Provisional ball question.

[wadesworld]

so he still gets penalized even though playing partner was certain he saw it go in water?heres the problem.why do I get penalized because playing partner claims he saw it go in water?if partner declares that he saw it go in water and you cant find it till after you hit your drop then I don't feel you should be penalized.

There's a lot that goes into the term "virtual certainty," as the rules experts here will tell you.  For example, what's the geography of the water hazard?  Would it be possible for a ball flying on that path to exit the front of the hazard and end up on the course?  What surrounds the hazard?  6-foot high brush?  Tall cattails?  Or just closely mown grass?  What was the trajectory of the ball when it hit the water?  High and soft?  Low and screaming?  What were the conditions that were present at the time?  Was the fellow-competition looking into the sun?  Was it dark?

As I understand it, if there are any possible mitigating factors, then you do not have virtual certainty.  Remember, a ball known to be in the hazard or virtual certainty that it's in the hazard means after considering all applicable factors, there is no other place the ball could be.  For example, just seeing a splash is not enough if the far bank is low enough that a ball could hop out and the grass thick enough you might not see it.

Given that the player did not see the ball and there likely were a number of factors that could have led to the ball being out of the hazard, he could and should have played a provisional from the original spot.  Upon not finding his original within 5 minutes, his ball would be lost and he could just play the provisional.  Or of course if he found the original, he would just continue play and abandon the provisional.

[Fred Darling]

John

Many thanks for taking the time

[Fred Darling]

Gents again I would like to say thanks to all for there comments. It did take a while to go through all the comments  because the same point was been made in different ways. The big point is that I breached the rules and I will now hold my hands up to my club for discipline.I will post the result. Happy golfing to you all .

Yours in Sport Fred

[ColinL]

Gents again I would like to say thanks to all for there comments. It did take a while to go through all the comments  because the same point was been made in different ways. The big point is that I breached the rules and I will now hold my hands up to my club for discipline.I will post the result. Happy golfing to you all .

Yours in Sport Fred

The result should be, assuming that you did not know you were breaching the rules in what you did, that nothing happens.

See Rule 34-1b

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-34/

[Gboroman]

I want to add something to this because a similar thing happened to me in a tournament.  Regarding playing a provisional, you can only play one for a lost or OB ball.  Here's my simple interpretation of the rules:

If you are certain it went in the hazard, you cannot play a provisional.  If you are not sure, you are entitled to play a provisional for a lost ball, but you must declare it a "provisional" so that your playing partners hear you.  If you played a provisional and then, after arriving at the hazard, think it is in the hazard, you must abandon your provisional. If you proceed to play the provisional, you are penalized for playing a wrong ball.

This is confusing because one of the options for a hazard is to play from previous spot.  But, since you declared the ball a "provisional," you have to abandon it.  If you want to hit from the previous spot, you have to go back to the previous spot and hit another.

[Aflighter]

Ok I have a similar question about something that happened in a tournament earlier this year.One of the players hit his ball to green over a pond.I wasn't paying attention but supposedly another player was and said his ball hit on other side but didn't cross hazard line and rolled back in so he had to replay from previous spot.The guy that hit it was saying I don't know how it couldn't have crossed line and was asking me so basically I had to replay from previous spot just by going on what other golfer said.So how does this work?One golfer claiming he knew where it hit has the definitive answer?

[rogolf]

Ok I have a similar question about something that happened in a tournament earlier this year.One of the players hit his ball to green over a pond.I wasn't paying attention but supposedly another player was and said his ball hit on other side but didn't cross hazard line and rolled back in so he had to replay from previous spot.The guy that hit it was saying I don't know how it couldn't have crossed line and was asking me so basically I had to replay from previous spot just by going on what other golfer said.So how does this work?One golfer claiming he knew where it hit has the definitive answer?

It's a question of fact whether or not the ball crossed the line - one must collect all the facts, not just opinions.  Perhaps there is a ball mark?  Maybe someone else saw it?

[wadesworld]

Ok I have a similar question about something that happened in a tournament earlier this year.One of the players hit his ball to green over a pond.I wasn't paying attention but supposedly another player was and said his ball hit on other side but didn't cross hazard line and rolled back in so he had to replay from previous spot.The guy that hit it was saying I don't know how it couldn't have crossed line and was asking me so basically I had to replay from previous spot just by going on what other golfer said.So how does this work?One golfer claiming he knew where it hit has the definitive answer?

Well, first of all, if the ball did roll back into the hazard, he had another option beyond hitting from the original spot.  Assuming a yellow-staked water hazard, he could have gone to the side of the hazard away from the green, estimated the spot where the ball last crossed the margin on the other side, and then kept that spot between him and the flag and gone back as far as he wished.  Obviously though if it was from the tee and the water came all the way up to the tee, there may not have been an advantage to doing so.

As to whether or not you accept one guys' word as the truth would depend on what other possibilities there were.

The standard for knowledge or virtual certainty is very high.  The player who saw the ball go in the hazard would have to be sure, after considering all available evidence, that there was no other place for the ball to be.

Fourputt, Rulesman or ColinL can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my belief that strictly according to the rules, if nobody saw the the ball except one player and he erroneously claimed knowledge or virtual certainty, and you played a ball under 26-1 based on his claim, then that's just your bad luck.  In short, you have to take the penalty strokes if you didn't keep your eye on your own ball or do enough to establish knowledge or virtual certainty.

However, I would think it likely that in anything other than the most serious USGA competition, committees would likely have leniency on you.  If the guy said he absolutely saw it go into the hazard and not come out, and you took an erroneous drop because of it, I think many committees would have mercy, despite the fact that doing so would be contrary to the rules.

Finally, in stroke play, if the player is uncertain about the knowledge or virtual certainty, note that the player could play another ball under rule 3-3 and let the committee sort it out.

[Rulesman]

If you played a provisional and then, after arriving at the hazard, think it is in the hazard, you must abandon your provisional. If you proceed to play the provisional, you are penalized for playing a wrong ball.

.

No. You must know or be virtually certain the ball is in the hazard.

[Rulesman]

As to whether or not you accept one guys' word as the truth would depend on what other possibilities there were.

The standard for knowledge or virtual certainty is very high.  The player who saw the ball go in the hazard would have to be sure, after considering all available evidence, that there was no other place for the ball to be.

However, I would think it likely that in anything other than the most serious USGA competition, committees would likely have leniency on you.  If the guy said he absolutely saw it go into the hazard and not come out, and you took an erroneous drop because of it, I think many committees would have mercy, despite the fact that doing so would be contrary to the rules.

Finally, in stroke play, if the player is uncertain about the knowledge or virtual certainty, note that the player could play another ball under rule 3-3 and let the committee sort it out.

The committee cannot simply be lenient.

If the matter is reported to them, by the player or anyone else, they would have to review all the evidence, including testimony from the other player, and make a considered ruling on that evidence.

[Aflighter]

the ball did roll back in the hazard.thats not the problem.the question was do you take word of another golfer saying it didn't cross the hazard line near the green before rolling back in.the thing was instead of being able to play from side where green was no closer to hole he had to play from other side of pond because other player said it didn't cross red line near green.

[Gboroman]

In your scenario, yes, you take the word of the other golfer.  There was no other evidence nor witness and the player only stated he did not know how it could've happened, which falls short of virtual certainty.  See if the rules gurus agree.

Now, if the player said he saw it differently and was virtually certain it crossed the hazard line, I don't know.  In the absence of any other evidence, there exists an eye-witness dispute between what the player saw and what the other golfer saw.  I would call this a "tie of evidence" and would default to the player's virtual certainty that he saw what he saw.  However, if a third witness comes in, it breaks the tie.  Personally, for integrity purposes, if someone tells me he saw something that I saw differently or disagreed with, I'm going to go with what they saw or whatever results in the greatest penalty to me just to play it safe.

[Rulesman]

the ball did roll back in the hazard.thats not the problem.the question was do you take word of another golfer saying it didn't cross the hazard line near the green before rolling back in.the thing was instead of being able to play from side where green was no closer to hole he had to play from other side of pond because other player said it didn't cross red line near green.

1) It depends on who the other player was and how confident you are in what he says or sees.

2) Any doubt, play two balls under rule 3-3.

[brookter]

Hi Fred,

Hope you got through all the answers without too much confusion.

Most likely your ruling would be this.

You did not have known or virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard.  As a result you needed to either find your ball within 5 minutes of searching, or play under the lost ball rule which means back to the tee hitting 3.

Could you explain this, please.

The OP says "My playing partner was sure it had hit the bank and ran into the hazard".

So he had a witness who was certain that the ball went into the hazard, and he had no evidence at the time to contradict that certainty. Why isn't that enough to satisfy the condition? (This is a genuine question, not an attempt to be awkward!)

Thanks

[wadesworld]

The committee cannot simply be lenient.

If the matter is reported to them, by the player or anyone else, they would have to review all the evidence, including testimony from the other player, and make a considered ruling on that evidence.

Certainly not arguing that they're allowed to be lenient.  I'm simply making the statement that I think in some very casual tournaments, committees might grant leniency in error.

[wadesworld]

Could you explain this, please.

The OP says "My playing partner was sure it had hit the bank and ran into the hazard".

So he had a witness who was certain that the ball went into the hazard, and he had no evidence at the time to contradict that certainty. Why isn't that enough to satisfy the condition? (This is a genuine question, not an attempt to be awkward!)

Thanks

Brookter,

Rulesman or Fourputt may have better answers, but as mentioned previously, the standard for knowledge or virtual certainty is very high.

This would be an example of knowledge:

"I saw the ball hit on the far bank, roll back into the hazard, saw it stop, and I can still see it sitting there, clearly on the hazard side of the line.  With these binoculars, I can see it's your brand and make of ball, and see your identifying mark."

This would be an example of virtual certainty:

"I saw the ball hit on the far bank and roll back.  The far bank is angled at 45-degrees and very closely mown.  The ball definitely landed softly, bounced and began rolling back.  I cannot see the ball in the closely mown area.  Based on the conditions around the hazard and what I observed, there is no other possible place the ball could be."

This would be an example of neither:

"I saw the ball hit on the far bank and roll back.  There's some tall grass over there and a few bushes, but I'm sure it's in the hazard."

Obviously I'm taking the examples to an extreme, but it's for the purpose of pointing out just how high the standard can be.

In short, it's your responsibility as the player to consider all the factors.  If you do not and jump too quickly to a conclusion, you might suffer the consequence of playing from a wrong place.  That sucks when you make an honest mistake due to bad information or acting too quickly, but you do eventually learn to be more methodical about establishing knowledge or virtual certainty.

[brookter]

wadesworld,

Thanks -- that's a very helpful set of examples. I appreciate your help.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Hi Fred,

Hope you got through all the answers without too much confusion.

Most likely your ruling would be this.

You did not have known or virtual certainty that the ball was in the hazard.  As a result you needed to either find your ball within 5 minutes of searching, or play under the lost ball rule which means back to the tee hitting 3.

Could you explain this, please.

The OP says "My playing partner was sure it had hit the bank and ran into the hazard".

So he had a witness who was certain that the ball went into the hazard, and he had no evidence at the time to contradict that certainty. Why isn't that enough to satisfy the condition? (This is a genuine question, not an attempt to be awkward!)

Thanks

The question has never been whether the ball rolled back into the hazard.  The question is whether or not the ball was beyond the hazard margin line before it rolled back into the water.  It is not uncommon to include 5 or 6 feet of usually dry ground within the margin if that happens to be where the natural break of the land leads to the water.  If the ball hit within that piece of ground, then it was never outside of the marked hazard margin on the far side, and thus must be played from the point where it last entered, which was apparently right in front of the tee.