Virtual Certainty in the Rules of Golf

[jsgolfer]

38 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

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.".

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

 

The rough is non-existent, it doesn't ever get that high, never even approaches 2".  There's a lot of bare dirt areas.

[Golfingdad]

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

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.

I get your reasoning, I just question the need for that extra word.  Because to me, certainty means that if I have any doubt, even the tiniest possibility, then the ball is lost outside of the hazard.

 

[Fourputt]

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I get your reasoning, I just question the need for that extra word.  Because to me, certainty means that if I have any doubt, even the tiniest possibility, then the ball is lost outside of the hazard.

 

I think that the point of it is that you can be certain based on absolute observation, and you can be certain based on all available evidence.  The second is  "virtual" certainty, because it isn't based on personal observation, but on weight of evidence.

[No Mulligans]

21 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I get your reasoning, I just question the need for that extra word.  Because to me, certainty means that if I have any doubt, even the tiniest possibility, then the ball is lost outside of the hazard.

 

I think some of us could never get all the way to certainty.  My brain is just wired that way.  For example , how do I know it wasn't picked up by a squirrel?  How do I know it didn't ricochet off a rock and got caught in a tree?  I could just never get to certainty unless I actually see the ball go in or find the ball.  Virtual certainty is pretty hard for me to get to also but I could dismiss the squirrel as being less than 1 in a thousand.

To me virtual certainty is hopelessly vague.  Does it mean 95%? 99%, 99.9%  I don't know.  This is a problem as evidenced by the responses to this thread.

[Fourputt]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I think that the point of it is that you can be certain based on absolute observation, and you can be certain based on all available evidence.  The second is  "virtual" certainty, because it isn't based on personal observation, but on weight of evidence.

Also, even though you have weighed all of the evidence and have arrived at virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard, there is still the minuscule possibility that there is a condition that was not observed or discovered during search that could result in the ball actually not being in the hazard.  That possibility exists because the ball was not observed entering the hazard, nor was it physically found in the hazard, so you are basing your ruling on "virtual" not "ironclad" certainty.

[jsgolfer]

 

52 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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

Definition of virtually:  nearly; almost

So to me, I'm nearly certain, that barring the golf ball hitting a tree, my ball is in the hazard.   Others I'm sure will disagree, but having played that hole many times, I almost never find random golf balls anywhere, other than in the hazard.  And at this time of the year, you should see how many come out of that little creek with no water in it.

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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. 

I strongly disagree. The decision I quoted above says: "'virtual certainty"'implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found." That implies there can be there can be possibility of doubt. We can certainty talk about how much doubt that means, but saying if there's any doubt, it's not virtually certain, conflicts with the decision.

[Golfingdad]

37 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I strongly disagree. The decision I quoted above says: "'virtual certainty"'implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found." That implies there can be there can be possibility of doubt. We can certainty talk about how much doubt that means, but saying if there's any doubt, it's not virtually certain, conflicts with the decision.

There's always going to be a small degree of doubt, as @No Mulligans mentioned, because if there wasn't a small degree of doubt then the ball wouldn't be lost.  This is why I repeat that I'd advocate for trying to pressure the club into pushing the hazard line to the top of the banks of the slope.  On the near side, that means the outside edge of the cart path, and on the far side, that would mean the top of the hill just beyond the first trees (clear in the third picture of @jsgolfer's post on the last page).

It would eliminate most of the disputes and speed up play.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I strongly disagree. The decision I quoted above says: "'virtual certainty"'implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found." That implies there can be there can be possibility of doubt. We can certainty talk about how much doubt that means, but saying if there's any doubt, it's not virtually certain, conflicts with the decision.

Did you read my continuation of the idea in my second post?  Virtual certainty means that all of the evidence points to the ball being in the hazard, but fact that you didn't actually witness the ball entering or remaining in the hazard means that there is a "possibility" of doubt but that you can't point to anything that would support that possibility.  If you find anything in your investigation which could have led to the possibility that the ball might not be in the hazard, no matter how insignificant, then you can't assume that it is in the hazard.  Virtual certainty means that you have eliminated all other possibilities, but still lack actual proof of fact that the ball is in the hazard.

If you can point to the smallest remaining doubt then you do not have virtual certainty.  The standard is "known or virtually certain".  Known means that you saw the ball enter and remain in the hazard, or that a credible witness did so.  Virtually certain means that, lacking that knowledge, you have examined and eliminated every other possibility and still have not found the ball outside of the hazard.

You are trying to leave yourself some wiggle room for making an assumption and the rule does not allow that.  If that was allowed, then the rule would use "virtually assumed" or "almost certain" instead of "virtually certain".

By the way, you can't always use the literal dictionary definitions for understanding how a term is used in the Rules of Golf.  I prefer the first point in the definition according to Merriam-Webster:

Quote

Definition of virtual

1. 1:  being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted a virtualdictator

2. 2:  of, relating to, or using virtual memory

3. 3:  of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence virtual photons — compare real 3

4. 4:  being on or simulated on a computer or computer network print or virtual books avirtual keyboard: such asa :  occurring or existing primarily online virtual shoppingb :  of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality a virtual tour

 

[bkuehn1952]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

 

If you can point to the smallest remaining doubt then you do not have virtual certainty.  

 

I think you are imposing a personal standard for "virtually certain" that goes beyond that which the Rules intend.  Why would the USGA publish a discussion involving "virtually certain" and mention 95%? That 5% seems quite different from your interpretation of the idea.

[Fourputt]

2 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I think you are imposing a personal standard for "virtually certain" that goes beyond that which the Rules intend.  Why would the USGA publish a discussion involving "virtually certain" and mention 95%? That 5% seems quite different from your interpretation of the idea.

Answer me this - how do you "measure" 95%?

[No Mulligans]

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Answer me this - how do you "measure" 95%?

That would be a lot easier to interpret than just the words "Virtual Certainty".  95% is interpreted as I could be wrong 1 out of 20 times, that gives my judgement at least some guidance. 

12 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I think you are imposing a personal standard for "virtually certain" that goes beyond that which the Rules intend.  Why would the USGA publish a discussion involving "virtually certain" and mention 95%? That 5% seems quite different from your interpretation of the idea.

I've always thought of virtual certainty as being a higher standard than that.  And, that 95% was in a discussion of rules modernization and of a ball at rest moving.  I don't think you can take that discussion and % and apply it everywhere that the term "virtual certainty" is used.  The example of seeing a ball splash not being enough proves to me that the standard is often higher than 95%.

[bkuehn1952]

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

Answer me this - how do you "measure" 95%?

You should ask the USGA as they published the number.

i think 5% is larger than "smallest remaining".  Smallest remaining seems more like "1 in a million" than "5 out of 100".

[bkuehn1952]

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

 

I've always thought of virtual certainty as being a higher standard than that.  And, that 95% was in a discussion of rules modernization and of a ball at rest moving.  I don't think you can take that discussion and % and apply it everywhere that the term "virtual certainty" is used.  The example of seeing a ball splash not being enough proves to me that the standard is higher than 95%.

I acknowledge that the reference to 95% is not found in the Rules or Decisions.  Still, the USGA had to have thought about it before they put 95% into print.  As far as I know, the USGA is not modernizing the meaning of virtually certain. So the meaning within the context of Rules modernization remains the same.

Perhaps the 95% only applies to being virtually certain that a ball at rest moved from a specific cause.  That seems odd that we are given more leeway (5%) for doubt only in certain specific instances yet the same term (virtually certain) is used for all situations.

[DaveP043]

53 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I think you are imposing a personal standard for "virtually certain" that goes beyond that which the Rules intend.  Why would the USGA publish a discussion involving "virtually certain" and mention 95%? That 5% seems quite different from your interpretation of the idea.

Without regard to the 95% discussion, the decision to the rule specifically says that "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt.  It specifically says that the physical conditions of the area in question can and should be considered.  It specifically does not say that you have to be 100% certain, or that there must be absolutely no other possibility.  Now, in the specific circumstance at Springfield, I saw a couple of small trees of bushes.  Without actually seeing the hole, I wouldn't hazard a guess.  But the decisions also have a specific example that might apply:

Quote

- It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard, which has closely-mown grass extending right up to its margin. The ball is observed to fall out of sight as it approaches the water hazard but is not seen actually to enter it. From a distance, it can be seen that there is no golf ball lying on the closely-mown grass outside the hazard and, from both prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is known that the contour of the ground surrounding the hazard causes balls to enter the hazard. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from a distance that the ball must be in the water hazard.

 

[DeadMan]

6 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Did you read my continuation of the idea in my second post?  Virtual certainty means that all of the evidence points to the ball being in the hazard, but fact that you didn't actually witness the ball entering or remaining in the hazard means that there is a "possibility" of doubt but that you can't point to anything that would support that possibility.  If you find anything in your investigation which could have led to the possibility that the ball might not be in the hazard, no matter how insignificant, then you can't assume that it is in the hazard.  Virtual certainty means that you have eliminated all other possibilities, but still lack actual proof of fact that the ball is in the hazard.

If you can point to the smallest remaining doubt then you do not have virtual certainty.  The standard is "known or virtually certain".  Known means that you saw the ball enter and remain in the hazard, or that a credible witness did so.  Virtually certain means that, lacking that knowledge, you have examined and eliminated every other possibility and still have not found the ball outside of the hazard.

You are trying to leave yourself some wiggle room for making an assumption and the rule does not allow that.  If that was allowed, then the rule would use "virtually assumed" or "almost certain" instead of "virtually certain".

By the way, you can't always use the literal dictionary definitions for understanding how a term is used in the Rules of Golf.  I prefer the first point in the definition according to Merriam-Webster:

 

Again, the wording of the decision contradicts this. It doesn't say there can't be any other possibility but the ball being in the water. It says some doubt can exist, and it doesn't mention that the doubt arises from not actually finding the ball. If that were where the doubt can from, I would expect that to be in the decision.

Also, virtually is a different word from virtual. The definition of virtually, from Merriam-Webster is:

Quote

1. 1:  almost entirely :  nearly

2. 2:  for all practical purposes virtually unknown

First definition seems the most apt, which again, contradicts what you've been saying. Almost entirely certain does not read to me as the absence of doubt, beyond the fact that you can't find the ball.

If you have something to point to beyond your own personal interpretation, I am honestly really interested in that. Otherwise, this seems like a senseless parsing of words in a vague decision with zero consequences on the golf course. Realistically, if 4 golfers agree that a ball is virtually certain to be in a water hazard, I am really hard pressed to see how a rules official could overrule them, without actually being there.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

Again, the wording of the decision contradicts this. It doesn't say there can't be any other possibility but the ball being in the water. It says some doubt can exist, and it doesn't mention that the doubt arises from not actually finding the ball. If that were where the doubt can from, I would expect that to be in the decision.

Also, virtually is a different word from virtual. The definition of virtually, from Merriam-Webster is:

First definition seems the most apt, which again, contradicts what you've been saying. Almost entirely certain does not read to me as the absence of doubt, beyond the fact that you can't find the ball.

If you have something to point to beyond your own personal interpretation, I am honestly really interested in that. Otherwise, this seems like a senseless parsing of words in a vague decision with zero consequences on the golf course. Realistically, if 4 golfers agree that a ball is virtually certain to be in a water hazard, I am really hard pressed to see how a rules official could overrule them, without actually being there.

The wording in the Rule is "virtual" certainty, (which I read to mean "certain in all but fact") so the definition for the adjective is more appropriate than that for the adverb.  Obviously we are not going to agree.  You want room to wiggle out of the stroke and distance, I don't see that flexibility in the rule.  I guess you can just hope that you don't get anyone who agrees with me as a referee.

[DeadMan]

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The wording in the Rule is "virtual" certainty, (which I read to mean "certain in all but fact") so the definition for the adjective is more appropriate than that for the adverb.  Obviously we are not going to agree.  You want room to wiggle out of the stroke and distance, I don't see that flexibility in the rule.  I guess you can just hope that you don't get anyone who agrees with me as a referee.

Hmm, I didn't realize that the rule says virtual certainty, while the decision goes between virtual certainty and virtually certain. That is pretty sloppy.

For what it's worth, I'm not actually that liberal with the interpretation. In this situation that jsgolfer is asking about, based on what he's told us, it seems to me that if you can't find the ball in that area, and it didn't hit a tree, it is virtually certain to be in the hazard. To me, the question is, "where else could the ball be?" Here, it seems like you'll either find it on the slope fairly quickly, assuming the rough isn't all that high, or it has to be in the hazard. If there were long rough, bushes, or anything else in that area, I would agree with you.

Also, the next decision has something that sounds very similar to this situation, where it says virtual certainty is established:

Quote

It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard, which has closely-mown grass extending right up to its margin. The ball is observed to fall out of sight as it approaches the water hazard but is not seen actually to enter it. From a distance, it can be seen that there is no golf ball lying on the closely-mown grass outside the hazard and, from both prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is known that the contour of the ground surrounding the hazard causes balls to enter the hazard. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from a distance that the ball must be in the water hazard.