Penalty area or oob?

[Slab]

I guess it could be either outcome, Player will obviously have to have virtual certainty to make the call for a red stake drop... but if player is that adamant the marker will equally need to decide if they have enough certainty in their version to pursue any dispute that may arise

The ball went into the 20m wide wooded area, not over it. So that’ll muddy things up a bit for saying its OOB
How likely & with what level of certainty could marker say it passed though & exited the wooded area when it wasn’t seen exiting. Plus still have momentum left to completely cross an adjacent fairway then pass the OOB boundary

How dense is the wooded area will play a part I guess (but if its sparse enough for ball to be more likely than not to have passed straight through, you’d think it’d be seen to do so) Not so clear cut and as the marker I'd want to be dam sure before I said 'nah mate yer having a laugh'



Also must be nice to have red stakes for a wooded area (but maybe there’s a stream/burn/drainage channel in there)

 

[Ethan]

I guess it could be either outcome, Player will obviously have to have virtual certainty to make the call for a red stake drop... but if player is that adamant the marker will equally need to decide if they have enough certainty in their version to pursue any dispute that may arise

The ball went into the 20m wide wooded area, not over it. So that’ll muddy things up a bit for saying its OOB
How likely & with what level of certainty could marker say it passed though & exited the wooded area when it wasn’t seen exiting. Plus still have momentum left to completely cross an adjacent fairway then pass the OOB boundary

You don't have to show that it stayed in the wooded area. He has to show that it couldn't reasonably be elsewhere. Thwe burden of proof is on the player claiming it is in the penalty area.

 

[chrisd]

To be 95% certain a golf ball has gone somewhere is an extremely high level of certainty. We have a stream down the right hand side of our 6th and it's pretty much the only place a misplaced drive cant be more than a 5% doubt that a ball has run in there. I think the 95% level of certainty is higher than in a court of law for a person accused of a crime, to be found guilty!

 

[chrisd]

You don't have to show that it stayed in the wooded area. He has to show that it couldn't reasonably be elsewhere. Thwe burden of proof is on the player claiming it is in the penalty area.

Sorry Ethan but the burden of proof is not on a playing partner, they are not a "referee". The player makes the decision and should be 95% certain that an outcome to that exacting level is virtually certain.

 

[Ethan]

Sorry Ethan but the burden of proof is not on a playing partner, they are not a "referee". The player makes the decision and should be 95% certain that an outcome to that exacting level is virtually certain.

The player should get agreement from the playing partner, who represents the rest of the field (if it is a comp). They can't just boogie up, say, yeah its in the wooded area, drop and play on.

 

[theoneandonly]

Really?

Player: Oh dear, that went in the pond.
Me: Nope, it went over.
Player: Definitely went in the pond. I saw it go in.
Later
Player: I'll drop one here. Within 2 club lengths isn't it.
Me: Oh look, here it is, 30yards past the pond ...

Players are frequently mistaken. Not lacking integrity; just mistaken.

Where did the pond come from I thought it was woods.?

Correct players are often mistaken, as can be the op, he's basing his judgment on not hearing it hit a tree.
That's just not enough to convince me or put enough doubt it managed to pass through not over 30 plus metres of woods , cross a fairway , rough and then go oob

 

[chrisd]

The player should get agreement from the playing partner, who represents the rest of the field (if it is a comp). They can't just boogie up, say, yeah its in the wooded area, drop and play on.

I never suggested that they could

As far as I understand the rules, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, the player makes a decision and if the marker ( or a pp I assume) disagrees with that decision they can ask for a ruling by the committee if the player is considered to have made a wrong decision. Whilst I agree that playing partners do act as integrity for the field in a strokeplay they are NOT referees and the player could play 2 balls if there is a doubt as to how to proceed

 

[Slab]

You don't have to show that it stayed in the wooded area. He has to show that it couldn't reasonably be elsewhere. Thwe burden of proof is on the player claiming it is in the penalty area.

We're maybe saying the same thing. If Marker disputed the Player could say to committee : (given we don't know density of wooded area)

Player: The wooded area is so dense the ball couldn't reasonably travel through unhindered and exit that depth of wooded area and then (since its not on adjacent fairway) reach OOB, I'm therefore virtually certain its still in there
or
Player: The wooded area is so sparse that had the ball exited clean through we would've seen it doing so, we didn't and since no ball was found either on fairway or OOB in farmers field. On that basis I'm virtually certain in still in there

Player could be talking total bollards, but if they believe the above sufficiently to stand up to committee scrutiny what will a committee decide

As I said originally the description of wooded area is pretty important

 

[Old Colner]

I feel it is upto the player to make the decision, at the end of the day, you cannot force anybody on the outcome, YES, you may be right but the only way you could proceed if the player was adamant that it was in the woods an proceeded as such is for the marker to refuse to mark the card

 

[rulefan]

As far as I understand the rules, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, the player makes a decision and if the marker ( or a pp I assume) disagrees with that decision they can ask for a ruling by the committee if the player is considered to have made a wrong decision. Whilst I agree that playing partners do act as integrity for the field in a strokeplay they are NOT referees and the player could play 2 balls if there is a doubt as to how to proceed

If the player is in doubt or is there is any suggestion that others may lodge a complaint, he should play two balls. If ultimately the committee are involved and he is deemed to be wrong, at least he will not be DQd.

 

[Swango1980]

I feel it is upto the player to make the decision, at the end of the day, you cannot force anybody on the outcome, YES, you may be right but the only way you could proceed if the player was adamant that it was in the woods an proceeded as such is for the marker to refuse to mark the card

Yes, the player will make the call. But, the marker can still disagree with their action, and if there is a serious doubt as to what they did, report the incident to the Committee so they can make the call as to what would have been the correct way to proceed.

However, we only have the testimony of the OP on this matter. And, based on the information that he provided then there is no way that the player could assume with 95% confidence that his ball finished in the wooded area. For the purpose of this forum, we have to assume that the OP we respond to is accurate enough to make rules based responses. We cannot second guess every OP. Therefore, based on the OP then the player would have had to take stroke and distance penalty, as his ball was effectively lost. It is not up to the player himself to just interpret the rules as they please. They can make whatever decision they want, but they will be subject to penalty (DQ) if they get it wrong.

Now, in real terms, the player would also have a chance to report their decision to the Committee and try and justify it. And, perhaps if the OP is missing some crucial details, then maybe the Committee would be in favour of the player. But, it sounds like it would be tough for the player to justify this, if the OP was convinced enough that the ball could have cleared everything and gone out of bounds. Not unless the chances of this being the case are <5%

 

[Old Colner]

Yes, the player will make the call. But, the marker can still disagree with their action, and if there is a serious doubt as to what they did, report the incident to the Committee so they can make the call as to what would have been the correct way to proceed.

However, we only have the testimony of the OP on this matter. And, based on the information that he provided then there is no way that the player could assume with 95% confidence that his ball finished in the wooded area. For the purpose of this forum, we have to assume that the OP we respond to is accurate enough to make rules based responses. We cannot second guess every OP. Therefore, based on the OP then the player would have had to take stroke and distance penalty, as his ball was effectively lost. It is not up to the player himself to just interpret the rules as they please. They can make whatever decision they want, but they will be subject to penalty (DQ) if they get it wrong.

Now, in real terms, the player would also have a chance to report their decision to the Committee and try and justify it. And, perhaps if the OP is missing some crucial details, then maybe the Committee would be in favour of the player. But, it sounds like it would be tough for the player to justify this, if the OP was convinced enough that the ball could have cleared everything and gone out of bounds. Not unless the chances of this being the case are <5%

Yes, I agree but I was commenting if the situation arose in the middle of a round, I would let the guy crack on, no point arguing with them over 95% this or 5% that, letting it spoil your round, some people will just not listen to reason, you can't force them all you can do is carry on and refuse to sign their card

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, I agree but I was commenting if the situation arose in the middle of a round, I would let the guy crack on, no point arguing with them over 95% this or 5% that, letting it spoil your round, some people will just not listen to reason, you can't force them all you can do is carry on and refuse to sign their card

That is fine. However, it would definitely be best to challenge them initially so that everything is out in the open. I'm sure he'd be even more annoyed with you if you refused to sign his card, or raised the issue with Committee, having never raised the subject at the time. If you had raised it at the time, then at least he'd have a chance to consider his position more (he may even be unaware of 95% certainty), and if he still makes the decision he is in the right, at least he knows he will need to justify that later. It would also give him a chance to play 2 balls, so that the alternative ball can still be considered if the Committee agree with the OP.

 

[Old Colner]

That is fine. However, it would definitely be best to challenge them initially so that everything is out in the open. I'm sure he'd be even more annoyed with you if you refused to sign his card, or raised the issue with Committee, having never raised the subject at the time. If you had raised it at the time, then at least he'd have a chance to consider his position more (he may even be unaware of 95% certainty), and if he still makes the decision he is in the right, at least he knows he will need to justify that later. It would also give him a chance to play 2 balls, so that the alternative ball can still be considered if the Committee agree with the OP.

Sorry, maybe not made myself clear, totally yes I would advise about the situation and options at the time, but as was leading to earlier in the thread, I would not argue with them about it, let them get on with it, they are adamant they are right why would they play two balls as in the OP.

 

[Swango1980]

Sorry, maybe not made myself clear, totally yes I would advise about the situation and options at the time, but as was leading to earlier in the thread, I would not argue with them about it, let them get on with it, they are adamant they are right why would they play two balls as in the OP.

To be fair, the original post did not reveal how adamant the player was in taking a drop. I think it just said he was taking a drop as he felt it was in the woods. The rest is just speculation on our part (unless a post later on went into more detail?).

Perhaps he was adamant about it. However, maybe it was just a case of him thinking it went into the woods so he was going to take a drop, and had the 95% certainty been explained to him, he might have been more agreeable with his partner. Even if he still felt he had a case and that he could justify it, he could have just said he'd play 2 balls to satisfy his partner and a potential rules decision later. After all, if you are trying to justify 95% certainty, yet one of the players you play with think it has gone out of bounds, then it is going to be difficult for you to win the argument, unless the OP is being completely unreasonable of course.

 

[Old Colner]

To be fair, the original post did not reveal how adamant the player was in taking a drop. I think it just said he was taking a drop as he felt it was in the woods. The rest is just speculation on our part (unless a post later on went into more detail?).

Perhaps he was adamant about it. However, maybe it was just a case of him thinking it went into the woods so he was going to take a drop, and had the 95% certainty been explained to him, he might have been more agreeable with his partner. Even if he still felt he had a case and that he could justify it, he could have just said he'd play 2 balls to satisfy his partner and a potential rules decision later. After all, if you are trying to justify 95% certainty, yet one of the players you play with think it has gone out of bounds, then it is going to be difficult for you to win the argument, unless the OP is being completely unreasonable of course.

No it just told us how the player was going to proceed.

Leave it, don't want to argue with players or forum members.

 

[hovis]

To be fair, the original post did not reveal how adamant the player was in taking a drop. I think it just said he was taking a drop as he felt it was in the woods. The rest is just speculation on our part (unless a post later on went into more detail?).

Perhaps he was adamant about it. However, maybe it was just a case of him thinking it went into the woods so he was going to take a drop, and had the 95% certainty been explained to him, he might have been more agreeable with his partner. Even if he still felt he had a case and that he could justify it, he could have just said he'd play 2 balls to satisfy his partner and a potential rules decision later. After all, if you are trying to justify 95% certainty, yet one of the players you play with think it has gone out of bounds, then it is going to be difficult for you to win the argument, unless the OP is being completely unreasonable of course.

We was just playing a friendly round so neither of us cared. However, he said if it was a comp he would have pushed for a drop. The design of the course unfortunately makes this a common problem. On many occasions there has been a almighty clunk off a tree, they take a drop because "it crossed the red stake" only for the ball to be found near the green (the ball ricochets back out) then they want to play the original ball ?

 

[rulie]

I don't think anyone has even said if the players looked anywhere else for the ball - in the 16th fairway or elsewhere, the player just assumed the ball was in the penalty area. Assumptions usually do not qualify as KVC.

 

[backwoodsman]

Where did the pond come from I thought it was woods.?

Correct players are often mistaken, as can be the op, he's basing his judgment on not hearing it hit a tree.
That's just not enough to convince me or put enough doubt it managed to pass through not over 30 plus metres of woods , cross a fairway , rough and then go oob

Blimey, some folk take things very literally? The OP never mentioned a pond, and if you look, neither did he mention me being there. It was written as a "fr'instance', which is how I assumed most folk would read it. It was meant to illustrate doubt; and if there's doubt, by default, there cannot be vitual certainty. The OP described a situation ripe with uncertainty.

 

[Foxholer]

Blimey, some folk take things very literally? The OP never mentioned a pond, and if you look, neither did he mention me being there. It was written as a "fr'instance', which is how I assumed most folk would read it. It was meant to illustrate doubt; and if there's doubt, by default, there cannot be vitual certainty. The OP described a situation ripe with uncertainty.

Are you sure about that?