Virtually Certain!????

[Crazyface]

So after missing out on a prize yesterday due to playing with Mr Muppet, rules freak, I ask this question. When hitting, unsighted, to an area that has a water hazzard and you walk up to this area to find closely mown grass but no sign of your ball, is it safe to assume the bloody thing has gone in?

 

[guest100718]

how big was the hazard?

 

[Imurg]

If there's no chance of it being anywhere else, then yes.
With only closely moan grass around the hazard I'd say it's a virtual certainty that the ball is in it if you can't see it ..

 

[Colin L]

Decision 26-1/1 should help you.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-26,d26-1-1

 

[Crazyface]

Decision 26-1/1 should help you.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-26,d26-1-1

Many thanks Colin.....where were you yesterday when I need you?!

 

[chellie]

Many thanks Colin.....where were you yesterday when I need you?!

One reason to have a rule book with you.

 

[Crazyface]

One reason to have a rule book with you.

I have. But whos' gonna stop and find their reading glasses then the relevant passage then shove it where the sun don't shine. LOL.

 

[rosecott]

Many thanks Colin.....where were you yesterday when I need you?!

I'm not sure that Colin's pointer gives you the certainty you were looking for. You say you were hitting "unsighted" and assumed the ball was in the water. What were the possibilities that the ball might be elsewhere? If no-one actually saw it go in, would you be absolutely certain that the quality of the strike would have taken the ball to the water and nowhere else?

 

[Marc Cools]

When in doubt, invoke Rule 3-3 and play 2 balls (stroke play only).
http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-03,3-3

Always, very imported, always report the situation to the committee and let them decide. Even with same score for both balls.

 

[chrisd]

I'm not sure that Colin's pointer gives you the certainty you were looking for. You say you were hitting "unsighted" and assumed the ball was in the water. What were the possibilities that the ball might be elsewhere? If no-one actually saw it go in, would you be absolutely certain that the quality of the strike would have taken the ball to the water and nowhere else?

Thats what I thought, how could you be certain that someone hadn't just picked it up?

 

[Marc Cools]

Thats what I thought, how could you be certain that someone hadn't just picked it up?

Or embedded through the green, or a to big area to find it, or hit a tree and bounced somewhere else, or went crossing the water into a rougher area, or ...
Colin pointed out the right decision but it is so difficult to apply it. You must see the exact situation. Most players think it is in the water but most referee's will rule lost ball.
It would be nice that with the new rules there is lesser doubt and lesser need for a (time consuming) ruling.

 

[Hosel Fade]

I have. But whos' gonna stop and find their reading glasses then the relevant passage then shove it where the sun don't shine. LOL.

Play two balls under 3-3 and get the reading glasses out in the house whilst having a pint

 

[Foxholer]

I have. But whos' gonna stop and find their reading glasses then the relevant passage then shove it where the sun don't shine. LOL.

And in this case, like many others, it's the Decisions that is the real reference that's required!

Rule 3.3 (playing 2 balls, with subsequent reference to 'The Committee') is indeed appropriate. but be warned that the the process has to be followed rigorously!

 

[atticusfinch]

While the relevant rule is important in all cases, it is what the facts are that decides how a case comes out. The player and companions on the scene and various factors such as ball flight, terrain (etc) taken into account and then a decision is made...by the player. I've always thought the rule of thumb "could it be anywhere else" is a good way to establish virtual certainty (remembering that it is not a philosophical question).

Playing a second ball will not help decide facts. It only provides a valve for a misunderstood rule.

 

[Crazyface]

Thats what I thought, how could you be certain that someone hadn't just picked it up?

Because, I hit it dead straight. The area around the hazzard was closely mown grass. There was no one else around. I you think someone may have picked a ball up you should have a look at yourself and think about how to apply the rules sensibly.

 

[Crazyface]

Play two balls under 3-3 and get the reading glasses out in the house whilst having a pint

Not a chance. The ball was hit toward a hazard that according to the map on the tee was 240 yards away up hill and not in sight. I didn't think I could reach. I set off up the hill thinking I've only got a 9 iron in to the green. On walking up and then getting sight of the hazard and then not seeing my ball there was only one place it could be. There was no way of knowing that they was going to be a problem of any kind. Why then hit a second ball? All was well as far as I was concerned. There was NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER where the ball was. I just didn't know the ruling. BUT I DAMN WELL DO NOW ! Again, thanks Colin.

 

[Crazyface]

Or embedded through the green, or a to big area to find it, or hit a tree and bounced somewhere else, or went crossing the water into a rougher area, or ...
Colin pointed out the right decision but it is so difficult to apply it. You must see the exact situation. Most players think it is in the water but most referee's will rule lost ball.
It would be nice that with the new rules there is lesser doubt and lesser need for a (time consuming) ruling.

Wrong! If you read the decision, it tells of being unsighted but the situation shows that it is "virtually certain" that the ball could not be anywhere else BUT in the hazard.

 

[Slab]

Not a chance. The ball was hit toward a hazard that according to the map on the tee was 240 yards away up hill and not in sight. I didn't think I could reach. I set off up the hill thinking I've only got a 9 iron in to the green. On walking up and then getting sight of the hazard and then not seeing my ball there was only one place it could be. There was no way of knowing that they was going to be a problem of any kind. Why then hit a second ball? All was well as far as I was concerned. There was NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER where the ball was. I just didn't know the ruling. BUT I DAMN WELL DO NOW ! Again, thanks Colin.

Just for devils advocate. for virtual certainty to be ruled on would the rules guys take into consideration the reasons why Crazyface thought he couldn't reach?
I.e 'that area normally isn't closely mown', would be very different to, 'I normally consider that distance out of range'

 

[Crazyface]

I should also add we were playing a course we didn't know.

 

[Marc Cools]

Wrong! If you read the decision, it tells of being unsighted but the situation shows that it is "virtually certain" that the ball could not be anywhere else BUT in the hazard.

Situations I experienced :
- Never ending water hazard; semi rough not higher than half a ball; presumed ball in WH. Ball later found 50 meters closer to the green due to a lucky bounce ?
- player starts looking for his ball; 5 minutes pass; Ball is lost; player goes back to original spot; other players go forward and stumble upon ball. They all searched the wrong area.
- Ball played off the tee ballooned over a tree. Presumed into near WH. The day after while searching for an other ball, we found the ball in the high rough behind the water hazard.
- Ball played towards a little river; semi rough is less than half a ball heights; presumed in the water hazard; ball later found about ten meters farther in ball high rough.
- Hole #3. ball played with a big slice into a water hazard full with trees. Presumed in the WH. Ball later found nearby the black tee box of hole #8 while searching for a tree te get relief from a call of nature.

What I am saying :
In theory, theory and reality are the same, in reality it is not.