ruling please

[Tmiller72]

Yesterday one of the guys I was playing with hooked his ball left. When we got to the area where the ball landed, that area was full of brush piled for removal (the area was about 50 yards long). All of the brush was piled up along the edge of a water hazard. The guy wanted a free drop due to the area being GUR because of the brush piled for removal. (I'll admit that I do know you get free relief from debris piled for removal, I didn't know it was considered GUR) We didn't find the ball, which you don't have to in GUR for free relief. BUT, the ball could easily have bounced through the piled brush or bounced off of it into the water hazard.

 

I think the official ruling would be to play it as a lost ball and go back to the tee. Is this correct?

[Guia]

You are correct, the players must go back to the teeing ground and hit the third shot. Someone would have had to see it enter the water (which he would have to drop anywhere on the line where the ball entered), or the ball would have to have been seen entering the debry/or identified. Yes piled debry would be a drop with no penality. Ernie Els had this happen at the Masters a few years ago.

[KevCarter]

Yesterday one of the guys I was playing with hooked his ball left. When we got to the area where the ball landed, that area was full of brush piled for removal (the area was about 50 yards long). All of the brush was piled up along the edge of a water hazard. The guy wanted a free drop due to the area being GUR because of the brush piled for removal. (I'll admit that I do know you get free relief from debris piled for removal, I didn't know it was considered GUR) We didn't find the ball, which you don't have to in GUR for free relief. BUT, the ball could easily have bounced through the piled brush or bounced off of it into the water hazard.

 

I think the official ruling would be to play it as a lost ball and go back to the tee. Is this correct?

 

First, to get free relief, you would need Knowledge or Virtual Certainty that the ball was in the material piled for removal. In the absence of this, you would need KVC to determine the ball was in the hazard.

 

See decision:

 

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

 

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term "known or virtually certain" indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

 

The same principle 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 (Rule25-1c). (Revised)

 

Changing Relief Option When Re-Dropping Required — See 20-2c/5.

 

 

==========================================================

 

 

Based upon the evidence described, the gentleman may very well be heading back to the tee hitting 3.

 

Kevin

 

[marrigo]

[size=2]I think you have it correct. In order to play it as if it was in GUR or in the hazard [/size][size=2]it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the the area of GUR (brush pile) or [/size][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Hazards"][i][color="#000000"][size=2]hazard[/size][/color][/i][/url][size=2]. Just seeing the ball head in that direction does not satisfy that criteria. In the absence of virtual certainty it must be played under rule 27-1 (stroke and distance). [/size]

[Sawgrass]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is conceivable that there might be a situation (perhaps this very one) where you can tell with virtual certainty that the ball can only be either in the hazard [u]or[/u] in a large pile of debris piled for removal. For instance, if it's a lateral hazard covering a lot of ground and the only thing beyond the margin is smooth, closely-mown lawn and a single pile of debris.

In that case I would assume that it would be fair to take a drop from the hazard line, estimating where the ball entered, with a stroke penalty -- rather than go back to the tee, since at worst the ball was in the hazard, and at best you would have been due a free drop from the waste pile.

Anybody know if I'm right?

[Tmiller72]

I thought that was correct. I had given him some bad info by saying piled for removal and GUR weren't the same thing, brain fart on my part since the relief is the same for both. But in this case my misinformation didn't matter since there was no certain evidence that the ball was indeed lost in the piled brush. From the tee it did sound like it may have flown in there, but that didn't mean it stayed in there and that sound could have been from the ball hitting something in the hazzard. We could move the brush around and if the ball was in there I think we would have found it.

So dispite my slip up, I did make the correct ruling. Which is really all that matters.

[Tmiller72]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='19 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1266614819' post='2263117']
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is conceivable that there might be a situation (perhaps this very one) where you can tell with virtual certainty that the ball can only be either in the hazard [u]or[/u] in a large pile of debris piled for removal. For instance, if it's a lateral hazard covering a lot of ground and the only thing beyond the margin is smooth, closely-mown lawn and a single pile of debris.

In that case I would assume that it would be fair to take a drop from the hazard line, estimating where the ball entered, with a stroke penalty -- rather than go back to the tee, since at worst the ball was in the hazard, and at best you would have been due a free drop from the waste pile.

Anybody know if I'm right?
[/quote]

I certainly see what you are saying, but I wasn't 100% sure if it was in the brush, the hazzard, maybe bounced over the hazzard or maybe even bounced off the brush and shot across the fairway. In this case to be safe, I think you have to go with a lost ball.

[InTheHole]

[quote name='Guia' date='19 February 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1266613514' post='2263079']
You are correct, the players must go back to the teeing ground and hit the third shot. Someone would have had to see it enter the water (which he would have to drop anywhere on the line where the ball entered), or the ball would have to have been seen entering the debry/or identified. Yes piled debry would be a drop with no penality. Ernie Els had this happen at the Masters a few years ago.
[/quote]


There was piled debris at Augusta? That shocks me. I didn't think that place had a blade of grass out of place.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='InTheHole' date='19 February 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1266615385' post='2263140']


There was piled debris at Augusta? That shocks me. I didn't think that place had a blade of grass out of place.
[/quote]

It was in the woods, off the fairway, and a questionable decision IMO. Ernie had to go to more than one official before he found one that saw things his way. Despite that, he pulled off the recovery shot out of the junk in a very impressive fashion.

[marrigo]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='19 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1266614819' post='2263117']
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is conceivable that there might be a situation (perhaps this very one) where you can tell with virtual certainty that the ball can only be either in the hazard [u]or[/u] in a large pile of debris piled for removal. For instance, if it's a lateral hazard covering a lot of ground and the only thing beyond the margin is smooth, closely-mown lawn and a single pile of debris.

In that case I would assume that it would be fair to take a drop from the hazard line, estimating where the ball entered, with a stroke penalty -- rather than go back to the tee, since at worst the ball was in the hazard, and at best you would have been due a free drop from the waste pile.

Anybody know if I'm right?
[/quote]

You may be virtually certain it is in one or the other but without virtual certainty as to which one I think you're stuck. You can't arbitrarily choose which one to consider the ball in, even if it the most likely area. I still think you'd have to go back to the tee. Sucks I know, but in order to take a drop you have to know what you're dropping from. Could be wrong though (and if I am I'm sure someone will very quickly point it out; the knowledge on this site is amazing).

[Sawgrass]

I think I just found the answer to my own question, and I believe my above assumption was right (given the parallel situation in the following decision):

 

1-4/7 Ball Lost in Either Water Hazard or Casual Water Overflowing Hazard

 

Q. A ball is lost. It is either in a water hazard or in casual water overflowing the hazard. What is the proper procedure?

 

A. In equity (Rule <A href="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14254#1-4">1-4), the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule.

 

 

[KevCarter]

I think I just found the answer to my own question, and I believe my above assumption was right (given the parallel situation in the following decision):

 

1-4/7 Ball Lost in Either Water Hazard or Casual Water Overflowing Hazard

 

Q. A ball is lost. It is either in a water hazard or in casual water overflowing the hazard. What is the proper procedure?

 

A. In equity (Rule <A href="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14254#1-4">1-4), the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule.

 

 

 

Very nice find Sawgrass. I completely missed that idea/concept, and I believe you to be 100% correct.

 

Thanks for continuing to dig!

 

Kevin

[Newby]

I'm not sure that the OP said it was definitely in one or the other. It isn't clear if was possibly elsewhere.

IMO it is significant that the decision doesn't give a third option.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Newby' date='19 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1266620656' post='2263340']
I'm not sure that the OP said it was definitely in one or the other. It isn't clear if was possibly elsewhere.

IMO it is significant that the decision doesn't give a third option.
[/quote]

It's not cut and dry from where we sit with the information we have, or the information we lack. However, it is a possibility that I didn't consider, in fact, I didn't know that decision existed...

Kevin

[Tmiller72]

[quote name='kevcarter ' date='19 February 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1266623531' post='2263436']
[quote name='Newby' date='19 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1266620656' post='2263340']
I'm not sure that the OP said it was definitely in one or the other. It isn't clear if was possibly elsewhere.

IMO it is significant that the decision doesn't give a third option.
[/quote]

It's not cut and dry from where we sit with the information we have, or the information we lack. However, it is a possibility that I didn't consider, in fact, I didn't know that decision existed...

Kevin
[/quote]

What other info do you want?

[farmer]

So you go down, poke around the trash for five minutes, you then explain your ruling, then the guy has to go back to the tee where he is roundly criticized for slow play, he hits another and after only a fifteen minute delay, play continues? Was this a tournament or were you playing for kidneys?

[Tmiller72]

[quote name='farmer' date='19 February 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1266638697' post='2264091']
So you go down, poke around the trash for five minutes, you then explain your ruling, then the guy has to go back to the tee where he is roundly criticized for slow play, he hits another and after only a fifteen minute delay, play continues? Was this a tournament or were you playing for kidneys?
[/quote]

We were playing for fun, so he dropped a ball and we moved on. But that has nothing to do with what the correct ruling would be. That's what we are discussing.

[Sawgrass]

If I can attempt to clarify, TMiller's original post did not specify whether or not the ball might reasonably been lost outside the hazard and outside the piled up debris.

 

In my post #5 I raised my own hypothetical issue of a circumstance where the ball clearly had to be either in the water or in the debris, and made a guess as to the acceptability of the option to play it as if it had gone in the water.

 

In TMiller's post #6/7, I believe he acknowledges that there is some possibility that the ball was actually lost outside the hazard and outside the piled debris. If I'm correct in that understanding, then TMiller certainly made the right decision to call it a stroke and distance penalty.

 

Lastly, in my post #11 I found the answer to my hypothetical raised in my post #5, which is that in my situation, a water hazard option is the right one.

 

Beyond all that, Farmer seems to be fed up with the time it takes to discuss and implement the rules. I can only imagine how annoying my recap post here and now must be for him! I think that about sums things up!

 

Good call, TMiller.

[Newby]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='20 February 2010 - 05:48 AM' timestamp='1266644881' post='2264265']

the time it takes to discuss and implement the rules.

[/quote]


Isn't that what rules forums are all about ?

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Tmiller72' date='19 February 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1266636852' post='2264010']
[quote name='kevcarter ' date='19 February 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1266623531' post='2263436']
[quote name='Newby' date='19 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1266620656' post='2263340']
I'm not sure that the OP said it was definitely in one or the other. It isn't clear if was possibly elsewhere.

IMO it is significant that the decision doesn't give a third option.
[/quote]

It's not cut and dry from where we sit with the information we have, or the information we lack. However, it is a possibility that I didn't consider, in fact, I didn't know that decision existed...

Kevin
[/quote]

What other info do you want?
[/quote]

Poor wording on my part probably. Not so much information as seeing the area in an attempt to learn whether the ball [i][b]could[/b][/i] be anywhere else. One of the tests of KVC.

Kevin

[mike03a3]

[quote name='kevcarter ' date='19 February 2010 - 04:08 PM' ][color="#474747"][size="2"][color="#7f7f7f"][size="3"]Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.[/size][/color][/size][/color][/quote]
<sigh> If seeing the splash isn't good enough, what does it take? Send a mini sub down to identify your ball on the bottom? [email="#@$%%"]#@$%%[/email] ridiculous ruling.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='mike03a3' date='24 February 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1267055182' post='2275041']
[quote name='kevcarter ' date='19 February 2010 - 04:08 PM' ][color="#474747"][size="2"][color="#7f7f7f"][size="3"]Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.[/size][/color][/size][/color][/quote]
<sigh> If seeing the splash isn't good enough, what does it take? Send a mini sub down to identify your ball on the bottom? [email="#@$%%"]#@$%%[/email] ridiculous ruling.
[/quote]

Using the entire decision in context, why is it ridiculous? You can't just separate one sentence to bash the entire decision...


Kevin