Virtual Certainty in the Rules of Golf

[bkuehn1952]

31 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

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

You are correct.  The 95% is the first time the USGA has specifically mentioned a percentage in any Rules related discussion, I believe.  And in this instance, it relates solely to proposed changes to the Rules related to a ball at rest moving.  Still, one might ask why being 95% certain in once instance would not reasonably apply to all other cases where the standard is known/virtually certain.

[DaveP043]

 

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

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.  

I can't say that I remember that specific hole.  Based on the photo, I can see the potential for a ball lost outside of the hazard, or at least a ball where you can't determine where it entered the hazard because it bounced off a tree.  If I was to look at it again in person (hint) I might simply agree with you, that there's no place else the ball could be, but I can't say I'm certain of that right now.  BTW, does your rules chair have the initials BT?  The guy I'm thinking of used to also be your B-Team captain.  He's really knowledgeable, but was always very strict in his interpretation of the rules.

[Hardspoon]

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

But unless it hits that tree and bounces back up the hill, I'm virtually certain it is in the hazard.  

Question: is it possible for a ball to roll/skip down the slope and OVER the hazard to the other side?  That would affect the likelihood of it being in the hazard.

I agree that this probably should be marked differently. This is one of those situations that would benefit from the proposed "penalty areas" rules.

[No Mulligans]

This thread brought up a question in my mind.  Given that this is a drive into a blind area, there is a wide dispersion of where a ball hit that far into that kind of terrain could end up, and the final spot could be misjudged by 10, 20, 30 or more yards...  

Can a ball that you are virtually certain is in a hazard be considered a lost ball because you can't make a good estimate of where to drop?

[Fourputt]

7 hours 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.

Otherwise, that hazard might as well have white stakes.

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.

Yep.  A course properly marked for normal play should not leave such an area in doubt.  The hazard line should be marked to include the nasty stuff along the creek so that any doubt is removed.  The ball is either found, or it's in the hazard.  If I was marking this course for a competition, I'd mark the lateral water hazard along the left edge of the cart path.

7 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

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 ... 

If the hazard is not marked in this fashion, making it possible that the ball could be lost outside of the hazard, then virtual certainty cannot be assumed just because the ball crossed the cart path.

There is nothing wrong under the rules about marking a course in this manner, it's only a strong recommendation.  But courses which leave such areas outside of the hazard are going to cause some confusion, and for players who want to play by the rules, will create a slow spot on the course, negatively affecting pace of play.

[Buckeyebowman]

10 hours 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:

 

Oh, the quote didn't reproduce the rule reference! I was going to quote this as one of the main reasons that the rules of golf need updated!

You can't find your ball so you must assume that it is lost. Well, DUH! What other assumption could you come to? Even if it's laying in tall grass or plugged in soft ground, if you can't find it, it is, indeed, lost!

Where is it lost? If I hit it at a water hazard I'm likely to assume that it's in there, even if conditions are such that I can't see the occurrence. The rules mention galleries and marshals. I don't know about you, but my buddies and I don't haul any galleries and marshals out there when we play!

 

[jsgolfer]

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Yep.  A course properly marked for normal play should not leave such an area in doubt.  The hazard line should be marked to include the nasty stuff along the creek so that any doubt is removed.  The ball is either found, or it's in the hazard.  If I was marking this course for a competition, I'd mark the lateral water hazard along the left edge of the cart path.

If the hazard is not marked in this fashion, making it possible that the ball could be lost outside of the hazard, then virtual certainty cannot be assumed just because the ball crossed the cart path.

There is nothing wrong under the rules about marking a course in this manner, it's only a strong recommendation.  But courses which leave such areas outside of the hazard are going to cause some confusion, and for players who want to play by the rules, will create a slow spot on the course, negatively affecting pace of play.

There has been talk of doing this for a while, but too many Board Members have complained that too many people wouldn't notice the red markings and ground their club (this goes away in modern rules) and then others who said that getting to drop all the way up the hill is too much a benefit for such a poorly hit shot.  

 

12 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

 

I can't say that I remember that specific hole.  Based on the photo, I can see the potential for a ball lost outside of the hazard, or at least a ball where you can't determine where it entered the hazard because it bounced off a tree.  If I was to look at it again in person (hint) I might simply agree with you, that there's no place else the ball could be, but I can't say I'm certain of that right now.  BTW, does your rules chair have the initials BT?  The guy I'm thinking of used to also be your B-Team captain.  He's really knowledgeable, but was always very strict in his interpretation of the rules.

Rob Thorne is our Rules Chairman, not sure he was the B-Team Captain before, he hasn't since I've been a member for 3 years but he certainly could have been before.  

Here are a couple of pictures.  3rd one is looking up at 2nd from 8th tee.  So you can see the ball hit the ground from the tee, except when it hits one of the trees in the air (which in this instance goes with you need to find it or it's lost).  There is never any rough, so if you're ball stays up it's easy to find and the way it is now, it's not too bad to find in the rocks.   

 

 

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, jsgolfer said:

There has been talk of doing this for a while, but too many Board Members have complained that too many people wouldn't notice the red markings and ground their club (this goes away in modern rules) and then others who said that getting to drop all the way up the hill is too much a benefit for such a poorly hit shot.  

 

Rob Thorne is our Rules Chairman, not sure he was the B-Team Captain before, he hasn't since I've been a member for 3 years but he certainly could have been before.  

Here are a couple of pictures.  3rd one is looking up at 2nd from 8th tee.  So you can see the ball hit the ground from the tee, except when it hits one of the trees in the air (which in this instance goes with you need to find it or it's lost).  There is never any rough, so if you're ball stays up it's easy to find and the way it is now, it's not too bad to find in the rocks.   

 

 

I remember this hole better now. I don't see how the ball cannot roll in to the creek 80-90% of the time. If not I don't think the ball would be THAT hard to find in the rough. Would that not qualify as virtual certainty? A ball that makes it out this far is certain to carry sufficient steam that any benefit of the doubt should go to rolling all the way. 

[DeadMan]

Yeah, I'm sold. Unless it hits a tree or something like that, then I think it's virtually certain to be lost in the water hazard if you can't find it.

[Fourputt]

3 hours ago, GolfLug said:

I remember this hole better now. I don't see how the ball cannot roll in to the creek 80-90% of the time. If not I don't think the ball would be THAT hard to find in the rough. Would that not qualify as virtual certainty? A ball that makes it out this far is certain to carry sufficient steam that any benefit of the doubt should go to rolling all the way. 

I don't see anything from those photos that would change my mind.  90% is NOT virtual certainty.  Not finding the ball after it goes out of sight is not virtual certainty unless there is clearly no place outside of the hazard where it could lie and not be seen.  That usually is interpreted to mean that the fairway cut runs almost to the hazard margin.  

Even 2" rough can hide a ball, especially if it hit a tree and you really don't know quite where it ended up.  I've stated this in other threads - I've had it happen more than once that a ball hit a tree and deflected unseen after impact, and the deflection can be anything from directly below the tree to 30, 40 or more yards away in a random direction.

One time in particular, the tree which was hit was right of the fairway on the outside of a slight dogleg.  After searching the general area and not finding the ball, the player returned to the tee to play under stroke and distance (it was a tournament so no dropping near the offending tree).  After playing his 3rd stroke, he was walking back up the left side of the hole to the landing area and came across a ball.  It turned out to be his first ball, and it was lying in the rough at least 70 yards from the tree it hit, 2" rough on the opposite side of the fairway from the tree.  Had he simply assumed that it was in the area of the tree or in a hazard next to the tree and played it as a hazard drop, he'd have incurred the 2 stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place, and potentially faced being DQ'd for a serious breach.

[Golfingdad]

5 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

There has been talk of doing this for a while, but too many Board Members have complained that too many people wouldn't notice the red markings and ground their club (this goes away in modern rules) and then others who said that getting to drop all the way up the hill is too much a benefit for such a poorly hit shot.  

 

Rob Thorne is our Rules Chairman, not sure he was the B-Team Captain before, he hasn't since I've been a member for 3 years but he certainly could have been before.  

Here are a couple of pictures.  3rd one is looking up at 2nd from 8th tee.  So you can see the ball hit the ground from the tee, except when it hits one of the trees in the air (which in this instance goes with you need to find it or it's lost).  There is never any rough, so if you're ball stays up it's easy to find and the way it is now, it's not too bad to find in the rocks.   

 

 

Looks like this time of year it's a lot easier to follow your ball to its resting point than, say, in May and June when those trees are full of leaves.

And I can't imagine the situation you'd be stuck with in October and November when the ground is covered in leaves.  Eek!

I feel like if I was marking this course, I'd put the red line at the top of the hill on both sides.

[DeadMan]

The hazard line really needs to be moved - I would put it either at the top of the hill or even with the tree line there. Or, the trees should be removed. Either of those would solve the problem.

@Fourputt - If you know that the ball doesn't hit the trees, does that change your mind at all? I completely get what you're saying about not being certain if the ball ricochets off a tree. To me, though, if you can see the ball dive below the trees into that area and still can't find it after searching, it has to be in the hazard. Not 100% certainty, but good enough that it's virtually certain.

[Fourputt]

58 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

The hazard line really needs to be moved - I would put it either at the top of the hill or even with the tree line there. Or, the trees should be removed. Either of those would solve the problem.

@Fourputt - If you know that the ball doesn't hit the trees, does that change your mind at all? I completely get what you're saying about not being certain if the ball ricochets off a tree. To me, though, if you can see the ball dive below the trees into that area and still can't find it after searching, it has to be in the hazard. Not 100% certainty, but good enough that it's virtually certain.

Nope.  Like it says in the Decisions - Even seeing the splash is not automatically virtual certainty.  Seeing a splash in the middle of a pond would give virtual certainty.  Seeing a splash on the edge of the lake or in a narrow stream may or may not provide certainty, depending on other considerations.  You must KNOW that the ball can only be in the hazard.  If there is any possibility that a missing ball might not be in the hazard, then under the rules it is lost.

[jsgolfer]

54 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

The hazard line really needs to be moved - I would put it either at the top of the hill or even with the tree line there. Or, the trees should be removed. Either of those would solve the problem.

@Fourputt - If you know that the ball doesn't hit the trees, does that change your mind at all? I completely get what you're saying about not being certain if the ball ricochets off a tree. To me, though, if you can see the ball dive below the trees into that area and still can't find it after searching, it has to be in the hazard. Not 100% certainty, but good enough that it's virtually certain.

I'm pretty sure this is going to happen when the new rules take affect. Never thought about removing the trees that would also work.

You and I think the same way about a ball going below the trees which you can see land.

[GolfLug]

53 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I don't see anything from those photos that would change my mind.  90% is NOT virtual certainty.  Not finding the ball after it goes out of sight is not virtual certainty unless there is clearly no place outside of the hazard where it could lie and not be seen.  That usually is interpreted to mean that the fairway cut runs almost to the hazard margin.  

Even 2" rough can hide a ball, especially if it hit a tree and you really don't know quite where it ended up.  I've stated this in other threads - I've had it happen more than once that a ball hit a tree and deflected unseen after impact, and the deflection can be anything from directly below the tree to 30, 40 or more yards away in a random direction.

One time in particular, the tree which was hit was right of the fairway on the outside of a slight dogleg.  After searching the general area and not finding the ball, the player returned to the tee to play under stroke and distance (it was a tournament so no dropping near the offending tree).  After playing his 3rd stroke, he was walking back up the left side of the hole to the landing area and came across a ball.  It turned out to be his first ball, and it was lying in the rough at least 70 yards from the tree it hit, 2" rough on the opposite side of the fairway from the tree.  Had he simply assumed that it was in the area of the tree or in a hazard next to the tree and played it as a hazard drop, he'd have incurred the 2 stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place, and potentially faced being DQ'd for a serious breach.

I am going to change my stance. I guess it is guilty unless proven otherwise without a doubt.   

Quote: "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.".

7 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

I'm pretty sure this is going to happen when the new rules take affect. Never thought about removing the trees that would also work.

You and I think the same way about a ball going below the trees which you can see land.

...and mow down rough to 1/2" all the way to the creek then...   ?

 

[Golfingdad]

18 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

You must KNOW that the ball can only be in the hazard.  If there is any possibility that a missing ball might not be in the hazard, then under the rules it is lost.

So what purpose, then, does the word "virtually" even serve?

[GolfLug]

13 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So what purpose, then, does the word "virtually" even serve?

I almost questioned and wrote the same thing. I am tempted to coin a new phrase: 'evidential certainty' for it to be a bit more representative of the meaning.

 

[Fourputt]

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So what purpose, then, does the word "virtually" even serve?

You tell me.  The wording used to be "reasonable doubt", but was changed because "virtual certainty" is a stricter standard.  To me, virtual certainty means that if I have any doubt, even the tiniest possibility, then the ball is lost outside of the hazard.  

When all possibilities have been explored and it has been determined that based on the trajectory of the ball, on any possible deflection, and additionally based on the turf and landscape conditions, that it could only be lost in the hazard, only then then is it virtually certain that it is in the hazard.  That is the standard that I would apply.