Rules Query

[viscount17]

is this another case where, in trying to improve/simplify interpretation of the rules, R&A have done just the opposite?

'virtual certainty' calls for a subjective opinion, and unless present, how can a committee rule on that?

committees (and referees) can only rule on points of fact, ie in light of stated facts were the correct actions taken, not 'in our opinion your opinion is wrong'.

 

[Ethan]

is this another case where, in trying to improve/simplify interpretation of the rules, R&A have done just the opposite?

'virtual certainty' calls for a subjective opinion, and unless present, how can a committee rule on that?

committees (and referees) can only rule on points of fact, ie in light of stated facts were the correct actions taken, not 'in our opinion your opinion is wrong'.

Committees can rule on it just fine. If the water hazard is adjacent to rough and bushes, you cannot be virtually certain the ball went in the hazard and not into a bush, say unless you actually saw it do so. If the hazard is a huge lake alongside an open fairway and there are no other possible places the ball could be, that is virtually certain.

If there is any doubt, it cannot be virtually certain.

That is much better than 'all my mates agreed'.

 

[Dodger]

Spot on Ethan,spot on.

 

[chrisd]

Typically after posting on the subject yesterday, playing in a 3 ball one went into a stream on a par 4 today, We are all experienced players and all saw it go in and the fact that we couldn't find the ball, as far as we were concerned, confirmed that we we "virtually certain" that the ball had to be lost there.

As I said happens on yesterdays posting, the player took the correct drop and we played on. He didn't score well enough to trouble the leader board but there was no way that the committee would, could or should have any fear that we did the right thing. "Virtually certain" - yes, I was, but how certain can you be with a judgement following a tee shot with a driver.The other thing to do would be to play a provisional and,given that we all saw the ball going to the stream I feel that not to agree "virtual certainty" would have been grossly unfair.

Funnily, my other playing partner did a Barnes Wallis on a par 3 and you would have been "virtually certain" that the ball was in the pond had we not actually seen it skim the water and run up the green(ok I know we would have found it).

My feeling is that so long as we do what we feel is correct the rest of the field have to be happy as we most definitely wouln't cheat but you cant run back to the committee for the answer mid game!


Chris

 

[Ethan]

Chris

One would never run to the Committee mid-round. Not that they are all sitting in the clubhouse like the Supreme Court waiting for supplicants anyway.

And if it didn't change the outcome for the player or the event, no point either.

But what if that player won the event?

 

[chrisd]

Chris

One would never run to the Committee mid-round. Not that they are all sitting in the clubhouse like the Supreme Court waiting for supplicants anyway.

And if it didn't change the outcome for the player or the event, no point either.

But what if that player won the event?

He would have won it fairly and squarely. We saw the ball go to the stream and were all "virtually certain" that it went in. We couldn't find his ball in the area where we saw it go to so the right decision was arrived and, for that matter, the same decision that every time the same thing has happened in the 12 years that I have played at my club with a huge number of different players, has been the decision.

The point that I am making is that the propriety and honesty of the players in the decision making is what matters, especially where the rule leaves it to the players.



Chris

 

[Ethan]

Chris

One would never run to the Committee mid-round. Not that they are all sitting in the clubhouse like the Supreme Court waiting for supplicants anyway.

And if it didn't change the outcome for the player or the event, no point either.

But what if that player won the event?

He would have won it fairly and squarely. We saw the ball go to the stream and were all "virtually certain" that it went in. We couldn't find his ball in the area where we saw it go to so the right decision was arrived and, for that matter, the same decision that every time the same thing has happened in the 12 years that I have played at my club with a huge number of different players, has been the decision.

The point that I am making is that the propriety and honesty of the players in the decision making is what matters, especially where the rule leaves it to the players.



Chris

Chris

I was referring to the general situation. If you see the ball go in, short of sending a frogman in to identify it, I doubt that anyone would want much more proof. You can therefore be certain and drop the 'virtually' entirely. But may hazards are in trees, have adjacent rough or bushes or are unsighted from the tee and genuine doubt may exist.

 

[Whereditgo]

I've witnessed 2 different examples of this recently:

1 - player hits a drive towards a pond that crosses the fairway, the fairway (i.e. closely mown grass) runs right up to the edge of the water. Everyone agreed it would be touch and go as to whether the ball had reached the hazard or not. Couldn't find the ball on the fairway and therefore everyone agreed it must be in the water. - Equitable decision IMO.

2 - Player hits his ball towards a stream that has trees overhanging, we can't find the ball, so he assumes he can play as per Red Staked Hazard ruling, after a heated debate 1 of the other guys 'caves in' and says he's "virtually certain" it must be in the hazard. Given that there was not even any water in the 'stream' and no sign of the ball, I still believe this was the incorrect course of action!