Hazard procedures, advanced question

[Deuce78]

I need to find the correct ruling for the following scenario.

 

Ball played over lake to a landing area. Super Large hill backstop. So lake, incline, flat landing zone, large hill incline. Grass is short [no chance ball was lost in rough]. Yellow stakes on front of lake. Red stakes on back of lake. Ball played (4 iron intended to travel 205 yards), ball goes into a tree that the trunk of which is just inside the hazard, but branches of tree over hang the incline outside hazard. Ball seen going well into tree the trailing off to left, but landing area is obstructed an not observed landing. The ball was traveling on a piercing trajectory into the tree and was not descending yet, as the intended yardage was 205 and the tree would have be about 160 out. There was no wood sound from the tree. The ball was not seen by player B after going into tree. Player A thought ball looked to go forwards but tail off left, but landing area obstructed by foliage. Ball not found. Player A contends that ball crossed the plane of red hazard, and likely hit incline beyond hazard and rolled back into hazard. Player B says no evidence of ball crossing hazard and should go back and play from yellow front side. Player A contends that due to the high velocity and flat trajectory, and lack of sound (wood) that the ball must have at least traveled past the hazard, and because no ball was found on the short flat grass, that the ball must have rolled back into the hazard. What is the correct ruling?

 

[Newby]

It would seem that neither knowledge nor virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard was established. Lost ball.

[Colin L]

As above.

 

The new rules describe virtual certainty as being 95% certain. WIth all the ifs, maybes, possibilities, perhapses, conjectures etc., I'd suggest you've shown us at least 95% uncertainty! .

[Sawgrass]

Player B says no evidence of ball crossing hazard and should go back and play from yellow front side.

 

Just note that this is not the precise remedy for a lost ball. One must go back to where the previous shot was hit, not just the front of the hazard.

[Stuart_G]

Player B says no evidence of ball crossing hazard and should go back and play from yellow front side.

 

Just note that this is not the precise remedy for a lost ball. One must go back to where the previous shot was hit, not just the front of the hazard.

 

I don't think the OP considered the possibility of a lost ball outside the hazard and thought he was trying to get a ruling on where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard.

 

 

For the OP.

 

I agree with the others above that it is unlikely that virtual certainty existed that the ball did in fact end up in the hazard and would also rule it as a lost ball (outside the hazard).

 

But if you want, for the sake of what I think you were trying to ask - we can assume for a hypothetical that virtual certainty did exist. In that case, the rules only really tell us that the player must use his/her best judgement in determining where the ball last crossed the hazard margin and is free to proceed based on that judgement w/o fear of a penalty for being wrong. In my mind, that means a judgement based on facts and what you know happened, not supposition about what might have happened. But that last part is just my opinion.

 

 

 

26-1/17

 

Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped and Played; Point Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

 

Q.In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16, where it becomes known that A's judgment of where his ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard is incorrect, what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in the wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

 

A.A must continue play with the ball played from the wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from the wrong place (see Rule 20-7) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect.

[Newby]

In my mind, that means a judgement based on facts and what you know happened, not supposition about what might have happened. But that last part is just my opinion.

 

 

And mine.

[deadsolid...shank]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That’s enough certainty for me.

[Colin L]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That’s enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

[rogolf]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That’s enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

What "facts" are these players using to determine virtual certainty? Lost ball, go back to original spot.

[sui generis]

I need to find the correct ruling for the following scenario.

 

Ball played over lake to a landing area. Super Large hill backstop. So lake, incline, flat landing zone, large hill incline. Grass is short [no chance ball was lost in rough]. Yellow stakes on front of lake. Red stakes on back of lake. Ball played (4 iron intended to travel 205 yards), ball goes into a tree that the trunk of which is just inside the hazard, but branches of tree over hang the incline outside hazard. Ball seen going well into tree the trailing off to left, but landing area is obstructed an not observed landing. The ball was traveling on a piercing trajectory into the tree and was not descending yet, as the intended yardage was 205 and the tree would have be about 160 out. There was no wood sound from the tree. The ball was not seen by player B after going into tree. Player A thought ball looked to go forwards but tail off left, but landing area obstructed by foliage. Ball not found. Player A contends that ball crossed the plane of red hazard, and likely hit incline beyond hazard and rolled back into hazard. Player B says no evidence of ball crossing hazard and should go back and play from yellow front side. Player A contends that due to the high velocity and flat trajectory, and lack of sound (wood) that the ball must have at least traveled past the hazard, and because no ball was found on the short flat grass, that the ball must have rolled back into the hazard. What is the correct ruling?

 

 

What's the answer to the question, "Could the ball be anywhere else besides in the hazard?"

[deadsolid...shank]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That’s enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

 

Sure. But the OP said both agreed it was in the hazard. They seemed certain enough of that to be arguing over where it crossed. Not if. That sounds like 100% to me.

[deadsolid...shank]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That’s enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

What "facts" are these players using to determine virtual certainty? Lost ball, go back to original spot.

 

The fact that they are the ones there assessing the situation. They are privy to more “facts” than anyone here trying to make the decision.

 

Two out of two players both saying the ball is in the hazard. That’s 100% of the people involved. Seems to satisfy the 95% criteria to me.

[deadsolid...shank]

I’ve discussed this (probably too much), KVC in the past. I realize my view differs from most of the rules experts (and I don’t mean that term in the derogatory way it’s used here too often) and people who officiate.

 

But I still don’t like the rule. How often can you ever be 100% (or even 95%) of where a ball ends up. I can see a ball splash near the far side of a lake that has a brush on the other side. Who knows if it skipped out or not? Almost every ball that travels any considerable distance towards a hazard brings some level of question into it.

 

A little common sense factored into making a best judgement seems reasonable.

 

OP explained the landing area as a place unlikely for a ball to be lost.

[Colin L]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That's enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

 

Sure. But the OP said both agreed it was in the hazard. They seemed certain enough of that to be arguing over where it crossed. Not if. That sounds like 100% to me.

 

I see where the misunderstanding lies. Both people in a group of two agreeing something means that 100% of the group agree. That does not mean that the facts of matter add up to 95% certainty that they were right.

[Shilgy]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That’s enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

 

Sure. But the OP said both agreed it was in the hazard. They seemed certain enough of that to be arguing over where it crossed. Not if. That sounds like 100% to me.

Neither player heard it hit wood (tree branch) and no one saw it roll back into the hazard. The argument seems to be which side of the lake the player should drop. Considering the op started the ball would have flown 205, just 160 carry, and no ball was seen rolling back into the hazard not heard striking the tree the odds are most likely the ball is well beyond the hazard and not found.

This, as almost all have said, it is considered lost-not in the hazard.

 

Side note. Any club I have every played that would have a hole designed and maintained as described there would be a revolt of membership. A shot that would roll back with enough speed 50 yards down a hill and back into water? A majority of the membership would have no way to play the hole as they could not reach the flat area. At the very least the grass would need to be cut in a way to prevent such an occurrence.

[deadsolid...shank]

I’m going to apologize here and chastise myself for not going back and reading it a second time before posting.

 

Upon rereading it,,I see the mention of foliage in the landing area. I must have just skimmed over that part when recalling him talking about no rough formthe ball to be lost it. It does sound like there were areas where the ball could have been lost. At least enough to create uncertainty.

[deadsolid...shank]

Seems to me that both players were in agreement that the ball was in the hazard. That's enough certainty for me.

 

Two players are capable of getting it wrong.

 

Sure. But the OP said both agreed it was in the hazard. They seemed certain enough of that to be arguing over where it crossed. Not if. That sounds like 100% to me.

 

I see where the misunderstanding lies. Both people in a group of two agreeing something means that 100% of the group agree. That does not mean that the facts of matter add up to 95% certainty that they were right.

 

So, in a tournament sertting, but no official to make a ruling on the spot. At this point doesn’t to boil down to them deciding where it crossed (because, either right or wrong, they have determined it is in the hazard). That call is a judgment call by the player correct (per Stuart). So A plays it across the lake (red stakes), B protests he plays from wrong spot. Does he get DQ’ed after the fact for not playing it has a lost ball?

[SNIPERBBB]

A provisional should of been hit before moving forward if you had no idea where the ball could of ended up.

[Stuart_G]

So, in a tournament sertting, but no official to make a ruling on the spot. At this point doesn’t to boil down to them deciding where it crossed (because, either right or wrong, they have determined it is in the hazard). That call is a judgment call by the player correct (per Stuart). So A plays it across the lake (red stakes), B protests he plays from wrong spot. Does he get DQ’ed after the fact for not playing it has a lost ball?

 

Keep in mind that stroke play and match play are quite a bit different. For match play - worst case would be loss of hole for playing from the wrong place - and there are a few important conditionals for that to happen.

 

For stroke play it could possibly be a DQ IF the rules official or committee member that reviewed the claim made the determination that both KVC did not exist AND it was determined that the location where the drop was made was a serious breach of playing from the wrong place. If the drop was made at the red boundaries, that's highly likely. If it was made at the yellow boundary, it's possible that the player might just get away with a 2 stroke penalty for playing from the wrong location. But it's completely up to the committee to make that determination of a serious breach and therefore a DQ.

 

Now in stroke play, if they had considered the possibility of it being lost outside the hazard - they could play 2 balls under rule 3-3 and let the committee make the KVC determination after the fact (and avoid any other penalties).

[Stuart_G]

Upon rereading it,,I see the mention of foliage in the landing area. I must have just skimmed over that part when recalling him talking about no rough formthe ball to be lost it. It does sound like there were areas where the ball could have been lost. At least enough to create uncertainty.

 

I thought of that as well - but on reflection wasn't sure if he was referring to foliage on the ground - or just the foliage in the trees.

 

Even if the later, I still think there is plenty of room for uncertainty. If nothing else, the fact that they don't have a clear understanding of where it might have entered the hazard is enough (for me) to doubt if it in fact actually did enter the hazard at all.

[Deuce78]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

 

 

 

 

[Sawgrass]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upward (and downward). Is there part of the tree which resides outside the margin, and is it possible that the ball stayed in the tree outside the margin?

 

Beyond that, if the ball was virtually certain to end up in the hazard, the last margin it crossed determines whether "red relief" is possible.

[Shilgy]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

By landing area do you mean the hilltop and all areas it could have gone if it went cleanly through the tree?

I'm still coming to grips with two phrases from you.

In this most recent post you're not certain it even cleared the hazard and in the first post it was well on its way 45+ yards past the hazard.

[Deuce78]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upward (and downward). Is there part of the tree which resides outside the margin, and is it possible that the ball stayed in the tree outside the margin?

 

Beyond that, if the ball was virtually certain to end up in the hazard, the last margin it crossed determines whether "red relief" is possible.

Yes, back 40 percent of tree branches are outside hazard plane. No chance ball stayed in tree based on how it was falling and traveling once it changed direction. I was expecting to see ball just behind the tree in play.

[Deuce78]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

By landing area do you mean the hilltop and all areas it could have gone if it went cleanly through the tree?

I'm still coming to grips with two phrases from you.

In this most recent post you're not certain it even cleared the hazard and in the first post it was well on its way 45+ yards past the hazard.

Yes landing area meaning short grass and would be in play. Player A is sure the ball went beyond the hazard based on the speed of shot, the depth it went into the tree before change in direction, the lack of any hard contact sound, the flat angle of decent until change of direction.

 

Player B says that absence of him seeing the ball with 20/20 vision drop on the ground, and roll down into the hazard, then he cant say it crossed the red plane.

 

But again what is the definition of virtually certain? If the ball was not in play, in this situation, it is in the hazard. Factor in the known information about the shot, geometry, logic, physics, and player A can be virtually certain ball crossed the red plane.

[Shilgy]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

By landing area do you mean the hilltop and all areas it could have gone if it went cleanly through the tree?

I'm still coming to grips with two phrases from you.

In this most recent post you're not certain it even cleared the hazard and in the first post it was well on its way 45+ yards past the hazard.

Yes landing area meaning short grass and would be in play. Player A is sure the ball went beyond the hazard based on the speed of shot, the depth it went into the tree before change in direction, the lack of any hard contact sound, the flat angle of decent until change of direction.

 

Player B says that absence of him seeing the ball with 20/20 vision drop on the ground, and roll down into the hazard, then he cant say it crossed the red plane.

 

But again what is the definition of virtually certain? If the ball was not in play, in this situation, it is in the hazard. Factor in the known information about the shot, geometry, logic, physics, and player A can be virtually certain ball crossed the red plane.

The shot was well struck meaning it was expected to carry the 40 yard hill that feeds balls to the water. Was that large top of the hill area checked as well?

[Deuce78]

During play, there was a thorough search done of the landing area and area around the tree and hazard.

 

It was concluded by the players the ball had to have entered the hazard. Player A based on what he saw the ball do once it hit the tree, change of direction down to left, concluded that it would have hit the side hill and rolled into the hazard somewhere near the center line of tree, since tree was struck on right side. Player A observed the tree on right side had limbs that were over beyond the hazard line, in the safe zone. Player A contends that simple physics, velocity of ball, where it entered tree and did not bounce back or make noise would put the ball into the tree and therefore crossed the plane.

 

Player B says he couldn't agree that ball for sure crossed red line. Said to go back.

 

Does ball have to break plane of red stakes? Or does it have to hit the ground? In this case if the ball broke the plane of red stakes and bounced back in the hazard is there relief on the red side?

 

Any other questions?

By landing area do you mean the hilltop and all areas it could have gone if it went cleanly through the tree?

I'm still coming to grips with two phrases from you.

In this most recent post you're not certain it even cleared the hazard and in the first post it was well on its way 45+ yards past the hazard.

Yes landing area meaning short grass and would be in play. Player A is sure the ball went beyond the hazard based on the speed of shot, the depth it went into the tree before change in direction, the lack of any hard contact sound, the flat angle of decent until change of direction.

 

Player B says that absence of him seeing the ball with 20/20 vision drop on the ground, and roll down into the hazard, then he cant say it crossed the red plane.

 

But again what is the definition of virtually certain? If the ball was not in play, in this situation, it is in the hazard. Factor in the known information about the shot, geometry, logic, physics, and player A can be virtually certain ball crossed the red plane.

The shot was well struck meaning it was expected to carry the 40 yard hill that feeds balls to the water. Was that large top of the hill area checked as well?

Yes but the landing area that is flat before the backstop is about 60 yards wide. So it goes lake, like a 15 yard hill, flat 60 yards, hill 40 yards.

[Deuce78]

Player B wants to know where in the rules it says hazard lines are planes? If the ball never touches the ground across the red line, but hits a tree limb outside/beyond the hazard and then goes backward into the hazard, it never touched ground past the red stakes, but it broke the plane twice...

[HitEmTrue]

Player B wants to know where in the rules it says hazard lines are planes? If the ball never touches the ground across the red line, but hits a tree limb outside/beyond the hazard and then goes backward into the hazard, it never touched ground past the red stakes, but it broke the plane twice...

 

Sawgrass was referring to the definition for “water hazard” where it says the margin extends vertically upward and downward.

 

[Shilgy]

Player B wants to know where in the rules it says hazard lines are planes? If the ball never touches the ground across the red line, but hits a tree limb outside/beyond the hazard and then goes backward into the hazard, it never touched ground past the red stakes, but it broke the plane twice...

If it flew the hazard but hit the tree and bounced back into the hazard the drop would be on the far side of the hazard. Red staked side nearest green.

 

But I fail to see how anyone could possibly claim KVC of the occurrence without seeing or hearing the ball bounce back or off the tree.