Leeway with 'virtually certain' ?

[Backsticks]

Given that it is a judgement, even if now quantified in the rules to 95%, but there being to way to actually quantify your judgement numerically to compare it to that benchmark, is it actually breaking a rule if you simply adopt a position of saying you are virtually certain because it suits you to do so ?

Example : rough along a hole. Down the middle of that rough, are a line of red stakes. Shot in the direction of the stakes but impossible to tell whether ball landed beyond the stakes or not. On the balance that the ball will not be found at all, a player chooses to say, following the shot, he is virtually certain it is in the penalty area. So choosing the certainty of a drop for a penalty, rather than a search and potential walk back if it is not found. Can he be contradicted ? Is he entitled to adopt that position, giving himself the benefit of doubt ?

 

[Jason.H]

My old club had water hazards on 17 holes and no long grass to loose balls. It was common back then (20 years) to assume with certainty it was in the hazard if it wasn’t found in the short grass. If the area had trees, gorse long grass ect then no the ball could be anywhere.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Given that it is a judgement, even if now quantified in the rules to 95%, but there being to way to actually quantify your judgement numerically to compare it to that benchmark, is it actually breaking a rule if you simply adopt a position of saying you are virtually certain because it suits you to do so ?

Example : rough along a hole. Down the middle of that rough, are a line of red stakes. Shot in the direction of the stakes but impossible to tell whether ball landed beyond the stakes or not. On the balance that the ball will not be found at all, a player chooses to say, following the shot, he is virtually certain it is in the penalty area. So choosing the certainty of a drop for a penalty, rather than a search and potential walk back if it is not found. Can he be contradicted ? Is he entitled to adopt that position, giving himself the benefit of doubt ?

I‘d have thought that this answers your question…and so Yes, I’d say to the player..Sorry but you just can imagine that your ball is beyond the stakes, you have to have something that justifies your view.

But I could well be mistaken.

 

[Colin L]

Given that it is a judgement, even if now quantified in the rules to 95%, but there being to way to actually quantify your judgement numerically to compare it to that benchmark, is it actually breaking a rule if you simply adopt a position of saying you are virtually certain because it suits you to do so ?..........

I got no further than the highlighted words. Maybe you should re-read Rule 1.2

 

[Swango1980]

I know players who are virtually certain their ball is in the penalty area when the probability might actually be less than 50%.

I suppose the only way to against this is to challenge their view with your own. If they wish to stick to their view, then agree to report to Committee to ask them to decide after. Bet that doesn't happen a lot, with one side just backing down.

 

[Backsticks]

I got no further than the highlighted words. Maybe you should re-read Rule 1.2

I am aware of the rule. If the player gives that opinion, even if you disagree with it, given that the probability is unquantifiable to compare with a set value, effectively you cannot compare it. So have you any grounds to challenge the player ?

 

[rulefan]

Given that it is a judgement, even if now quantified in the rules to 95%, but there being to way to actually quantify your judgement numerically to compare it to that benchmark, is it actually breaking a rule if you simply adopt a position of saying you are virtually certain because it suits you to do so ?

Example : rough along a hole. Down the middle of that rough, are a line of red stakes. Shot in the direction of the stakes but impossible to tell whether ball landed beyond the stakes or not. On the balance that the ball will not be found at all, a player chooses to say, following the shot, he is virtually certain it is in the penalty area. So choosing the certainty of a drop for a penalty, rather than a search and potential walk back if it is not found. Can he be contradicted ? Is he entitled to adopt that position, giving himself the benefit of doubt ?

As there are two occasions when the determination of the outcome is considered, can you tell us what you mean by "following the shot".
Do you mean before leaving the area from where the shot was made or when arriving at the area where the ball is likely to be?
In order to have KVC he can only make that determination when he has arrived in the area. If the ball cannot be seen in the PA and there is long grass all around I doubt that KVC could be justified.
Of course he would then have to determine where the ball last crossed the margin.

And of course Colin's comment is most pertinent.

 

[salfordlad]

I am aware of the rule. If the player gives that opinion, even if you disagree with it, given that the probability is unquantifiable to compare with a set value, effectively you cannot compare it. So have you any grounds to challenge the player ?

On your own words of the example, you not only challenge their "opinion", you demolish it and demonstrate it is total BS. As an independent observer you are suggesting it is equally likely the ball is either side of the line of stakes, so I don't follow this further post using the term "unquantifiable". I would be intervening if I witnessed this, including to the Committee if the player is not seeing sense.
As an aside, the course set up example you use is rather bizarre - a recipe for problems.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I am aware of the rule. If the player gives that opinion, even if you disagree with it, given that the probability is unquantifiable to compare with a set value, effectively you cannot compare it. So have you any grounds to challenge the player ?

?
…the grounds are surely your words I highlighted…‘impossible to tell…’

 

[Backsticks]

By following the shot, i mean immediately while still at the spot from where the ball was hit. So before going to the area. No provisional being played, and wasnt going to look for the ball.

Agree its bad design that invites this kind of issue. There is no natural line, kerbing or feature, as a pond or other penalty area might have. No real distinguishing feature between penalty zone and non penalty zone. They did it, as a bit further into the penalty zone is a bit of a dumping area for leaves, cut branches etc.

 

[Wabinez]

If they are virtually certain, why aren't they taking a drop further up the hole, as is allowed because of the red stakes? It also opens the door of finding the ball not in penalty, and carrying on as normal....

I get it's a choice, but I'll take being further up the hole in '2' and getting to advance the ball further, rather than re-teeing and risking the same thing happening of dumping it into a penalty area.

 

[Colin L]

I am aware of the rule. If the player gives that opinion, even if you disagree with it, given that the probability is unquantifiable to compare with a set value, effectively you cannot compare it. So have you any grounds to challenge the player ?

As you know Rule 1.2, you’ll understand that as players we are required to play with integrity. A player who decides whether their ball is in a penalty area on the basis of what suits them clearly shows a culpable lack of integrity. No number of examples would change that.


Virtual certainty is a question of fact. It exists, or not, independent of the player’s or anyone else’s opinion. The best we can do as player, referee or Committee member is to make an honest judgment based on the evidence we can assemble. Some judgments are easy - such as when a ball could be on either side of a line of stakes in the middle of rough.

I think we would be in agreement that to quantify virtual certainty is absurd and unhelpful.

 

[rulefan]

By following the shot, i mean immediately while still at the spot from where the ball was hit. So before going to the area. No provisional being played, and wasnt going to look for the ball.

At that point KVC is irrelevant. If he thinks it may be lost outside the PA he may take a provisional. His choice.
When he gets to the probable area he must have KVC it is in the PA in order to take relief. If he hasn't got KVC and can't find his ball he must take S&D.

 

[nickjdavis]

I think the question that needs asking is "could it (the ball) reasonably be anywhere else?"....if the answer is yes, then it cannot be KOVC that the ball is in the penalty area.

Effectively turn the question on its head.

 

[rulie]

95% means that the answer is correct 19 times out of 20. It's a purposely very high bar to achieve because of the (usual) significant distance gained by dropping under the penalty area Rule.
In the situation described in the original post, other players have the responsibility to protect the field (or their own rights in match play). My usual response in situations where I don't believe KVC has been achieved is, "Find me the ball." Otherwise it's back to the tee.

 

[Swango1980]

As you know Rule 1.2, you’ll understand that as players we are required to play with integrity. A player who decides whether their ball is in a penalty area on the basis of what suits them clearly shows a culpable lack of integrity. No number of examples would change that.


Virtual certainty is a question of fact. It exists, or not, independent of the player’s or anyone else’s opinion. The best we can do as player, referee or Committee member is to make an honest judgment based on the evidence we can assemble. Some judgments are easy - such as when a ball could be on either side of a line of stakes in the middle of rough.

I think we would be in agreement that to quantify virtual certainty is absurd and unhelpful.

I wonder if this is the issue with the OP and why the question was asked? Albeit, the example was probably too extreme so that to anyone reading it, it should be obvious that virtual certainty does not apply in anyone's mind

But, if there were other situations it may be more borderline and subjective. One player might genuinely be adamant that the ball is in the PA. To them, they are 100% certain. However, ask 20 other people what they think, one or two might be 100% certain, a few 95-100% certain, another 9 or 10 90-95% certain, and a few more only 80% certain (i.e, without expressing an actual %, they think there is a pretty good chance it could have got stuck up a tall tree, or lost within a few areas of deep rough).

I think in that situation, virtual certainty is probably not a question of fact, as subjectively it is different for everyone. There is no way to come up with a calculation that will provide a definitive probability on it being in the PA. So, if it came to it, a referee or Committee would probably need to get involved and make a decision either way. One ref may come up with one outcome, another referee a different outcome.

 

[backwoodsman]

Not contradicting anything that's gone before ... but adding.

OP offers information that "Shot was in the direction of the stakes but impossible to tell whether ball landed beyond the stakes or not". On that basis, when the player claims KVC, you simply ask " Given that it was impossible to tell where the ball landed, on what basis are you certain it landed in the penalty area?" The onus is then on them to offer a plausible explanation of how they are 95% certain of their view being correct. It should be as obvious to them as to anyone else, whether their rationale comes close to 95% certainty

 

[Backsticks]

I guess my question might have benn better posed as : whose virtual certainty is the last word ?

 

[Orikoru]

This has been talked about before. At my club there's a pond to the right of the 8th fairway, which is not visible from the tee box (because it's downhill). Discussions in the clubhouse have made it clear that quite a few members are happy to state they're virtually certain their ball is in the pond if it was going in that direction and they don't find their ball nearby. Whereas others were not. Whatever side of the fence you're on, I think that means it's a crap rule. The wording is too vague.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I guess my question might have benn better posed as : whose virtual certainty is the last word ?

Bagsy its mine.
Thank you.