Beyond reasonable doubt?

[bladeplayer]

Well searching in the immediate surrounding area and not finding the ball virtually eliminates one other possibility! :mmm:

In the case of holes like our 5th with the river id agree , as there is only fairway and 1st cut short of it , so if the ball is flying down the fairway it will be found or in the water , you can be assured of that


What im trying to get across is if the area around is low cut grass and not boggy id agree, wet area around a lake or river , high rough near the lake or river , may cause doubt ..

Just throwing it out there

 

[ManinBlack]

If you search 'somewhere else' then you must have some doubt about where it is. You wouldn't search in the 'somewhere else' area if you don't believe it is possible to be there. If it is possible that a ball in that area may not be seen (2" rough say), then it is not virtually certain to be elsewhere.

But see this for the RB's view.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#d26-1-1

I couldn't find this in decisions, quote from the above:

"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."

This is not how I understood it and it was explained to me by an England Golf sub committee member. He was obviously wrong. Thank you rulefan, you've improved my scanty knowledge of the rules.

 

[Colin L]

Certainly not! If you see a ball heading towards a hidden water hazard and can't find it in the immediate surrounding area when you get there, isn't it reasonable to assume that it is virtually certain to be lost in the water hazard?

Dearie me, Del - I was just making a joke about what you previously said about giving others the benefit of doubt.

 

[MadAdey]

Only one question is needed. Is there any possibility that the ball could be anywhere else?

There is always that possibility, hence the phrase 'virtually certain', or the phrase would be 'beyond any doubt'.

 

[delc]

There is always that possibility, hence the phrase 'virtually certain', or the phrase would be 'beyond any doubt'.

In law, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any 'REASONABLE' doubt to get a conviction, but what constitutes "reasonable"? For that matter, what probability test does 'virtually certain' have to pass in golf? 99%, 95% or 90% of being the correct decision? :mmm:

 

[Colin L]

It's pretty well pointless using percentage figures of something that cannot be measured numerically. In virtual certainty there is inevitably a "small degree of doubt" otherwise we would have knowledge but you really have to eliminate all evident possibilities of the ball being elsewhere. As MadAdey points out there is always a possibility of the ball being elsewhere which is why I say evident possibilities i.e. all the ones you can realistically think of and eliminate. It is a very stringent test. If you want a figure, Del, try 99%.

 

[Spuddy]

In law, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any 'REASONABLE' doubt to get a conviction, but what constitutes "reasonable"? For that matter, what probability test does 'virtually certain' have to pass in golf? 99%, 95% or 90% of being the correct decision? :mmm:

There is no percentage. Read the explanation given in the definitions. You consider all of the available information and if you conclude that the ball could only be in the water then you are 'virtually certain'. Theres always the 'possibility' that an alien came down and zapped your ball up into his spaceship or a crocodile came out of the hazard and ate it but those possibilities would not be classed as reasonable. Long grass or abnormal ground conditions in the locality on the other hand would give reasonable doubt and thus you could not be virtually certain.

 

[Foxholer]

If you search 'somewhere else' then you must have some doubt about where it is. You wouldn't search in the 'somewhere else' area if you don't believe it is possible to be there. If it is possible that a ball in that area may not be seen (2" rough say), then it is not virtually certain to be elsewhere.

But see this for the RB's view.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#d26-1-1

I don't have any difficulty in equating can't be anywhere else with virtually certain Rulefan made the comment not virtually certain then in the context of the OP saying there was a possibility the ball could be elsewhere.

That is also what the Decision states '...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....'

That quote also clashes somewhat with Rulefan's black and white assertion about searching elsewhere - at least in areas where you would expect to find a ball simply (so doesn't include deepish rough). If that assertion is actually applied, then there would be no need for the word 'virtually' imo - you would have to be (100%) certain! To me, not finding it after searching in other places, like fairwy or fringe, where it would be clearly visible if it was present, does not diminish the 'virtually certain' qualification.

@DelC Benefit of the doubt is far too generous! As is 'reasonable to assume'! 'Can be nowhere else' is my alternative and if there is the possibility that it might have crept into anything more than very short rough, then that statement could not be made!

 

[rulefan]

I couldn't find this in decisions, quote from the above:

"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."

This is not how I understood it and it was explained to me by an England Golf sub committee member. He was obviously wrong. Thank you rulefan, you've improved my scanty knowledge of the rules.

Could this explanation date back prior to 2008 when the rule used the words 'reasonable evidence' rather than 'virtually certain'.
The change in terminology was intended to tighten up the criteria. Although, as Colin has said, assigning a numerical value may be impossible, some pundits have suggested a move from about 95% to higher than 99%.