Leeway with 'virtually certain' ?

[rulefan]

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.

The area is described as being 'rough' and implies the rough in the PA is indistinguishable from that outside. If the ball is not found it is 50/50 on which side of the margin it is. Far short of the 95% test. The ball is lost - S&D - Eos

 

[rulie]

Imo, "virtual certainty" is not what anyone thinks, it's based on the facts of the situation. Ask "Could the ball be anywhere else other than in the penalty area?" If the answer is yes, or even maybe, the 95% requirement has not been met.
The original post says there is long grass between the fairway and the red stakes. The ball could well be laying in that long grass, therefore, based on the information available from the original post, there is no virtual certainty. If the ball is not found in three minutes, it's lost outside the penalty area and the player must return to the tee under stroke and distance.

 

[Steven Rules]

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.

If this problem is as common at your club as you say, then you might like to suggest to your Committee that they examine whether it would be appropriate to introduce Model Local Rule B-3.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Imo, "virtual certainty" is not what anyone thinks, it's based on the facts of the situation. Ask "Could the ball be anywhere else other than in the penalty area?" If the answer is yes, or even maybe, the 95% requirement has not been met.
The original post says there is long grass between the fairway and the red stakes. The ball could well be laying in that long grass, therefore, based on the information available from the original post, there is no virtual certainty. If the ball is not found in three minutes, it's lost outside the penalty area and the player must return to the tee under stroke and distance.

Not correct.
The question hinges on the word "could".
A truthful answer, "Yes, but with less than 2% likelihood of that being the case" would mean the 95% certainty has been met or exceeded even though there is a 2% maybe.

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

I agree.
you certain 100% or your not, there is nothing in between imo.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If this problem is as common at your club as you say, then you might like to suggest to your Committee that they examine whether it would be appropriate to introduce Model Local Rule B-3.

Why?
It is not a special case in anyway.
The rule already covers this situation.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I agree.
you certain 100% or your not, there is nothing in between imo.

Pretty sure 95% lies between zero and 100%.

 

[BillyTheFish777]

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

The Committee.

 

[Backsticks]

Imo, "virtual certainty" is not what anyone thinks, it's based on the facts of the situation. Ask "Could the ball be anywhere else other than in the penalty area?" If the answer is yes, or even maybe, the 95% requirement has not been met.

That is certainly incorrect. You are rewriting the rule to be 100% certainty which it specifically is not. Two possible outcomes does not imply 50/50. Its OK for it to possibly be outside the PA if the probability is less than 5%.

The original post says there is long grass between the fairway and the red stakes. The ball could well be laying in that long grass, therefore, based on the information available from the original post, there is no virtual certainty. If the ball is not found in three minutes, it's lost outside the penalty area and the player must return to the tee under stroke and distance.

The player doesnt look for the ball. They do not countenance stroke and distance. The go straight to where their estimation of where the ball crossed, in their opinion, the red stakes line, take penalty drop, and play on.

 

[Backsticks]

The Committee.

They are not following the match, and have not seen the shot, to offer any judgement. So surely that option is out.

 

[BillyTheFish777]

They are not following the match, and have not seen the shot, to offer any judgement. So surely that option is out.

Ultimately the Committee are responsible for providing a decision in the event of any dispute. That's what the Rules of Golf say.

 

[Backsticks]

Ultimately the Committee are responsible for providing a decision in the event of any dispute. That's what the Rules of Golf say.

Thats the nub of the matter for me - can there even be a dispute? Have the playing partners any standing, or is the player the ultimate arbiter of the judgment ?

 

[rulefan]

Thats the nub of the matter for me - can there even be a dispute? Have the playing partners any standing, or is the player the ultimate arbiter of the judgment ?

'Playing partners' have no standing in the matter. The player is not the ultimate arbiter. The committee, having been made aware of all the circumstances, has the final say.

When there is no referee to give a ruling or when a referee refers a ruling to the Committee:

• The ruling will be given by the Committee, and
• The Committee’s ruling is final.

If the Committee cannot reach a decision, it may refer the issue to the Rules of Golf Committee of the USGA, whose decision is final.

 

[Backsticks]

'Playing partners' have no standing in the matter. The player is not the ultimate arbiter. The committee, having been made aware of all the circumstances, has the final say.

When there is no referee to give a ruling or when a referee refers a ruling to the Committee:

• The ruling will be given by the Committee, and
• The Committee’s ruling is final.

If the Committee cannot reach a decision, it may refer the issue to the Rules of Golf Committee of the USGA, whose decision is final.

The committee can only rule on a technical point of the rules. Having not seen the ball fly, they cannot offer judgment on the virtually certain issue. Playing partners having no standing in the matter, all that remains is the players judgment. I think we have it. The player decides, and nobody can contradict his virtual certainty opinion.

 

[rulefan]

The committee can only rule on a technical point of the rules. Having not seen the ball fly, they cannot offer judgment on the virtually certain issue.

They can. They do not have to see the ball fly. The nature of the ground where the ball supposedly finished is all they need.

 

[Steven Rules]

The go straight to where their estimation of where the ball crossed, in their opinion, the red stakes line, take penalty drop, and play on.

They can only take this action if the ball is known or virtually certain to be in the penalty area.

Based on your original post:

impossible to tell whether ball landed beyond the stakes or not.

the KVC threshold has not been met.

The committee can only rule on a technical point of the rules.

Errrmmm. No. Not true. Where does it say this in the Rules?

 

[Backsticks]

They can only take this action if the ball is known or virtually certain to be in the penalty area.

Based on your original post:

the KVC threshold has not been met.

Errrmmm. No. Not true. Where does it say this in the Rules?

The player is judging the ball is virtually certain to be in the penalty area. So is choosing to take this action.

Meaning its impossible to tell with 100% certainty. Its not a ball sailing 20 yards long into a lake which we would consider 100% certain. Hence the element of judgment on whether it crossed into the PA or not. In the players opinion, he is virtually certain that it did. He cannot be 100% certain, and isnt. But he doesnt have to be. But he is virtually certain. Estimating the probability at 96% lets say.

The can judge on whether the playing partners opinions are relevant for example. But I would consider it self evident, that not having been there to follow the flight of the ball, which the player was, they cannot offer any opinion on the whether they are virtually certain or not, the ball is in the PA.

 

[Steven Rules]

Playing partners having no standing in the matter

Rule 20.1c(2). Players should protect other players in the competition.

Committee Procedures 6C(6). The Committee will base its decision on all relevant circumstances and information available at the time. Testimony of the players is important and should be given due consideration.

 

[Orikoru]

If this problem is as common at your club as you say, then you might like to suggest to your Committee that they examine whether it would be appropriate to introduce Model Local Rule B-3.

Well, everyone here knows I'm not going to do that.

 

[rulie]

The committee can only rule on a technical point of the rules. Having not seen the ball fly, they cannot offer judgment on the virtually certain issue. Playing partners having no standing in the matter, all that remains is the players judgment. I think we have it. The player decides, and nobody can contradict his virtual certainty opinion.

As above, in stroke play, other players have a responsibility to protect the field (all the other players in the competition who expect the competition to be played by the Rules). In this case, other players should tell the player that they believe the procedure was incorrect and that they will bring it to the attention of the Committee. The Committee will then investigate and make a ruling.