Virtual Certainty in the Rules of Golf

[jsgolfer]

So at Springfield, our 2nd hole is a 480 Yd Par 5.  See picture below.  The black line is the cart path and it is a steep slope down to the lateral hazard.  Our course rules person sent out an email, that said the following.

"You tee off on hole number 2, and the ball heads toward the lateral water hazard on the left. From the tee, nobody can see if it reaches the hazard. After a 5 minute search of the area where the ball was headed, the ball is not found. Again, we ask the question “could the ball be anywhere else other than the water hazard?” In this case, due to the ground conditions near the hazard, number of trees, rocks in the hazard, etc., we cannot be virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard, and must proceed under Rule 27-1 Stroke and Distance. "

Now last year, when I played with @DaveP043 and the others, I think we were in agreement that you can see the ball bounce towards the hazard  and it's virtually certain that it is in the hazard if you can't find it (although you can't see it).  If I get the time today or tomorrow maybe I'll take a picture.  Most of the time for me when I hit it left, I'm carrying the traps and it would have to hit the tree and bounce back up the hill in order for it to not be  in the hazard.  Any thoughts from our other rules people?  

[DeadMan]

Is the hazard just a creek running through the left side there or is it more substantial?

Does the ground on the other side of the creek slope towards the creek, too?

How thick is the grass in that area? How often would it stop a ball otherwise heading for the creek? And how likely would it be to lose a ball in that grass?

Here's the decision on what "virtual certainty" means, for reference:

Quote

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. 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.

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.

The same principles would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c).

 

[jsgolfer]

9 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Is the hazard just a creek running through the left side there or is it more substantial?

Does the ground on the other side of the creek slope towards the creek, too?

How thick is the grass in that area? How often would it stop a ball otherwise heading for the creek? And how likely would it be to lose a ball in that grass?

Here's the decision on what "virtual certainty" means, for reference:

 

It's a creek that is about 3-4 feet across with rocks in it, maybe a little bigger in some instances. Grass is not that high and any of the higher grass is inside the hazard markings.  Ground on the other side also slopes to the creek.  The 8th tee is on the other side of the creek and is sloped to the creek.  Only time I've seen a ball stop before the creek is if it hits into one of the trees and the branches deadened the shot.  I played last week and hit my ball over the trap and I found it in the hazard in the rocks.  

[DeadMan]

Caveat - it's really hard to know for sure just on a description and an overhead shot.

That said, I'd say if you can't find the ball after 5 minutes in that area, the vast majority of the time it would be virtually certain to be in the hazard. I think it would depend on how much you can observe of the ball. If you can see it heading that direction, taking a bounce off the slope, and then can't find it, it's virtually certain in the hazard. If you hear it ricochet off the rocks or a tree branch, but don't see where it lands, then I would say it's not virtually certain to be in the hazard.

I think the question is, given what information you have, where else could the ball be? So it would depend on the information you have (i.e., what you saw and heard of the ball). I disagree that if you can't see the ball go into the hazard that it's definitely lost outside the hazard.

I am also curious about what others think, though. I don't think my opinion is gospel. That's just my take on it.

[jsgolfer]

3 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Caveat - it's really hard to know for sure just on a description and an overhead shot.

That said, I'd say if you can't find the ball after 5 minutes in that area, the vast majority of the time it would be virtually certain to be in the hazard. I think it would depend on how much you can observe of the ball. If you can see it heading that direction, taking a bounce off the slope, and then can't find it, it's virtually certain in the hazard. If you hear it ricochet off the rocks or a tree branch, but don't see where it lands, then I would say it's not virtually certain to be in the hazard.

I think the question is, given what information you have, where else could the ball be? So it would depend on the information you have (i.e., what you saw and heard of the ball). I disagree that if you can't see the ball go into the hazard that it's definitely lost outside the hazard.

I am also curious about what others think, though. I don't think my opinion is gospel. That's just my take on it.

Yeah, I have the same take as you, if you see it bounce towards the hazard, it is probably virtually certain, if not, then stroke and distance probably prevails.  i'll try and take a picture of the area tonight.  Hoping to play 9 if the rain holds off.

[Big C]

Other factors that might be in play: How deep is the creek? Is there a current or is it dormant?

In other words, if it's a shallow creek, with no current, where you should be able to see a ball, then an inability to locate it would probably tilt the scales towards a lost ball and the dreaded stroke and distance.

If it's a deep creek, or if there is a high likelihood that a current would carry the ball hundreds of yards in another direction, you could probably have a bit more latitude in claiming "virtually certain."

Ultimately, every situation is unique and the player just has to make the best judgement he can based on the circumstances. In a match play scenario, if I deemed to it be (for lack of a better term) "pretty likely" that an un-recovered ball was in a hazard, I would let him take the drop and move on. It's probably more liberal than the rule allows for, but honestly I have zero interest in getting into a debate on course over the specific meaning of virtually certain.

[GolfLug]

If I can't find it it's in the hazard. Mine runs through dense forests and even climbs hills to find a hazard. Every....single.....time. It's that simple. A virtual certainty. I don't know how to explain but I just know these things... 

[Golfingdad]

These type of questions always remind me of something I learned on here from @Fourputt where he's mentioned something along the lines of this is why it's recommended (by USGA maybe???) that areas adjacent to hazards like this not be groomed such that it's easy to lose your ball, or that those areas where it's likely to lose your ball be included within the hazard.

Otherwise, that hazard might as well have white stakes.

1 hour ago, jsgolfer said:

It's a creek that is about 3-4 feet across with rocks in it, maybe a little bigger in some instances. Grass is not that high and any of the higher grass is inside the hazard markings.  Ground on the other side also slopes to the creek.  The 8th tee is on the other side of the creek and is sloped to the creek.  Only time I've seen a ball stop before the creek is if it hits into one of the trees and the branches deadened the shot.  I played last week and hit my ball over the trap and I found it in the hazard in the rocks.  

Sorry, I hadn't seen this before I posted ... given this, I'd probably consider it in the hazard any time I couldn't find it.

[bkuehn1952]

The USGA recently stated 95% certain = virtually certain as respects a ball at rest moving. Presumably, a similar percentage applies to other situations requiring a known/virtually certain decision.   While it is impossible to accurately quantify the odds in many situations, the 5% does offer a bit more doubt than, say, 99%.

https://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--standard-for-deciding-why-a-ball-moved.html

[RandallT]

What's interesting about the question is that the rules guy at @jsgolfer's club seems to be determining for everyone that if you don't see the ball going in the hazard, then you are not virtually certain it did (paraphrasing, but I think that's a valid interpretation of what he wrote). As a guy who doesn't compete (yet), and is still learning the rules, I find it a bit over-controlling of him to decide in advance prior to the circumstances how the ruling should go on that hole. 

(I did play that hole once with @jsgolfer, but I was lucky enough to avoid that hazard! I did find the hazard on #8 though- I was more than virtually certain! . )

[bkuehn1952]

37 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

These type of questions always remind me of something I learned on here from @Fourputt where he's mentioned something along the lines of this is why it's recommended (by USGA maybe???) that areas adjacent to hazards like this not be groomed such that it's easy to lose your ball, or that those areas where it's likely to lose your ball be included within the hazard.

 

Your memory is accurate.  From the USGA's How to Conduct a Competition:

...Stakes or lines should be so placed that they include in the hazard not only the water, but also rough banks and unkempt growth related directly to it ... 

[No Mulligans]

No one saw the ball go in the hazard the only way you can get to virtually certain, given this is a tiny creek is to find the ball in the hazard.  This seems really, really clear to me.  In the definition of virtually certain, seeing a ball splash is not even enough evidence.  Given that, thinking you can be virtually certain when a ball goes out of sight towards a tiny creek with trees and other obstacles in place, it's ridiculous to think you can get to the "virtually certain" standard as defined by the USGA.  

This situation could result in an unusually large area that the ball could have ended up.  How do you even know you are looking in the right place given the possibility of an unusual bounce off of rocks or a tree?  How can you know where to drop?

I hate the 'virtually certain' wording as I know some that will always just quickly say "I'm sure of it" where I am prone to say "there is no way to know for certain".  It's a real problem to use wording that is pretty much guaranteed to result in very inconsistent decisions as evidenced by the replies to this thread.

37 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

The USGA recently stated 95% certain = virtually certain as respects a ball at rest moving. Presumably, a similar percentage applies to other situations requiring a known/virtually certain decision.   While it is impossible to accurately quantify the odds in many situations, the 5% does offer a bit more doubt than, say, 99%.

https://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--standard-for-deciding-why-a-ball-moved.html

I don't think this 5% rule is stated anywhere in the current rules for the standard of virtually certain.

[Big C]

8 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

No one saw the ball go in the hazard the only way you can get to virtually certain, given this is a tiny creek is to find the ball in the hazard.  

That was the reason for a few of my clarifying questions above. In a still creek that is only 3-4 wide and not very deep, you should be able to find your ball almost any time it ends up in the hazard. But if there is a current, or the creek is abnormally deep or muddy, that could change things. 

 

11 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

 In the definition of virtually certain, seeing a ball splash is not even enough evidence.

Gotta disagree with you there. To my mind the standard of virtual certainty doesn't go so far as to require I prove that my ball didn't jump out of a hazard after landing in it.

If I saw it splash and  a cursory search around the perimeter doesn't show that my ball jumped out, it's virtually certain that it stayed in, as far as I'm concerned. 

[jsgolfer]

7 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

No one saw the ball go in the hazard the only way you can get to virtually certain, given this is a tiny creek is to find the ball in the hazard.  This seems really, really clear to me.  In the definition of virtually certain, seeing a ball splash is not even enough evidence.  Given that, thinking you can be virtually certain when a ball goes out of sight towards a tiny creek with trees and other obstacles in place, it's ridiculous to think you can get to the "virtually certain" standard as defined by the USGA.  

This situation could result in an unusually large area that the ball could have ended up.  How do you even know you are looking in the right place given the possibility of an unusual bounce off of rocks or a tree?  How can you know where to drop?

I hate the 'virtually certain' wording as I know some that will always just quickly say "I'm sure of it" where I am prone to say "there is no way to know for certain".  It's a real problem to use wording that is pretty much guaranteed to result in very inconsistent decisions as evidenced by the replies to this thread.

I don't think this 5% rule is stated anywhere in the current rules for the standard of virtually certain.

Not sure I'd use ridiculous, you don't play that hole every day.  The rocks in the hazard that someone threw in there thinking it would limit erosion, instead has made a nice habitat for weeds.  Finding the ball is very tough during the summer when the weeds grow high.  If all these balls are not going in the hazard, where do you think they are going.  The rough is non-existent in this area, it is a hard slope to the left.  And besides it's up to the player to decide whether to take a ruling, so I'll go with what has occurred to me on the more than I want to remember hitting the ball left of the sand traps.  

I'll take a couple pictures today when I play and post later tonight or tomorrow when i get to work.

[No Mulligans]

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

If I saw it splash and  a cursory search around the perimeter doesn't show that my ball jumped out, it's virtually certain that it stayed in, as far as I'm concerned. 

Me too.  If it was a high ball flight, say a 7 iron and I saw the splash, I wouldn't even do the cursory search.  But still the ball splash not being enough is in the definition.  See post #2.

[jsgolfer]

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

That was the reason for a few of my clarifying questions above. In a still creek that is only 3-4 wide and not very deep, you should be able to find your ball almost any time it ends up in the hazard. But if there is a current, or the creek is abnormally deep or muddy, that could change things. 

 

Gotta disagree with you there. To my mind the standard of virtual certainty doesn't go so far as to require I prove that my ball didn't jump out of a hazard after landing in it.

If I saw it splash and  a cursory search around the perimeter doesn't show that my ball jumped out, it's virtually certain that it stayed in, as far as I'm concerned. 

And I would agree, except for the rocks and weeds.  One of the people on our Greens and COurse Committee thought it would be a good idea to put rip rap in all of our creeks to minimize erosion, he did but he also created a nuisance.

Edit: On all of the holes with a creek on them.  In fact, the rip rap makes the holes look awful.

[No Mulligans]

If they would just change the wording to "more likely than not" the answer would be clear in this situation and we'd all be in agreement.  That is a change I'd like to see.

[jsgolfer]

Here is a google earth view on Number 2. And the view doesn't do the slope justice.

That's what happens during the summer, that grass which is inside of the hazard (almost never any water) grows up so thick that you can't really find your ball, right now you can as there isn't any grass.  In fact I found my ball the other day and took my drop and made 6.  But unless it hits that tree and bounces back up the hill, I'm virtually certain it is in the hazard.