole, so am I disqualified?

We made the VC decision based on the evidence at the time, but 2 holes later new evidence came about that proved us wrong. Don't know of any decisions, but is seems similar to TV camera's picking up infractions that the golfer wasn't aware about at the time. (ex. Harrington's ball moving a 1/4").

[Imp]

Yep. Kinda tricky. You treated it as it was in the hazard (incorrect), instead of lost ball (correct).

You have to be virtually certain it's in the hazard to proceed under 26.1 for a drop. If not certain, it gets treated as 27.1 (lost ball).

--kC

[Sawgrass]

Please see decision 26-1/3.5

Your honest intentions saved you.

Edited by Sawgrass, 16 May 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[TxFrog]

Thanks Sawgrass,

It's hard to describe it without being there but it was one of those real head scratchers. I was about 99% sure it was in the hazard, realistically to be 100% sure you have to retrieve your ball in the hazard and identify it, which most of time isn't possible. At some point you have to make a judgement call.

I'll have to remember that decision just in case this happens in a tourney so I don't get DQ'ed.

[Newby]

If (when) you are in asimilar situation again, ask yourself

'Is there anywhere else the ball could possibly be?'  If it is possible, then it isn't in the water hazard.

[Sawgrass]

Newby, on 17 May 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

If (when) you are in asimilar situation again, ask yourself

'Is there anywhere else the ball could possibly be?'  If it is possible, then it isn't in the water hazard.

I recognize that we must be demanding of ourselves when we decide something is "virtually certain."  But, in addition to the formula you present above, as I know you know, decision 26-1/1 regarding the meaning of virtual certainty also says in part, "Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found."

And then, as I pointed out, 26-1/3.5 accepts that you can be virtually certain and yet ultimately proven wrong.

Another telling quote from 26-1/1, generally supporting your above formula but seemingly leaving a tiny crack is, "However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."  A "justified" conclusion, but perhaps an incorrect conclusion.

Ultimately, to me, having an impartial person, or a person who would be negatively effected by the "virtaul certainty" such as a competitior, agree that the ball is virtually certain to be in a water hazard is very, very helpful in making this tough call.

[darkhelmet]

If you're unsure of how to proceed, I think you can also play 2 balls the rest of the way on the hole.  One with the drop from the hazard, one with re-teeing as if it's a lost ball.  If that round was in a tournament, that might have been the best option.

Then you can check with a rules official later to see how to score it.  Or in your recent situation, you now know that it was not in the hazard, so you cross out the "hazard" score and keep the "lost ball" score.

[rogolf]

darkhelmet, on 17 May 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

If you're unsure of how to proceed, I think you can also play 2 balls the rest of the way on the hole.  One with the drop from the hazard, one with re-teeing as if it's a lost ball.  If that round was in a tournament, that might have been the best option.

Then you can check with a rules official later to see how to score it.  Or in your recent situation, you now know that it was not in the hazard, so you cross out the "hazard" score and keep the "lost ball" score.

Big correction needed here - if you have play two balls under Rule 3-3 (doubt as to procedure), you must report the facts to the Committee before returning your scorecard.  Failure to report this to the Committee (as you seem to suggest) will result in disqualification.

[Sawgrass]

rogolf, on 17 May 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

darkhelmet, on 17 May 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

If you're unsure of how to proceed, I think you can also play 2 balls the rest of the way on the hole.  One with the drop from the hazard, one with re-teeing as if it's a lost ball.  If that round was in a tournament, that might have been the best option.

Then you can check with a rules official later to see how to score it.  Or in your recent situation, you now know that it was not in the hazard, so you cross out the "hazard" score and keep the "lost ball" score.

Big correction needed here - if you have play two balls under Rule 3-3 (doubt as to procedure), you must report the facts to the Committee before returning your scorecard.  Failure to report this to the Committee (as you seem to suggest) will result in disqualification.

I'll also add that later realizing that the ball was not in the hazard does not mean you should have played it as a lost ball.  If you are virtually certain that it was in the hazard to begin with, and if you were justified in your reasoning, after you hit an appropriately dropped ball the original ball you later discover has no meaning.  So if one did play two balls, and report the situation to the committee, it would be the committee's job to determine if the "virtually certain" decision was warranted given the situation at the time (before the original was later discovered).  That would be an interesting job for them given the fact that they know the certainty to begin with!

[DaveLeeNC]

Sawgrass, on 17 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I'll also add that later realizing that the ball was not in the hazard does not mean you should have played it as a lost ball.  If you are virtually certain that it was in the hazard to begin with, and if you were justified in your reasoning, after you hit an appropriately dropped ball the original ball you later discover has no meaning.  So if one did play two balls, and report the situation to the committee, it would be the committee's job to determine if the "virtually certain" decision was warranted given the situation at the time (before the original was later discovered).  That would be an interesting job for them given the fact that they know the certainty to begin with!

And here is an interesting (theoretical) converse to this. Assume a tourney on a hole with the following characteristics, starting from the center of the fairway

1) Fairway
2) Moderate rough
3) Lateral hazard

A guy hits a ball with a draw that lands in the rough, no one sees it bounce after landing,  he doesn't find it, and claims it to be in the hazard, taking the appropriate drop/penalty per that assumption. His playing partner objects at the time and to the scoring committee at the end of the round. An official gets involved and they go back to the place and this time they find the ball inside the hazard boundary.

In my mind this play had no right to be 'virtually certain' that his ball was in the hazard (but it was). Should he be penalized for playing a ball from the wrong place? Does it matter?

dave

[Newby]

If a ball may be in a WH where there is moderate rough should never be considered to be virtually certain in the WH.

[Sawgrass]

Newby, on 18 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

If a ball may be in a WH where there is moderate rough should never be considered to be virtually certain in the WH.

I presume then (but don't claim to know)  that a player who violates this precept by dropping a ball under 26-1, without legitmate virtual certainty, would be in violation and be judged to have played from the wrong place -- even if it is later discovered that his ball was actually in the water hazard.

At least that lives up to my opinion of fairness/propriety.  Since the rules allow you the freedom to be wrong about VC if you have valid argument, they should punish you if you acted inappropriately (even if you discover that you made a good guess) if you didn't have a valiid argument.

[Veng]

DaveLeeNC, on 18 May 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

Sawgrass, on 17 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I'll also add that later realizing that the ball was not in the hazard does not mean you should have played it as a lost ball.  If you are virtually certain that it was in the hazard to begin with, and if you were justified in your reasoning, after you hit an appropriately dropped ball the original ball you later discover has no meaning.  So if one did play two balls, and report the situation to the committee, it would be the committee's job to determine if the "virtually certain" decision was warranted given the situation at the time (before the original was later discovered).  That would be an interesting job for them given the fact that they know the certainty to begin with!

And here is an interesting (theoretical) converse to this. Assume a tourney on a hole with the following characteristics, starting from the center of the fairway

1) Fairway
2) Moderate rough
3) Lateral hazard

A guy hits a ball with a draw that lands in the rough, no one sees it bounce after landing,  he doesn't find it, and claims it to be in the hazard, taking the appropriate drop/penalty per that assumption. His playing partner objects at the time and to the scoring committee at the end of the round. An official gets involved and they go back to the place and this time they find the ball inside the hazard boundary.

In my mind this play had no right to be 'virtually certain' that his ball was in the hazard (but it was). Should he be penalized for playing a ball from the wrong place? Does it matter?

dave

IMHO he should be penalized.  Most of the decisions I've read cover knowledge at the time of the decision.  In this case, despite being right, he only had reason to believe it might be in the hazard since he couldn't find it.  He was in no way "virtually certain" as no one saw it go in.   IIRC there's a decision about something similar, but I'm too lazy to go look it up.