Hazard, Where to drop, option 1 or 2?

[Halebopp]

I have a real hard time with calling a lost ball here, when a ball has broke the plane of a hazard and hit into a tree, and not found, when finding any ball in the hazard would be difficult. I'm not gonna traunce all over the golf hole looking for a ball in places where there is zero indication of a ball going. Perhaps if we had heard a knock of wood, and didn't see a ball, then I can see that, but when it's a quiet impact, the baseball has not hit the bat right? Anyway there has got to be some written clarification on the matter right?

 

I imagine two players calling in a rules official, who didn't see the shot, but I guess he could see the hole which helps., but the guy still has to make a call. I still say #1, but obviously I want the correct ruling for future play. Thanks.

 

It really is as simple as asking yourself if the ball could be anywhere else. Please read the explanation for Knowledge or Virtual Certainty here.

[finleysg]

I had pretty much this exact scenario come up last month, but since I lost sight of the ball on the other side of the tree, there was no way I was comfortable with a drop from the lateral hazard. This was in a four ball match, so it was not too painful to just caddie for my partner the rest of the hole. Had it been a stroke play event, I would have hit a provisional for a possible lost ball outside the hazard.

 

Bottom line for me -- there was just no way to be sure where that ball ended up.

[Deuce78]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

[judahaderhold]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

[Imp]

The rule isn't "virtually certain" it could be elsewhere, you have to be "virtually certain" it's in the hazard. Even though a logical person could argue it's minimal, because of the tree, the possibility exists that the ball *could* be elsewhere - which negates the "virtually certainty" it's in the hazard.

 

--kC

[Augster]

As Imp said, the virtual certainty is needed for you to take relief from the hazard. The burden of proof is on you to show it’s virtually certain it’s IN the hazard.

 

Your example of red down the left/white down the right doesn’t stand up. Are we talking about a ball that visibly rolls into the red hazard? Then take relief.

 

What we are talking about is a ball that flew directly at a tree then disappeared. Without virtual certainty it’s IN the hazard, it’s lost.

 

Here is the relevant part from 26-1/1:

 

“However, “virtual certainty” also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.”

 

The words “the conclusion that THERE IS NOWHERE that the ball could be”. They used an absolute in “NOWHERE” and a very wide open conditional in “COULD BE”.

 

In the 2018 rules, it’s VERY restrictive. The smallest percentage stuff that can happen needs to be considered. In 2019 they loosen the restrictions up to have to consider the stuff that can happen 5% of the time, but not less.

 

IDK. It’s probably why I lose money a lot. I’ll just never see what you guys seem to see. Strike a ball toward a tree, it disappears and I never see it again. Unless that hazard is the size of an ocean in all directions, I’ll never be able to live with myself by saying, “it’s probably in the hazard. I’ll drop up there.” I can’t do it. It’s not how the rules are written. I agree that the ball is most likely in the hazard. I’ll even say 8 or 9 out of 10 times given infinite time you’ll find it in that hazard.

 

But 8 or 9 out of 10 times does not fulfill the requirements of virtual certainty. Not now. Not next year.

 

It’s a tough break. But last I checked the ROG doesn’t require you to hit the ball at trees.

[TheCityGame]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

I don't think golf is very fun when I'm playing in a tournament and my group and the group behind are walking around making different determinations about things that arise on the golf course.

 

That's what some of you guys -- and especially some of the "divot rule" guys -- don't get.

 

This isn't about YOU and whether your handicap index goes up a tenth of a point, or two-tenths of a point on a given day, or whether you can come home from golf and tell your wife you finally broke 90 and you're really getting this game figured out.

 

The rules are about going out to PLAY GOLF and being secure in the knowledge that everyone on the course is making the same decisions and that's why rules often have to be black and white and/or very restrictive. Not having your group agree on what a divot is, or whether it's logical to assume the ball went into a hazard.

[judahaderhold]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

I don't think golf is very fun when I'm playing in a tournament and my group and the group behind are walking around making different determinations about things that arise on the golf course.

 

That's what some of you guys -- and especially some of the "divot rule" guys -- don't get.

 

This isn't about YOU and whether your handicap index goes up a tenth of a point, or two-tenths of a point on a given day, or whether you can come home from golf and tell your wife you finally broke 90 and you're really getting this game figured out.

 

The rules are about going out to PLAY GOLF and being secure in the knowledge that everyone on the course is making the same decisions and that's why rules often have to be black and white and/or very restrictive. Not having your group agree on what a divot is, or whether it's logical to assume the ball went into a hazard.

I understand, but like when a couple people say they wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's in the hazard- I don't know if I'd feel comfortable calling it a lost ball. ( I obviously wasn't there, so I can't make too much of a call, but from what it sounds it's almost surely in the hazard.)

 

I don't think a lost ball is just automatically the correct fallback when we aren't 100% sure it's in a hazard. Like say there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard and 1% it's not, just because it Can be outside the hazard, you call it a lost ball? I'd say in that scenario I'm virtually certain it's in the hazard, and I wouldn't feel right taking a lost ball for me or anyone in my group.

[SNIPERBBB]

Like it or not lost ball is the default if you don't know where the ball is. Next year the standard is 95% certainty that the ball is in the hazard you take the drop. Though how you actually quantify that is beyond me at this point.

 

Every sport has a default ruling when the officials(or in Golf's case players or officials) aren't sure of what happened.

[Halebopp]

I understand, but like when a couple people say they wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's in the hazard- I don't know if I'd feel comfortable calling it a lost ball. ( I obviously wasn't there, so I can't make too much of a call, but from what it sounds it's almost surely in the hazard.)

 

I don't think a lost ball is just automatically the correct fallback when we aren't 100% sure it's in a hazard. Like say there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard and 1% it's not, just because it Can be outside the hazard, you call it a lost ball? I'd say in that scenario I'm virtually certain it's in the hazard, and I wouldn't feel right taking a lost ball for me or anyone in my group.

 

If you truly have 99% certainty it's in the hazard, you're fine. But when trees are involved, it's very difficult to gain such certainty over the whereabouts of the ball unless someone actually sees where it ends up or you find it (in which case you have knowledge).

 

I'd say you have 99% certainty with a straight drive off the tee, right down the middle of the fairway, over a hill top and your drive usually carries 200-230 yards. Once you get over the hill, you see there's a fairway-wide water hazard from 220 to 250 yards and the ball is nowhere to be found. It's fairway all the way up to the hazard and there's nothing in front of the hazard where the ball could be lost or what could have affected its flight. There is a minimal chance the ball did hit a sprinkler cover and somehow bounced sideways but such chances fall into the 1%.

[Augster]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

I don't think golf is very fun when I'm playing in a tournament and my group and the group behind are walking around making different determinations about things that arise on the golf course.

 

That's what some of you guys -- and especially some of the "divot rule" guys -- don't get.

 

This isn't about YOU and whether your handicap index goes up a tenth of a point, or two-tenths of a point on a given day, or whether you can come home from golf and tell your wife you finally broke 90 and you're really getting this game figured out.

 

The rules are about going out to PLAY GOLF and being secure in the knowledge that everyone on the course is making the same decisions and that's why rules often have to be black and white and/or very restrictive. Not having your group agree on what a divot is, or whether it's logical to assume the ball went into a hazard.

I understand, but like when a couple people say they wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's in the hazard- I don't know if I'd feel comfortable calling it a lost ball. ( I obviously wasn't there, so I can't make too much of a call, but from what it sounds it's almost surely in the hazard.)

 

I don't think a lost ball is just automatically the correct fallback when we aren't 100% sure it's in a hazard. Like say there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard and 1% it's not, just because it Can be outside the hazard, you call it a lost ball? I'd say in that scenario I'm virtually certain it's in the hazard, and I wouldn't feel right taking a lost ball for me or anyone in my group.

 

You lost me. Every ball that is not found defaults to lost. Even balls you DO find you can elect stroke and distance. Whether that’s a lost ball, a ball in a hazard, or a ball found on the course. You always have the option for stroke and distance.

 

So feeling comfortable it’s a lost ball is irrelevant. It’s always an option in the ROG. It’s also the safest way to know that your score is absolutely correct.

[davep043]

Here is the relevant part from 26-1/1:

 

"However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."

 

The words "the conclusion that THERE IS NOWHERE that the ball could be". They used an absolute in "NOWHERE" and a very wide open conditional in "COULD BE".

 

I think there's more of 26-1/1 that is relevant.

"In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions."

Other relevant factors, in this situation, could also include the type of tree or bush the ball was headed for (hard solid trunk and limbs v. soft brush) and the sound if impact (solid wood, leaves, none?). I don't know enough to make a judgement, but I can see the potential in this case for it to be KVC in the hazard.

[nsxguy]

Here is the relevant part from 26-1/1:

 

"However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."

 

The words "the conclusion that THERE IS NOWHERE that the ball could be". They used an absolute in "NOWHERE" and a very wide open conditional in "COULD BE".

 

I think there's more of 26-1/1 that is relevant.

"In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions."

Other relevant factors, in this situation, could also include the type of tree or bush the ball was headed for (hard solid trunk and limbs v. soft brush) and the sound if impact (solid wood, leaves, none?). I don't know enough to make a judgement, but I can see the potential in this case for it to be KVC in the hazard.

 

You lost me. Every ball that is not found defaults to lost.

 

How can you say THIS when you yourself posted 26-1/1; what dave quoted ?

 

 

As for the actual situation I'd agree with the "lost ball" crowd.

 

Had the points between #1 and #2 been ALL water I could see KVC being in the hazard but not with all that grass there.

[davep043]

Here is the relevant part from 26-1/1:

 

"However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."

 

The words "the conclusion that THERE IS NOWHERE that the ball could be". They used an absolute in "NOWHERE" and a very wide open conditional in "COULD BE".

 

I think there's more of 26-1/1 that is relevant.

"In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions."

Other relevant factors, in this situation, could also include the type of tree or bush the ball was headed for (hard solid trunk and limbs v. soft brush) and the sound if impact (solid wood, leaves, none?). I don't know enough to make a judgement, but I can see the potential in this case for it to be KVC in the hazard.

 

You lost me. Every ball that is not found defaults to lost.

 

How can you say THIS when you yourself posted 26-1/1; what dave quoted ?

 

 

As for the actual situation I'd agree with the "lost ball" crowd.

 

Had the points between #1 and #2 been ALL water I could see KVC being in the hazard but not with all that grass there.

I think Augster was responding to a poster that said he isn't comfortable calling it a lost ball. Its always acceptable to play stroke and distance, no matter where the ball actually ends up, that's the most severe penalty (outside of DQ), so there should never be a reason to feel guilty about calling it a lost ball.

[judahaderhold]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

I don't think golf is very fun when I'm playing in a tournament and my group and the group behind are walking around making different determinations about things that arise on the golf course.

 

That's what some of you guys -- and especially some of the "divot rule" guys -- don't get.

 

This isn't about YOU and whether your handicap index goes up a tenth of a point, or two-tenths of a point on a given day, or whether you can come home from golf and tell your wife you finally broke 90 and you're really getting this game figured out.

 

The rules are about going out to PLAY GOLF and being secure in the knowledge that everyone on the course is making the same decisions and that's why rules often have to be black and white and/or very restrictive. Not having your group agree on what a divot is, or whether it's logical to assume the ball went into a hazard.

I understand, but like when a couple people say they wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's in the hazard- I don't know if I'd feel comfortable calling it a lost ball. ( I obviously wasn't there, so I can't make too much of a call, but from what it sounds it's almost surely in the hazard.)

 

I don't think a lost ball is just automatically the correct fallback when we aren't 100% sure it's in a hazard. Like say there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard and 1% it's not, just because it Can be outside the hazard, you call it a lost ball? I'd say in that scenario I'm virtually certain it's in the hazard, and I wouldn't feel right taking a lost ball for me or anyone in my group.

 

You lost me. Every ball that is not found defaults to lost. Even balls you DO find you can elect stroke and distance. Whether that’s a lost ball, a ball in a hazard, or a ball found on the course. You always have the option for stroke and distance.

 

So feeling comfortable it’s a lost ball is irrelevant. It’s always an option in the ROG. It’s also the safest way to know that your score is absolutely correct.

But if you hit a ball into the middle of a pond, you can't find the ball, but that doesn't mean it defaults to lost.

 

But even if you we're going to take stroke and distance just to be safe, I think you have to decide why you're taking it. I don't think you can say "well it's either in the hazard or it's lost, so I'll take the option that works with both to be safe", I think you and your group have to decide whether you're kvc it's in the hazard and then proceed from there whether you play it as being in the hazard or being lost. And then you can choose stroke and distance if you want.

 

With the comfortable thing, obviously that doesn't matter, it's just the rules that do, but in the 99% scenario, I think it would be against the rules to play it as a lost ball because I think you're virtually certain it's in the hazard.

[Shilgy]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

I don't think golf is very fun when I'm playing in a tournament and my group and the group behind are walking around making different determinations about things that arise on the golf course.

 

That's what some of you guys -- and especially some of the "divot rule" guys -- don't get.

 

This isn't about YOU and whether your handicap index goes up a tenth of a point, or two-tenths of a point on a given day, or whether you can come home from golf and tell your wife you finally broke 90 and you're really getting this game figured out.

 

The rules are about going out to PLAY GOLF and being secure in the knowledge that everyone on the course is making the same decisions and that's why rules often have to be black and white and/or very restrictive. Not having your group agree on what a divot is, or whether it's logical to assume the ball went into a hazard.

I understand, but like when a couple people say they wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's in the hazard- I don't know if I'd feel comfortable calling it a lost ball. ( I obviously wasn't there, so I can't make too much of a call, but from what it sounds it's almost surely in the hazard.)

 

I don't think a lost ball is just automatically the correct fallback when we aren't 100% sure it's in a hazard. Like say there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard and 1% it's not, just because it Can be outside the hazard, you call it a lost ball? I'd say in that scenario I'm virtually certain it's in the hazard, and I wouldn't feel right taking a lost ball for me or anyone in my group.

In this case I would think that with 99% KVC you would know with 50 yards or so where it crossed. In this case that is the question -"in this large area where did it enter the hazard"? How can you have 99% without knowing where it entered?

[judahaderhold]

The ball could be anywhere theory is not very logical and is also speculation. If we are going to speculate, search a radius from the point of impact, if the ball is not found in radius on in play short grass, then is logical to say with certainty it is unfound in the hazard and put it at #1.

 

If you are teeing off and you see red down the left and white down the right which side do you favor? And why is that? Now because people cant be realistic and logical the red stakes become white?

^This. Just because the ball technically Could be somewhere, doesn't mean you're not virtually certain that it's elsewhere. Who knows, you could hit a ball in the trees, and not see it all the way down and when you get up to what you think is your ball, it's actually someone's else's ball with the exact same markings and your ball is maybe stuck up in the trees or something. I don't think golf would be very fun if just cause you lose sight of your ball and it technically Could be elsewhere, you had to declare it lost.

I don't think golf is very fun when I'm playing in a tournament and my group and the group behind are walking around making different determinations about things that arise on the golf course.

 

That's what some of you guys -- and especially some of the "divot rule" guys -- don't get.

 

This isn't about YOU and whether your handicap index goes up a tenth of a point, or two-tenths of a point on a given day, or whether you can come home from golf and tell your wife you finally broke 90 and you're really getting this game figured out.

 

The rules are about going out to PLAY GOLF and being secure in the knowledge that everyone on the course is making the same decisions and that's why rules often have to be black and white and/or very restrictive. Not having your group agree on what a divot is, or whether it's logical to assume the ball went into a hazard.

I understand, but like when a couple people say they wouldn't feel comfortable saying it's in the hazard- I don't know if I'd feel comfortable calling it a lost ball. ( I obviously wasn't there, so I can't make too much of a call, but from what it sounds it's almost surely in the hazard.)

 

I don't think a lost ball is just automatically the correct fallback when we aren't 100% sure it's in a hazard. Like say there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard and 1% it's not, just because it Can be outside the hazard, you call it a lost ball? I'd say in that scenario I'm virtually certain it's in the hazard, and I wouldn't feel right taking a lost ball for me or anyone in my group.

In this case I would think that with 99% KVC you would know with 50 yards or so where it crossed. In this case that is the question -"in this large area where did it enter the hazard"? How can you have 99% without knowing where it entered?

Yeah sorry, that might not have been the clearest, I meant in a hypothetical scenario if there's a 99% chance it's in the hazard...

[Halebopp]

 

 

But if you hit a ball into the middle of a pond, you can't find the ball, but that doesn't mean it defaults to lost.

 

But even if you we're going to take stroke and distance just to be safe, I think you have to decide why you're taking it. I don't think you can say "well it's either in the hazard or it's lost, so I'll take the option that works with both to be safe", I think you and your group have to decide whether you're kvc it's in the hazard and then proceed from there whether you play it as being in the hazard or being lost. And then you can choose stroke and distance if you want.

 

With the comfortable thing, obviously that doesn't matter, it's just the rules that do, but in the 99% scenario, I think it would be against the rules to play it as a lost ball because I think you're virtually certain it's in the hazard.

 

If you can't find a ball, it is by definition lost. The discussion is only about where the lost ball could be. Losing it certain places, like water hazards, offer you different options as to how to proceed. One of those options is stroke and distance and that is always at your disposal, whether you can see your ball on the fairway, you know it's lost in a water hazard, in a bad lie in a bunker, even if, and especially when, you don't have a clue where it is.

 

There's no requirement to determine the whereabouts of the ball when proceeding with stroke and distance.

[Mr. Bean]

 

In the 2018 rules, it's VERY restrictive. The smallest percentage stuff that can happen needs to be considered. In 2019 they loosen the restrictions up to have to consider the stuff that can happen 5% of the time, but not less.

 

This is ever so hilarious! Who can seriously decide whether there is a 7,2% or 4,1% probability of something to have happened??

 

Honestly! Just forget about the percentages but concentrate on real life possibilities of ball having bounced here, there or anywhere. Nothing has changed, just the idea of pondering the situations has been tried to make more clear. Unfortunately some people seem to take the figure 95% too literally...

[Shilgy]

 

In the 2018 rules, it's VERY restrictive. The smallest percentage stuff that can happen needs to be considered. In 2019 they loosen the restrictions up to have to consider the stuff that can happen 5% of the time, but not less.

 

This is ever so hilarious! Who can seriously decide whether there is a 7,2% or 4,1% probability of something to have happened??

 

Honestly! Just forget about the percentages but concentrate on real life possibilities of ball having bounced here, there or anywhere. Nothing has changed, just the idea of pondering the situations has been tried to make more clear. Unfortunately some people seem to take the figure 95% too literally...

I do believe you having me laughing for the first time! :)

I can see it now..."not 95% certain as I'm only at 93.7% versus "oh yeah, well I see it as 96.1%"!

[NDS55]

The OP has stated that the ball was last seen entering the hazard, travelling towards a tree within the hazard.

He is VC that it was either, knocked down and remained in the hazard, or more likely passed through the foliage and continued on, coming to rest further on and back in the same hazard.

Because he had no proof, only a gut feeling (because the ball was going in hot) that the ball continued on, to support that claim, it is reasonable to assume that the original point of entry would be the drop location. We have to accept his claim that the terrain outside of the hazard had no obstructions or long grass that would tend to hide an object the size of a golf ball.

[Augster]

 

In the 2018 rules, it's VERY restrictive. The smallest percentage stuff that can happen needs to be considered. In 2019 they loosen the restrictions up to have to consider the stuff that can happen 5% of the time, but not less.

 

This is ever so hilarious! Who can seriously decide whether there is a 7,2% or 4,1% probability of something to have happened??

 

Honestly! Just forget about the percentages but concentrate on real life possibilities of ball having bounced here, there or anywhere. Nothing has changed, just the idea of pondering the situations has been tried to make more clear. Unfortunately some people seem to take the figure 95% too literally...

 

I think you are missing the bigger picture.

 

In the current rules, the requirements for KVC say “NOWHERE else it COULD be”. The ball could nearly always be somewhere besides the hazard. I’ll list some examples. Under a leaf short of the hazard. In a gopher hole outside the hazard. In a small patch of long grass the mower goes over because there is a small depression. Ricochet off a tree no one hears and is nowhere near where they search. The ball gets stuck in the tree. Etc. etc.

 

All of those possibilities, which are very small possibilities, don’t add up to 5% of the time. So next year we can throw those possibilities out. This year, “COULD the ball have landed and rolled under a leaf and not be visible?” Sure it could. LOTS of things could happen. A squirrel or bird may have taken the ball while you couldn’t see it. That’d be Rule 18 relief, but you need to know or be VC it happened or else it’s a lost ball.

 

Next year it’ll be way easier to declare KVC.

 

Here is the new standard for KVC:

 

“The standard for deciding what happened to a player’s ball – for example, whether the ball came to rest in a penalty area, whether it moved or what caused it to move.

 

Known or virtually certain means more than just possible or probable. It means that either:

 

• There is conclusive evidence that the event in question happened to the player’s ball, such as when the player or other witnesses saw it happen, or

 

• Although there is a very small degree of doubt, all reasonably available information shows that it is at least 95% likely that the event in question happened.

 

“All reasonably available information” includes all information the player knows and all other information he or she can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonable delay.”

 

Contrast that with the old standard of “NOWHERE else the ball COULD be”. In the new rules they don’t use an absolute like NOWHERE. And an open ended conditional like “could”. They changed it to “at least 95% likely”.

 

To the OP’s question, even next year, with a more lenient KVC, I’d still think I’d go with a lost ball. Hit it at a tree and it disappears will still be hard for me to be KVC it’s in the hazard.

[Augster]

 

 

But if you hit a ball into the middle of a pond, you can't find the ball, but that doesn't mean it defaults to lost.

 

But even if you we're going to take stroke and distance just to be safe, I think you have to decide why you're taking it. I don't think you can say "well it's either in the hazard or it's lost, so I'll take the option that works with both to be safe", I think you and your group have to decide whether you're kvc it's in the hazard and then proceed from there whether you play it as being in the hazard or being lost. And then you can choose stroke and distance if you want.

 

With the comfortable thing, obviously that doesn't matter, it's just the rules that do, but in the 99% scenario, I think it would be against the rules to play it as a lost ball because I think you're virtually certain it's in the hazard.

 

If you can't find a ball, it is by definition lost. The discussion is only about where the lost ball could be. Losing it certain places, like water hazards, offer you different options as to how to proceed. One of those options is stroke and distance and that is always at your disposal, whether you can see your ball on the fairway, you know it's lost in a water hazard, in a bad lie in a bunker, even if, and especially when, you don't have a clue where it is.

 

There's no requirement to determine the whereabouts of the ball when proceeding with stroke and distance.

 

This.

 

“You can’t find the ball, but that doesn’t mean it’s lost”.

 

What time is the 3:00 parade? :)

 

“Lost” means you cannot find it. Whether it’s under a log in the woods or 20 feet under water in a penalty area. If you cannot find it within 5 minutes, it’s lost. There is an Exception to 27-1 that allows you to take relief differently than stroke and distance if you so choose based on the reason why the ball is lost.

 

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball, that has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or is in a water hazard (Rule 26-1), the player may proceed under the applicable Rule.

 

[Deuce78]

Stay tuned for my new thread, track man testing of 100 balls hit into a tree and the likely outcome. Pictures and all types of trees tested. Book tour to follow...

[Shilgy]

The OP has stated that the ball was last seen entering the hazard, travelling towards a tree within the hazard.

He is VC that it was either, knocked down and remained in the hazard, or more likely passed through the foliage and continued on, coming to rest further on and back in the same hazard.

Because he had no proof, only a gut feeling (because the ball was going in hot) that the ball continued on, to support that claim, it is reasonable to assume that the original point of entry would be the drop location. We have to accept his claim that the terrain outside of the hazard had no obstructions or long grass that would tend to hide an object the size of a golf ball.

He has a gut feeling the ball continued on and no sight or rotor it entered there but he should be able to drop at point 1? That's completely the opposite of KVC.

[LeoLeo99]

The OP has stated that the ball was last seen entering the hazard, travelling towards a tree within the hazard.

He is VC that it was either, knocked down and remained in the hazard, or more likely passed through the foliage and continued on, coming to rest further on and back in the same hazard.

Because he had no proof, only a gut feeling (because the ball was going in hot) that the ball continued on, to support that claim, it is reasonable to assume that the original point of entry would be the drop location. We have to accept his claim that the terrain outside of the hazard had no obstructions or long grass that would tend to hide an object the size of a golf ball.

He has a gut feeling the ball continued on and no sight or rotor it entered there but he should be able to drop at point 1? That's completely the opposite of KVC.

 

If the OP has KVC it's in the hazard but doesn't know where it crossed the hazard, does he truly have KVC?

[Shilgy]

The OP has stated that the ball was last seen entering the hazard, travelling towards a tree within the hazard.

He is VC that it was either, knocked down and remained in the hazard, or more likely passed through the foliage and continued on, coming to rest further on and back in the same hazard.

Because he had no proof, only a gut feeling (because the ball was going in hot) that the ball continued on, to support that claim, it is reasonable to assume that the original point of entry would be the drop location. We have to accept his claim that the terrain outside of the hazard had no obstructions or long grass that would tend to hide an object the size of a golf ball.

He has a gut feeling the ball continued on and no sight or rotor it entered there but he should be able to drop at point 1? That's completely the opposite of KVC.

 

If the OP has KVC it's in the hazard but doesn't know where it crossed the hazard, does he truly have KVC?

I would think it depends. In this case no. Ocean or large lake down the length of the hole and you're not positive exactly where it crossed yes.

[judahaderhold]

 

 

But if you hit a ball into the middle of a pond, you can't find the ball, but that doesn't mean it defaults to lost.

 

But even if you we're going to take stroke and distance just to be safe, I think you have to decide why you're taking it. I don't think you can say "well it's either in the hazard or it's lost, so I'll take the option that works with both to be safe", I think you and your group have to decide whether you're kvc it's in the hazard and then proceed from there whether you play it as being in the hazard or being lost. And then you can choose stroke and distance if you want.

 

With the comfortable thing, obviously that doesn't matter, it's just the rules that do, but in the 99% scenario, I think it would be against the rules to play it as a lost ball because I think you're virtually certain it's in the hazard.

 

If you can't find a ball, it is by definition lost. The discussion is only about where the lost ball could be. Losing it certain places, like water hazards, offer you different options as to how to proceed. One of those options is stroke and distance and that is always at your disposal, whether you can see your ball on the fairway, you know it's lost in a water hazard, in a bad lie in a bunker, even if, and especially when, you don't have a clue where it is.

 

There's no requirement to determine the whereabouts of the ball when proceeding with stroke and distance.

 

This.

 

“You can’t find the ball, but that doesn’t mean it’s lost”.

 

What time is the 3:00 parade? :)

 

“Lost” means you cannot find it. Whether it’s under a log in the woods or 20 feet under water in a penalty area. If you cannot find it within 5 minutes, it’s lost. There is an Exception to 27-1 that allows you to take relief differently than stroke and distance if you so choose based on the reason why the ball is lost.

 

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the original ball, that has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or is in a water hazard (Rule 26-1), the player may proceed under the applicable Rule.

I meant "lost" as in under the rules of a lost ball not by the definition in the dictionary, because if it's in a pond it's "lost" according to the dictionary, but it's played under hazard rules according to the ROG. (And can you really take stroke and distance without making a decision on whether it's in the hazard or not? Could be, just doesn't make sense to me.)

 

As far as the parade question goes, I really don't know, there's too many possibilities with am or PM, and all of the different time zones, I mean I've got a 1 in 48 chance of getting it right. :)

[Deuce78]

The OP has stated that the ball was last seen entering the hazard, travelling towards a tree within the hazard.

He is VC that it was either, knocked down and remained in the hazard, or more likely passed through the foliage and continued on, coming to rest further on and back in the same hazard.

Because he had no proof, only a gut feeling (because the ball was going in hot) that the ball continued on, to support that claim, it is reasonable to assume that the original point of entry would be the drop location. We have to accept his claim that the terrain outside of the hazard had no obstructions or long grass that would tend to hide an object the size of a golf ball.

He has a gut feeling the ball continued on and no sight or rotor it entered there but he should be able to drop at point 1? That's completely the opposite of KVC.

 

If the OP has KVC it's in the hazard but doesn't know where it crossed the hazard, does he truly have KVC?

I would think it depends. In this case no. Ocean or large lake down the length of the hole and you're not positive exactly where it crossed yes.

It crossed first at 1, that was seen. Beyond that was obstructed view.

[Shilgy]

The OP has stated that the ball was last seen entering the hazard, travelling towards a tree within the hazard.

He is VC that it was either, knocked down and remained in the hazard, or more likely passed through the foliage and continued on, coming to rest further on and back in the same hazard.

Because he had no proof, only a gut feeling (because the ball was going in hot) that the ball continued on, to support that claim, it is reasonable to assume that the original point of entry would be the drop location. We have to accept his claim that the terrain outside of the hazard had no obstructions or long grass that would tend to hide an object the size of a golf ball.

He has a gut feeling the ball continued on and no sight or rotor it entered there but he should be able to drop at point 1? That's completely the opposite of KVC.

 

If the OP has KVC it's in the hazard but doesn't know where it crossed the hazard, does he truly have KVC?

I would think it depends. In this case no. Ocean or large lake down the length of the hole and you're not positive exactly where it crossed yes.

It crossed first at 1, that was seen. Beyond that was obstructed view.

Crossed is different than in.

 

My club used to have a messed up hazard marking. They had it marked as a hazard an area about 25 feet wide and 50 yards long and then an ob wall. Players would hit their tee shot towards the area and then claim in the hazard when it was at least as likely it was ob. It became too contentious at times and it's no longer marked as a hazard.