Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4170 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Thank you.

My question was actually about the interpretation of virtual certainty -- the credence to be given to a witness in the absence of personal knowledge, rather than than the precise location the ball entered the hazard. Apologies if that wasn't clear.


Posted

To be 'virtually certain' that a ball is in a particular place, the answer to the question 'Is the any chance that the ball may be somewhere else other than in that place?'

If the answer is anything other than an unequivocal 'NO', then it is 'virtually certain' that it is in that place.

Just because it can't be found is not the point.


Posted

Thank you.

My question was actually about the interpretation of virtual certainty -- the credence to be given to a witness in the absence of personal knowledge, rather than than the precise location the ball entered the hazard. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Sorry been busy, moving.  Yuk. The OP said he couldn't see the ball land from where he was standing.  His partner said he was sure it went into the hazard.  I wasn't sure if that meant he actually saw it go in, or he based his comment on  knowing where the hazard was and seeing the ball flight.

Witnesses can be used as evidence in determining virtual certainty.  But sometimes that's only one piece of fact finding.  The ball did turn out to be outside the hazard in the OP's scenario.

We often get these types of question regarding "certainty".  In reality it's hard for me to make a judgment when I didn't actually see it nor have the opportunity to interview the players.

Regards,

John

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4170 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Day 11, 1/11/26.  Today was putting, along about 6' of carpet, with coins on the ground to keep me cognizant of what I'm doing.  I think this is the at-home drill from LSW. (Ugh, missed two of the last four days -- 1/10 and 1/8)
    • Day 9: 2026.01.11 Hit some balls at the range, concentrating on weight distribution at address, got some on film.
    • Day 468 - 2026-01-11 Loooooong day. Did some work in the patio door (as a mirror) when I got home.
    • I caught a video on this driver; the face tech seems crazy. Looking at the heat map for ball speed, hitting it basically anywhere on the face only loses a few percent ball speed. The surprising and counter intuitive part to me was that for flat faced clubs, ball speed loss is directly proportional to distance loss. For clubs with bulge and roll this is apparently not true. The surprising part of that story being that the max distance potential looks to be a tiny pee sized area for this driver, and I feel in general for drivers. The counter intuitive part being (the myth?) that blade irons have a pee sized sweet spot and missing that tiny spot causes dramatic losses. And that modern drivers, maybe 2017 on, have massive sweet spots and are ultra forgiving. Where in reality, if this heat map data is valid and reliable, it might be a bit of the opposite. This insane tech driver appears to have a pea sized "sweet spot" while Mizuno Pro 241 irons are 28% more forgiving compared to the average of all clubs measured. Not compared to other players irons, compared to all clubs from all categories, players to SGI! The Pro 241 being essentially just a solid chunk of metal with no "tech" at all. Which for me devolves into a whole mess of what is forgiveness really? And in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?  
    • Wordle 1,667 3/6 🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.