Virtually certain

[rulie]

A couple points:
- the 95% for establishing virtual certainty if absolutely irrelevant with regard to hitting a provisional or not
- the player's view that it's virtually certain that his or her ball that is not found is in a penalty area is also irrelevant. It depends on the facts of the specific situation. As above, "could the ball be anywhere else but in the penalty area?" If the answer to that question, based on the specific situation, is "yes", then it is not virtually certain that the ball is in the penalty area.
"Virtually certain" purposely demands a very high standard of evidence/proof because the player would be gaining a significant advantage by proceeding under the penalty area Rule rather than stroke and distance for a ball lost outside a penalty area. In many cases, it may be required that the player find his or her ball in the penalty area rather than just surmising that the ball, which is not found, is in the penalty area.
95% means that the decision reached would be correct 19 times out of 20; that's purposely a high standard to achieve.

 

[Swango1980]

A couple points:
- the 95% for establishing virtual certainty if absolutely irrelevant with regard to hitting a provisional or not
- the player's view that it's virtually certain that his or her ball that is not found is in a penalty area is also irrelevant. It depends on the facts of the specific situation. As above, "could the ball be anywhere else but in the penalty area?" If the answer to that question, based on the specific situation, is "yes", then it is not virtually certain that the ball is in the penalty area.
"Virtually certain" purposely demands a very high standard of evidence/proof because the player would be gaining a significant advantage by proceeding under the penalty area Rule rather than stroke and distance for a ball lost outside a penalty area. In many cases, it may be required that the player find his or her ball in the penalty area rather than just surmising that the ball, which is not found, is in the penalty area.
95% means that the decision reached would be correct 19 times out of 20; that's purposely a high standard to achieve.

Indeed. So, as I said, all those points remain true in OP, if it is known on tee that rough is short enough that no one would consider a ball would be lost in it.

In other words, after playing original, no one knows if it is in bunker, light rough or penalty area, but it is in one of the 3.

So, at that point, they are not virtually certain at that point about anything. However, what they do know is that, if they cannot find their ball, they will then be virtually certain it is in penalty area, and everyone in group will agree player can take a drop and play their 3rd.

However, given the players did not see the ball go in the penalty area physically, the player played a provisional anyway because he said it could be lost outside PA. That is fine, because the length of rough is irrelevant, or state of bunker. Because who knows what is round the corner on any given day, it could be different to what it has been like for the last 20 years. Or some kids might have been hiding, ready to steal the ball.

After hitting provisional, original can't be found. Course conditions end up being exactly as everyone expected, so everyone still agrees the ball is virtually certain in PA, so player abandons provisional and plays 3rd.

Question is, had they holed the provisional, could player simply say original could still be lost outside PA due to some remote outcome, and claim his 3? I guess he can, if he claims he is only 94% certain it is in PA.

Golf is about integrity, however that doesn't mean players try to take advantage of the rules. Not only do we see this on TV, but they often encourage us regular golfers to learn the rules as it could save us shots. In addition, in club golf, occasionally there might be 1 or 2 golfers that are either slightly less honest than one might hope, or just ignorant of the most basic rules, let alone the finer details.

 

[rulefan]

After hitting provisional, original can't be found. Course conditions end up being exactly as everyone expected, so everyone still agrees the ball is virtually certain in PA, so player abandons provisional and plays 3rd.

Question is, had they holed the provisional, could player simply say original could still be lost outside PA due to some remote outcome, and claim his 3? I guess he can, if he claims he is only 94% certain it is in PA.

Somewhat contrived

 

[Swango1980]

Somewhat contrived

Contrived? Based on the exact situation described on OP. Also based on exactly the situation on our 16th any time a player pulls tee shot left and cant guarantee the bunker stopped it.

 

[rulefan]

Contrived? Based on the exact situation described on OP. Also based on exactly the situation on our 16th any time a player pulls tee shot left and cant guarantee the bunker stopped it.

Not as the exact situation on the OP which may have been a hypothetical. But I assume no one takes a provisional on your course.

 

[Colin L]

You can't rule out the possibility of a ball being buried in a bunker in assessing whether a ball might be lost.

 

[rulie]

After hitting provisional, original can't be found. Course conditions end up being exactly as everyone expected, so everyone still agrees the ball is virtually certain in PA, so player abandons provisional and plays 3rd.

What happens if one person disagrees? "Virtually certain" is not determined by a vote.

 

[Swango1980]

What happens if one person disagrees? "Virtually certain" is not determined by a vote.

If one person disagrees, then indeed, it may not be virtually certain. On our 16th however, there is no reason to disagree

 

[Swango1980]

You can't rule out the possibility of a ball being buried in a bunker in assessing whether a ball might be lost.

True. But, if you are 99.9% certain it is lost on PA, and 0.1% in bunker, presumably you are virtually certain it is in PA?

 

[Swango1980]

Not as the exact situation on the OP which may have been a hypothetical. But I assume no one takes a provisional on your course.

They do, frequently on 16th. Before they play it, I ask them if they don't find original, where they think it will be lost. They day PA. I tell them I agree, and therefore they do not need to hit provisional.

Where I was clearly mistaken is, if they did hit provisional anyway, I assumed they could not then claim it was in PA once they got down there, given they thought it could be lost on tee outside PA

However, seems to be not the case. They CAN still hit a provisional, because as ColinL just said, there could be a ridiculously remote chance it is buried in bunker (chance would b a fine thing, never any bloody sand in it). However, despite this they are still well over 95% certain if lost, in PA. So, they still get to take a drop down there, but I guess if they hit a cracking provisional, they can just abandon original (unless someone finds it in PA)

 

[doublebogey7]

I accept that. Player

They do, frequently on 16th. Before they play it, I ask them if they don't find original, where they think it will be lost. They day PA. I tell them I agree, and therefore they do not need to hit provisional.

Where I was clearly mistaken is, if they did hit provisional anyway, I assumed they could not then claim it was in PA once they got down there, given they thought it could be lost on tee outside PA

However, seems to be not the case. They CAN still hit a provisional, because as ColinL just said, there could be a ridiculously remote chance it is buried in bunker (chance would b a fine thing, never any bloody sand in it). However, despite this they are still well over 95% certain if lost, in PA. So, they still get to take a drop down there, but I guess if they hit a cracking provisional, they can just abandon original (unless someone finds it in PA)

Only if the requirements of Vitual Certainty are not met, and but from what you have said they would have been.