Rules Question

[1par2win]

A few weeks ago I was playing a course for the first time and on #10 had an incident that I'm not sure what the proper ruling would be. It's a par 4 dogleg right that is flat until around 150 yards out and goes straight downhill. So your basically hitting a blind tee shot. Anyway I thought the twosome ahead of us was clear so I hit my tee shot really solid that went down the left hand side. We all hit our tee shot and two of my group sliced to the right. I head out to get my ball and as I approach the crest of the hill I can see the twosome ahead come out right about where I thought I had hit my ball. I wave to them apologetically thinking I must have hit close to them and they waved back. So I walk down the hill looking for my ball and sure enough cant find it. After looking for about 3 minutes I hear one of my group that was on the right side of the hole and about 100 yards back looking for his ball yell he thinks he found my ball. I check it out and sure enough it was my Titleist 2 with my red mark. So I figure the twosome ahead must have hit my ball back to the right into the trees where my ball was found. There were no trees, rocks or buildings that could possibly account for that wicked of a bounce! So I wasn't sure how to play it but since I did positivley identify it was my ball I played it as it lied. Ended up making bogey on hole which all in all was a good score compaired to what I could have shot if I lost the ball.

So two nights ago one of the guys I played that day with tells me he saw a ruling (he couldn't remember where) that stated I should have dropped the ball where I "thought" it should have been and played from there with no penalty. I couldn't find this ruling anywhere. He may be thinking of a ball moved by an outside agency but without seeing what he say I can't say for sure. I figure since I found my original ball and I didn't see anyone/thing move or hit my ball I need to play the ball where it lies.

What do you guys think?

[David in FL]

In the absence of positive knowlege to the contrary, you were correct to play it as it lies.

[alf174]

Without positively knowing the group in front of you moved your ball I believe you proceeded with the only option available - play it from where you found it.

[iacas]

Without positively knowing the group in front of you moved your ball I believe you proceeded with the only option available - play it from where you found it.

Yep.

Source: 18-1 18-1. By Outside Agency If a ball at rest is moved by an outside agency, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced. Note: It is a question of fact whether a ball has been moved by an outside agency. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Yep.

I hate that rule and the one about the ball in a water hazard. WTF does '

virtually certain ' mean? It means different things to different people. When Dustin Johnson hit it into the hazard at the US Open at Pebble in the final round, everyone on TV knew or was 'virtually certain' it was in the hazard. Here's a link to a blog that says this is better than the older wording, but I don't think the new wording is any better. ok...to bring this back on topic. If I saw my drive go down the left side, over a hill and then my drive is found 100 yds back on the right side of the fairway I would be VIRTUALLY CERTAIN that some jerk hit my ball over there or a rogue squirrel came and moved it. Done, play it from where it was, no penalty.

[Mrd19abhs]

ok...to bring this back on topic. If I saw my drive go down the left side, over a hill and then my drive is found 100 yds back on the right side of the fairway I would be VIRTUALLY CERTAIN that some jerk hit my ball over there or a rogue squirrel came and moved it. Done, play it from where it was, no penalty.

I agree, if everyone in your group saw it go down left side of hill and it was found on right side of fairway i would ask everyone if they all agree it went down left side of hill and then play from where i think it landed.

[Zeph]

that says this is better than the older wording, but I don't think the new wording is any better.

Got any better suggestions?

[TheGeekGolfer]

Got any better suggestions?

This is a tough one, but since golfers are supposed to 'police themselves', then how about instead of

"it must be known or virtually certain" , use... "all relevant witnesses to the shot must believe" ? I'm not sure if this wording is any good, but the idea is that if all persons in the current match / foursome / walking rules official (if there is one) / and rules official viewing on monitors believe it is in the hazard or moved, then apply the appropriate penalty / non-penalty. This would still allow for agreement from all involved, but would remove the 'certainty' aspect of it. Imagine the following scenario... "Virtually Certain" Player 1 - I think I saw that ball go in the hazard. I searched for 5 minutes and can't find it on the bank anywhere. Player 2 - Yeah, I think I saw it go in, too. Player 1 - OK, I'll take a drop near the point of entry w/ a penalty. Player 2 - uh, no...I'm not certain it went in there, because while I think I saw it go across the hazard line, it may have skipped across or be stuck in the bank. You have to go back to the tee and re-hit. "Believe" Player 1 - I believe I saw that ball go in the hazard. I searched for 5 minutes and can't find it on the bank anywhere. Player 2 - Yeah, I believe it went in there, too... ok, drop near the point of entry with a penalty. Heck...I don't know, but 'virtually certain' still seems to allow some ambiquity. While 'believe' allows the players to agree, even if there isn't enough 'certain' evidence. And, if all the parties involved are in agreement then isn't that enough? Anyway...that's my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

[mdl]

I've got to agree that if I hit a nice drive down the left side of the fairway, dead straight or with a draw, with no trees or rocks or anything but grass AT ALL in play given the trajectory and my distance and all that, and I found my ball among the trees off the right side of the fairway, I'd assume the group I accidentally hit into hit my ball, declare outside agency, and not feel at all like I was cheating to drop a ball maybe a bit shorter than I thought I'd hit it and not take a penalty.

[iacas]

I've got to agree that if I hit a nice drive down the left side of the fairway, dead straight or with a draw, with no trees or rocks or anything but grass AT ALL in play given the trajectory and my distance and all that, and I found my ball among the trees off the right side of the fairway, I'd assume the group I accidentally hit into hit my ball, declare outside agency, and not feel at all like I was cheating to drop a ball maybe a bit shorter than I thought I'd hit it and not take a penalty.

And you'd be violating the Rules of Golf. Good for you.

Disagree all you want, them's the rules the rest of us play by. I've hit balls in the fairway that I've not found because it's wet. Guess what you do then? Clue: you don't get to drop the ball and say "it's probably right about here." As for the re-written rules, they're no good for reasons I consider obvious.

[Fourputt]

This is a tough one, but since golfers are supposed to 'police themselves', then how about instead of

Uhhh.... I don't think so. People can make themselves believe almost anything if they want it badly enough. That requires a level of objective honesty with oneself which is almost unheard of. The wording is appropriate as it is. It still means that you need to be absolutely certain that the ball is where the rule requires it to be, You can't make assumptions based on what might have happened, or on what you hope to have happened. There must be a concrete reason for such belief, not just personal desire.

For the OP's situation, just because he can't find a reason for the ball to have taken a weird bounce doesn't mean that he can simply assume that it didn't take that bounce. Once the ball was out of sight, he has no evidence to support his contention. His ball may have hit a bag or golf cart which has since been moved. Thus virtual certainty is not supported. Play the ball as it lies.

[Borf]

Heres what you do:

If you are so completely convinced yourself that something happened to your ball, you go to the group ahead and ask them what happened.

If this was a tourney and this happened to me that is what I would do.

If they did in fact move it, the person who moved it has to place the ball in the spot as close to as where he thought it was.

[cmwieneke]

And you'd be violating the Rules of Golf. Good for you.

I for one would be virtually certain that my ball had been moved by an outside agency. In this case there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for the ball being on the other side of the fairway.

[TheGeekGolfer]

And you'd be violating the Rules of Golf. Good for you.

Which you've never done? I'm sure you've taken a gimme or two when you're playing by yourself or with a good friend.

As for the re-written rules, they're no good for reasons I consider obvious.

My answer to this post is obvious for reasons I consider obvious

Disagree all you want, them's the rules the rest of us play by. I've hit balls in the fairway that I've not found because it's wet. Guess what you do then? Clue: you don't get to drop the ball and say "it's probably right about here."

Uh...yeah you do. 'virtually certain' still allows for this, since you are the referee in this case. Most everyone on here talks about the 'rules of golf' as if they are gospel. Yet, the very thing that is being discussed here (ie - virtually certain) was added to the rules 2 years ago when it used to say, "reasonable evidence". I'm sure 2 years ago everyone thought that was adequate. That in itself proves that the golf rules are one of many things in life that changes and evolves. Yes, I believe the rules of golf should be followed (just ask my friends, they consider me the go-to-guy for any and all questions rules related). That does not mean that we can't discuss what is 'wrong with the rules'. Also, if you are playing a match with a friend and you're not in a larger tournament or entering your scores for Hdcp purposes, you and your friend are in effect the officials. You can decide whatever you want, IMO.

Uhhh.... I don't think so. People can make themselves believe almost anything if they want it badly enough.

And some of us do have that honesty, I'm sorry that you don't.

The wording is appropriate as it is. It still means that you need to be

No, you don't need to be 'absolutely certain', you need to be 'virtually certain', which still has room for ambiguity. So, if you are going to be ambiguous, then you might as well allow for all interested parties to agree on an outcome. The wording I put in or the old wording of 'reasonable evidence' allows for that. I think the old wording is better.

Most of you are missing the point though, if you are playing alone or not competing and there are no rules officials, then you are in effect the rules official. You call your own penalties. Therefore, the term 'virtually certain' applies to what you think, so it's up to your definition of what constitutes 'virtually certain'. If the OP and his playing partners are 'virtually certain' that the ball got there by some outside force, then that's good enough for me. It still meets the definition of the rules.

[TheGeekGolfer]

I for one would be virtually certain that my ball had been moved by an outside agency. In this case there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for the ball being on the other side of the fairway.

+1 ,that's my point.

[Zeph]

I have experienced using the rule once. A playing partner hit is tee shot to the left rough, which is shared with another hole. I see the ball land and see it on the ground after the shot. While walking up to our balls, a guy runs into our fairway to pick up a ball he hit over there. He runs by just where my playing partner hit his tee shot. When we walk up to the spot, the ball is gone. I didn't see him actually picking up the ball, but I saw the ball after the tee shot, so I was virtually certain that this guy must have picked up his ball and ran off with it.

[iacas]

Which you've never done? I'm sure you've taken a gimme or two when you're playing by yourself or with a good friend.

Not really the same - you're arguing in favor of lying in order to violate a rule.

No, "virtually certain" does not allow for that. It does not rise to the level of "98% certainty" or anything like that. In my opinion, you're lying to yourself and thus violating the rules.

I'd rather sleep at night with a clean conscience, and that means erring on the side of absolute in cases like this. You clearly believe in playing a bit more fast and loose with "known or virtually certain." http://freedrop.wordpress.com/2008/0...ually-certain/

Most everyone on here talks about the 'rules of golf' as if they are gospel.

If someone asks a rules question, they're going to get the Rules of Golf answer...

Yet, the very thing that is being discussed here (ie - virtually certain) was added to the rules 2 years ago when it used to say, "reasonable evidence". I'm sure 2 years ago everyone thought that was adequate.

Everyone didn't think it was adequate, which is why the wording was changed.

And even then my answer would have been the same - play it as it lies.

That in itself proves that the golf rules are one of many things in life that changes and evolves.

Golfers must follow them as they're written at the time.

That does not mean that we can't discuss what is 'wrong with the rules'.

Right, but that's not really what this thread's about.

And some of us do have that honesty, I'm sorry that you don't.

No, in this case, I think you'd be lying to yourself and others if you said you were "virtually certain" the ball had been moved by an outside agency. Again, I'm more likely to take the "known" part and you're a bit more fast and loose with the "virtually certain" part.

Specifically, I would say you have the "absence" described in "In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must play the ball as it lies or, if the ball is not found, proceed under Rule 27-1." In the end I don't really care how you choose to play golf, but if this was a tournament you would be playing the ball as it lies. http://freedrop.wordpress.com/2008/0...ually-certain/

I have experienced using the rule once. A playing partner hit is tee shot to the left rough, which is shared with another hole. I see the ball land and see it on the ground after the shot. While walking up to our balls, a guy runs into our fairway to pick up a ball he hit over there. He runs by just where my playing partner hit his tee shot. When we walk up to the spot, the ball is gone. I didn't see him actually picking up the ball, but I saw the ball after the tee shot, so I was virtually certain that this guy must have picked up his ball and ran off with it.

That would rise to the level of "virtually certain." You saw the ball from the tee so you'd be able to see the ball when you got to the area, and a guy drove past it. So I'm not saying you'd NEVER get to apply the rule, but the OP had no evidence to the contrary other than "I think my ball should be up there."

[Fourputt]

Most everyone on here talks about the 'rules of golf' as if they are gospel. Yet, the very thing that is being discussed here (ie - virtually certain) was added to the rules 2 years ago when it used to say, "reasonable evidence". I'm sure 2 years ago everyone thought that was adequate. That in itself proves that the golf rules are one of many things in life that changes and evolves. Yes, I believe the rules of golf should be followed (just ask my friends, they consider me the go-to-guy for any and all questions rules related). That does not mean that we can't discuss what is 'wrong with the rules'. Also, if you are playing a match with a friend and you're not in a larger tournament or entering your scores for Hdcp purposes, you and your friend are in effect the officials. You can decide whatever you want, IMO.

Sure you can, but you aren't playing golf if you do.

And some of us do have that honesty, I'm sorry that you don't.

How did you construe this? And the words I used were "objective honesty". If you think that belief and objectivity go hand in hand you are fantasizing.

No, you don't need to be 'absolutely certain', you need to be 'virtually certain', which still has room for ambiguity. So, if you are going to be ambiguous, then you might as well allow for all interested parties to agree on an outcome. The wording I put in or the old wording of 'reasonable evidence' allows for that. I think the old wording is better.

Ask the question then next time you attend a USGA Rules Workshop. If you ever do.

You will find that in practice on the course "virtual certainty" means that you are absolutely certain that no other explanation is possible. If you can think of an alternative possibility, regardless of its likelihood, then virtual certainty is not met. The same interpretation applied to "reasonable evidence". For an on course official, "reasonable" was interpreted as "irrefutable". That is the only way that rules involving that phrase can be applied. I just spent the last 2 days as a CGA Rules Official for the Colorado State High School boys' golf championships, and I had to apply that to a ruling about a ball in a hazard.

Most of you are missing the point though, if you are playing alone or not competing and there are no rules officials, then you are in effect the rules official. You call your own penalties. Therefore, the term 'virtually certain' applies to what you think, so it's up to your definition of what constitutes 'virtually certain'. If the OP and his playing partners are 'virtually certain' that the ball got there by some outside force, then that's good enough for me. It still meets the definition of the rules.

The question as I see it is not whether the ball ended up where it did because of an outside agency, but whether it was deflected while in motion (in which case you play it as it lies) or was moved after being at rest (in which case it would be replaced).

There are at least two problems with the latter scenario: 1) There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. Since whatever action took place was out of sight and there were no witnesses to step forward, this is just a bald assumption and the rules simply do not allow such freedom. 2) You can't drop a ball as near as possible to the spot where the ball came to rest because you have no clue where that might be, or if the ball ever actually came to rest before being deflected. So.... both you and the OP are quite wrong in your belief that you can make such a loose interpretation of virtual certainty. Anyone who actually deals with such rules situations on a regular basis would know better.