Virtual Certainty in the Rules of Golf

[GolfLug]

42 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

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:

I appreciate this exercise greatly.

So this is exactly why I changed my mind and how I see it -

Virtually certain (how I interpreted originally): Burden of proof lies in proving that a tree was hit or rough gobbled up. If you can't prove it, it's in the hazard.

Virtual certainty (how I interpret now): Burden of proof lies in proving that a tree was NOT hit or the rough did NOT gobble the ball up. If you can't prove it, it's NOT in the hazard.

So as I see it now, 'Virtual certainty'  does not seem like a higher standard but actually it is an opposite standard to 'virtually certain'.

[jsgolfer]

22 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I appreciate this exercise greatly.

So this is exactly why I changed my mind and how I see it -

Virtually certain (how I interpreted originally): Burden of proof lies in proving that a tree was hit or rough gobbled up. If you can't prove it, it's in the hazard.

Virtual certainty (how I interpret now): Burden of proof lies in proving that a tree was NOT hit or the rough did NOT gobble the ball up. If you can't prove it, it's NOT in the hazard.

So as I see it now, 'Virtual certainty'  does not seem like a higher standard but actually it is an opposite standard to 'virtually certain'.

Next time you're up to play, you can take a closer look at it.  

[GolfLug]

1 minute ago, jsgolfer said:

Next time you're up to play, you can take a closer look at it.  

Yess ! I might just have to do it sooner now than I thought I would... 

[Big C]

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

  I guess you can just hope that you don't get anyone who agrees with me as a referee.

Just curious, have you ever been in a situation as a referee where you had a dispute with a competitor about this? It seems like that would put the referee in a very tough spot. 

The competitor looks around and says something to the effect of "where else could I be?" 

The referee then has to cite alternative possibilities, all of them unlikely but somewhat plausible. Even if the referee is in the right, it is still a very awkward conversation to have. 

And it's probably why in all my years of tournament or competitive golf, I've never seen a player challenge an FC or opponent on the matter.

[DeadMan]

16 minutes ago, Big C said:

Just curious, have you ever been in a situation as a referee where you had a dispute with a competitor about this? It seems like that would put the referee in a very tough spot. 

The competitor looks around and says something to the effect of "where else could I be?" 

The referee then has to cite alternative possibilities, all of them unlikely but somewhat plausible. Even if the referee is in the right, it is still a very awkward conversation to have. 

And it's probably why in all my years of tournament or competitive golf, I've never seen a player challenge an FC or opponent on the matter.

I have no problem telling other people in my group they need to take stroke and distance. I would also have no problem with a referee who's with the group saying that. If you're in the group and you think it's possible the ball could be somewhere other than in the water hazard, you should speak up.

I think what would be unlikely is 4 players all agree the ball is virtually certain to be in the water hazard, only to have a rules official, who wasn't there, later decide they were all wrong. Partially because the consequence of that decision is likely a DQ.

[Rulesman]

46 minutes ago, Big C said:

Just curious, have you ever been in a situation as a referee where you had a dispute with a competitor about this? It seems like that would put the referee in a very tough spot. 

The competitor looks around and says something to the effect of "where else could I be?" 

The referee then has to cite alternative possibilities, all of them unlikely but somewhat plausible. Even if the referee is in the right, it is still a very awkward conversation to have. 

And it's probably why in all my years of tournament or competitive golf, I've never seen a player challenge an FC or opponent on the matter.

A not uncommon situation is when a player is searching in the rough adjacent to the hazard whilst the referee is working his way towards the situation (generally knowing what is going to happen next).

The player gives up and says to the referee 'Is this where I should drop?'

The referee asks why he thinks he should drop and the player says 'it is virtually certain that it is in the hazard'

The referee responds 'Then why were you searching over there? Back where you came from please.'

[No Mulligans]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

The referee responds 'Then why were you searching over there? Back where you came from please.'

The player responds, 'To eliminate all other possibilities'.

[DaveP043]

I can still see that this situation is very similar to the first example cited in Decision  26-1/1.3.  Based on the sloping terrain, the extremely sparse vegetation, and past experience, and the fact that no ball is visible, a ball struck into that area could certainly fall under the "virtual certainty".  

[Golfingdad]

55 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I can still see that this situation is very similar to the first example cited in Decision  26-1/1.3.  Based on the sloping terrain, the extremely sparse vegetation, and past experience, and the fact that no ball is visible, a ball struck into that area could certainly fall under the "virtual certainty".  

This seems very reasonable and I agree.

[No Mulligans]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I can still see that this situation is very similar to the first example cited in Decision  26-1/1.3.  Based on the sloping terrain, the extremely sparse vegetation, and past experience, and the fact that no ball is visible, a ball struck into that area could certainly fall under the "virtual certainty".  

Yes it does seem similar.  Perhaps seeing it all in action would make it easier to get to 'virtual certainty'.

[Fourputt]

50 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Yes it does seem similar.  Perhaps seeing it all in action would make it easier to get to 'virtual certainty'.

This is why making any sort of a definitive judgement here is so difficult.  To make an accurate ruling on this kind of a question almost requires that the referee be there to see what the conditions truly are like.  The photos taken this time of year may show rough that is quite different from what it would be in mid season.  It's also hard to tell just how steep the slope is.  I've seen a ball stop on a slope where you wouldn't think it could.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

The player responds, 'To eliminate all other possibilities'.

That only works if the area is small enough to be searched entirely and well.

[jsgolfer]

5 hours ago, Fourputt said:

This is why making any sort of a definitive judgement here is so difficult.  To make an accurate ruling on this kind of a question almost requires that the referee be there to see what the conditions truly are like.  The photos taken this time of year may show rough that is quite different from what it would be in mid season.  It's also hard to tell just how steep the slope is.  I've seen a ball stop on a slope where you wouldn't think it could.

I agree.  It slopes a  lot more tha.n it looks in the picture.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

That only works if the area is small enough to be searched entirely and well.

So it's kind of comical today, I decided to play the gold tees and totally yanked my drive left, it went through the tree branches just left of the cart path and I would've thought it was definitely in the hazard.  But I get there and here is where I found it.  From the first picture, if you look way to the left you can barely see it, I saw it from a long distance as I was walking towards where I thought it might have landed.

I took a close up of the ball in the second picture.  It was inches away of catching a slope and rolling into or near the hazard. And even in the second picture you really can't tell how far below the ball my feet are.  Made 5 from here.

The pictures don't do it justice for the slope.