Rules question. provisional ball

[alexgolf]

Ok Rulles boffins. Before i look it up......

This was an odd one and to be honest we probably did the correct procedure, and it was just one of those things but....

Long par 4, two lots of water and bushes on the right meant you could not see where the ball finished in that direction.

Off the tee one of my playing partners hits it right and shouts "that gone". It goes over the bush ( @ 150 yards )and you couldnt see totally were it finished but the direction was clear.

He hits a provo and this finishes in the fairway past the point where ther red ditch is on the right. It is a snakey ditch and at this point it is almost actually coming back accross towards the fairway, before it bent to the right again.

So going on that hit, there was a good chance that the finishing point of the other ball had to have been in the water, but of course as no one actually saw where the first ball finished, you couldnt say that for certain.

After a bit of thought (and of course he wanted to play the provo from the fairway)the four of us decided that was the best course of action, and not make him play from the right using the red ditch rules.

Tricky one though, as where the other ball finished, the virtual certainty was that it had to be in the water...or was it in the bushes though???

I think we did it right.

Thoughts

A G

 

[Smiffy]

Unless one of you actually saw the ball enter the hazard, you cannot "assume" that it has gone in there.
So his ball should be declared "lost" and he should play on with his provisional....



I think

 

[alexgolf]

Correct.....but there is this new term in the water hazzard rule is there not of VIRTUAL CERTAINTY.

This case could have come under that either way. Then depending on how the player wanted to play the next shot he could seem to choose his next course of play.

That can not be right, can it?? You should nt be able to choose how you interperate the rules??

Or can you

 

[Smiffy]

Correct.....but there is this new term in the water hazzard rule is there not of VIRTUAL CERTAINTY.

This case could have come under that either way. Then depending on how the player wanted to play the next shot he could seem to choose his next course of play.

That can not be right, can it?? You should nt be able to choose how you interperate the rules??

Or can you

So he could say that he went in the water, drop to the side of there and play 3 from where he drops?
He's gained distance unfairly

 

[Tommo21]

In situations like this where there is doubt and you cant find it in the hazard then you need to say it's lost outside the water hazard. If he found the ball in the hazard, the prov must be abandoned and the options available for a water hazard must to be used.

 

[Tommo21]

Correct.....but there is this new term in the water hazzard rule is there not of VIRTUAL CERTAINTY.

This case could have come under that either way. Then depending on how the player wanted to play the next shot he could seem to choose his next course of play.

That can not be right, can it?? You should nt be able to choose how you interperate the rules??

Or can you

So he could say that he went in the water, drop to the side of there and play 3 from where he drops?
He's gained distance unfairly

No, you would need to be sure it went in or find it in there.

 

[Smiffy]

Correct.....but there is this new term in the water hazzard rule is there not of VIRTUAL CERTAINTY.

This case could have come under that either way. Then depending on how the player wanted to play the next shot he could seem to choose his next course of play.

That can not be right, can it?? You should nt be able to choose how you interperate the rules??

Or can you

So he could say that he went in the water, drop to the side of there and play 3 from where he drops?
He's gained distance unfairly

No, you would need to be sure it went in or find it in there.

That's what I was saying Tommo.
My respone was in relation to the quoted comment

 

[alexgolf]

Correct.....but there is this new term in the water hazzard rule is there not of VIRTUAL CERTAINTY.

This case could have come under that either way. Then depending on how the player wanted to play the next shot he could seem to choose his next course of play.

That can not be right, can it?? You should nt be able to choose how you interperate the rules??

Or can you

So he could say that he went in the water, drop to the side of there and play 3 from where he drops?
He's gained distance unfairly

No, you would need to be sure it went in or find it in there.

Agreed with all this, thats why i think that this VIRTUAL CERTAINTY term is rubbish. It allows for ambiguity.

You either see it in, or you dont in my opinion. If you dont then you can never be certain

 

[alexgolf]

I should also point out that at this point the water was quite wide and i suppose if you went on a percentage possibility it was more likely the first ball to be in the water.

That i suppose is more of the reason why it is tricky. If there was alot of water and bushes together then there is more doubt and you can go the provo straight away. However It was more likely, seeing where his provo ball finished, that it was in the water.

I think we did correct, but i can see some people putting their foot down in a situation where it would be better to be hitting 3 after a drop from the water rather than 4 from the provo.

I just hate doubt and this Virtual lark gives that.

 

[Imurg]

Virtual certainty allows for an instance where there is no rough around the hazard for a ball to be lost in. If you are sure its in that immediate vicinity and there is nowhere for it to "hide" then you can be virtually certain its gone in.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Virtual certainty allows for an instance where there is no rough around the hazard for a ball to be lost in. If you are sure its in that immediate vicinity and there is nowhere for it to "hide" then you can be virtually certain its gone in.

Yes, I agree. The wording was changed from "reasonable evidence" to "virtually certain" in the last rules revision. Not much of a change in my view but perhaps a bit clearer and still intentionally worded to cover many situations. At the end of the day it is up to the players to decide if it is reasonable to assume the ball has gone in the hazard, if there is any doubt then treat it as lost outside the hazard. I think there is an explanation of the term 'virtually certain' in the decisions somewhere.

As for OP, it was not "virtually certain" that the ball was in the hazard so carrying on with the provisional (stroke and distance) was correct.

 

[alexgolf]

Virtual certainty allows for an instance where there is no rough around the hazard for a ball to be lost in. If you are sure its in that immediate vicinity and there is nowhere for it to "hide" then you can be virtually certain its gone in.

Yes, I agree. The wording was changed from "reasonable evidence" to "virtually certain" in the last rules revision. Not much of a change in my view but perhaps a bit clearer and still intentionally worded to cover many situations. At the end of the day it is up to the players to decide if it is reasonable to assume the ball has gone in the hazard, if there is any doubt then treat it as lost outside the hazard. I think there is an explanation of the term 'virtually certain' in the decisions somewhere.

As for OP, it was not "virtually certain" that the ball was in the hazard so carrying on with the provisional (stroke and distance) was correct.

Yep totally agree with all this, although at the time it gave us some thought when we saw where the provo ended up. To be fair the player was not trying to get an advantage. He just wanted to do the correct thing.

Just think though if it had been a short par 4 with the green just over the ditch and droping from the water saves a shot from 90 yards or playing 4 from say 150?? Some could claim VC.

I love the rules!!!!

 

[Ethan]

If he didn't say 'I am hitting a provisional' or words to that effect, he hit 3 off the tee,

'I'll hit another' or 'Time to reload' is not declaration of a provisional, and once hit is immediately in play and the other ball is lost, even if found.

 

[Tommo21]

If he didn't say 'I am hitting a provisional' or words to that effect, he hit 3 off the tee,

'I'll hit another' or 'Time to reload' is not declaration of a provisional, and once hit is immediately in play and the other ball is lost, even if found.

If you dont declare a prov that is your ball in play, you're right. Yeh Smiffy we're both saying the same thing, I was just expanding on when you abandon the prov ball.

 

[alexgolf]

If he didn't say 'I am hitting a provisional' or words to that effect, he hit 3 off the tee,

'I'll hit another' or 'Time to reload' is not declaration of a provisional, and once hit is immediately in play and the other ball is lost, even if found.

If you dont declare a prov that is your ball in play, you're right. Yeh Smiffy we're both saying the same thing, I was just expanding on when you abandon the prov ball.

Yep no issue with the provo ball. It was clearly indicated at the time.

In fact we had a bit of a discussion over that as i didnt know the course that well and when he said it had gone i said do you think it was in the water, and he said there was a lot of rubbish on the direction of the ball.

And as you all know you cant use a provisional ball if you find or know your ball has gone in Water Hazzard.