Thought I was in a water hazard and played a provisional, but.....

[atticusfinch]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by evidence. The observations of your fellows is evidence, their local knowledge is evidence, your knowledge of previous shots is evidence, your knowledge of the hidden terrain is evidence, your observation of the ball flight is evidence. Everything that you consider in making a decision is evidence. I was drawing a distinction between the language in some posts and the process that must take place to make a decision about a provisional.

 

[backwoodsman]

The way to look at it is that in order to proceed as if the ball is in the water hazard you need to be sure it's in the water hazard (ie KoVC). If you don't have that, then the ball might be lost - anywhere , and possibly outside the hazard - so you can play a provisional.

If you then find the original - either in or out of the hazard - the ball is found and you continue with it & abandon the provisional. What you can't do, is do a fruitless search and just conclude its lost in the water and then proceed under the water hazard rules (and abandoning the provisional).

There was enough doubt about the balls location to allow the playing of the provisional - so you'd need some compelling new info to now get to KoVC about being in the water hazard.

 

[rulefan]

There was enough doubt about the balls location to allow the playing of the provisional - so you'd need some compelling new info to now get to KoVC about being in the water hazard.

Not this case but an example of the above.

If a player new to the course is told there is a water hazard over the brow of the hill on the 2nd fairway and a good drive will reach the water.
He over hits his straight drive and declares a provisional.
But when he gets there he sees a wide open fairway with a smallish ornamental pond in the middle. There is no surrounding vegetation. There is nowhere for the ball to hide. That IMO would be a compelling reason for claiming KVC.