Interpreting the 'Virtual Certainty' Rule

[2blue]

Always a difficult one as there can be a lot of wriggle room......
We have a down-hill Par 4 with an, across the fair-way, ditch at 220yds that is not visible from the Tee. In fact the fairway is visible for only half the distance so balls disappear out of sight prior to landing. The fairway is cut shot right upto the ditch so mis-judged, lay-up drives can sometimes not be found since the ditch has become very vegetated. There is an argument that good drive down the middle, which is not found, must be in the ditch as 'its not to be found anywhere else that can be reasonably expected'. I have seen this interpretation supported though there is a concern that it leaves lots of room for abuse/misjudgement.
I believe that a decision can be made that it is virtually certainly in the ditch..... is it the group that makes that decision or the player's card marker as its them that has to sign the card at the end of the day? If there is a disagreement then can someone else sign the card if the Marker declines?
As the ditch can be seen clearly from the roof platform of the Half-way house it would be easy to insist that unless someone watches from there, then all lost balls are exactly that...Lost! & therefore no VC possible.
Can this be done by a local rule or would that be going contrary to the Rules of Golf ?

 

[DCB]

How can you be " virtually certain" that it is in the ditch just because you can't see it elsewhere. You'd have to have seen it run into the ditch area to have any chance of arguing that imo.

 

[UlyssesSky]

If there is a disagreement then can someone else sign the card if the Marker declines?

If the marker declines to sign the card, take him and your card to the committee and explain the situation. Once the committee has come to a decision, it stands, and the marker can't decline to sign the card any more. (The committee might also come to the conclusion the ball was actually lost, in which case he'll be happy to sign the card, once it has been corrected... )

Can this be done by a local rule or would that be going contrary to the Rules of Golf ?

You can't make up a local rule that defines every ball that's lost (or not) near the ditch as in the water hazard, you'll have to judge every case individually.

 

[Foxholer]

Here's the definitive answer to the 'virtually certain' question.....

BALL IN WATER HAZARD

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"
When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. 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.

In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

The same principles 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).

 

[2blue]

Here's the definitive answer to the 'virtually certain' question.....

BALL IN WATER HAZARD

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"
When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. 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.

In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

The same principles 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).

Yes.. its as clear as they can get it.. I must say..... loads of wriggle room.... and its to be got across to members on how to act.

 

[Colin L]

Some points arising from what’s being said.

If the ground right up to the margin of a water hazard/lateral water hazard is mown such that there is nowhere a ball could hide, it is within the meaning of virtually certain to say that if a ball played into that area cannot be found outside the water hazard you can conclude that there is nowhere else it can be except in the water hazard. It sounds as if that is the situation described by the OP. You have to be sure the the line of flight of a ball was taking it into that area in the first place, but I don’t see a spotter on a roof platform as a practical solution because of the virtual certainty of a significant lack of volunteers!

It is up to the player to decide whether he has virtual certainty. If he has the agreement of his marker and other players, there is no problem. If he does not, he can proceed according to his own belief but additionally in stroke play he can play a second ball under stroke and distance [Rule 3-3]. In match play, his opponent can make a claim if he does not agree.

In stroke play, where a second ball has not been played, a marker can refuse to sign the card which means the Committee must determine whether there was virtual certainty or not. The Committee’s decision is final but the marker can continue to refuse to sign the card, and cannot be forced to do so - it will be accepted without his signature. [Decision 6-6a/4]
http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-06,d6-6a-4

It’s worth noting that the player’s believing he has virtual certainty, does not mean that there is virtual certainty. He can be wrong.

 

[Fyldewhite]

I think Colin has summed it up pretty well as usual and it does sound to me from the OP that anything struck down the middle of the hole (as described) would be virtually certain to be in the water hazard. Where it gets more doubtful is the shot closer to the edge of the fairway or a fading/drawing shot where the line is not so clear. OP doesn't describe the ground either side but as it's likely to be rough then if there is any realistic possibility that it may be lost in the rough then you can't say it's in the hazard. This is why the "definition" has wriggle room.....because every situation is different and needs to be judged on the circumstances at the time. It is also why a local rule wouldn't be appropriate even if it could be allowed.

 

[duncan mackie]

I think Colin has summed it up pretty well as usual and it does sound to me from the OP that anything struck down the middle of the hole (as described) would be virtually certain to be in the water hazard. Where it gets more doubtful is the shot closer to the edge of the fairway or a fading/drawing shot where the line is not so clear. OP doesn't describe the ground either side but as it's likely to be rough then if there is any realistic possibility that it may be lost in the rough then you can't say it's in the hazard. This is why the "definition" has wriggle room.....because every situation is different and needs to be judged on the circumstances at the time. It is also why a local rule wouldn't be appropriate even if it could be allowed.

:thup:

 

[2blue]

Many thanks Guys.... much the wiser now :thup: