Ball in hazard or not? Seeing it go in...

stringy

Rule 26-1 Relief for ball in hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
If a ball is found in the water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke.

What are people's interpretation of "question of fact", "absence of knowledge" and "virtual certainty"?

This is a massive bone of contention, especially in matchplay.

A player calls the ball (from the tee) going in the hazard, other player says no, you didn't see it go in, player says yes I saw it fly in, other player, no you didn't actually see it go in.... argument ensues.

I think this rule needs to be cleared up, it's too ambiguous.

ShriekingSheet

stringy wrote: »

Rule 26-1 Relief for ball in hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
If a ball is found in the water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke.

What are people's interpretation of "question of fact", "absence of knowledge" and "virtual certainty"?

This is a massive bone of contention, especially in matchplay.

A player calls the ball (from the tee) going in the hazard, other player says no, you didn't see it go in, player says yes I saw it fly in, other player, no you didn't actually see it go in.... argument ensues.

I think this rule needs to be cleared up, it's too ambiguous.

Taking match play as an example, my interpretation would be that the player (A) hitting the ball can apply the rules as they see fit. Agreement with the opponent (B) doesn't come into it.

If B disagrees, ie: says "you didn't see it go in", then he can make a claim.

The match proceeds based on A's application of the rules.

Following the match, B presents his claim to the committee, and they rule based on the evidence. The main thing is usually whether or not the point of entry can be seen from the tee, ie: is it hidden behind a mound or trees.

If you can see the whole hazard line, and the guy says he saw it cross it and go in, what else can you say? If you can't see the full hazard, and it probably went in, the committee may view that differently.

golfnut1

Yeah I agree. One man's "virtually certain" is another man's guess

Jul3s

stringy wrote: »

Rule 26-1 Relief for ball in hazard
It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
If a ball is found in the water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke.

What are people's interpretation of "question of fact", "absence of knowledge" and "virtual certainty"?

This is a massive bone of contention, especially in matchplay.

A player calls the ball (from the tee) going in the hazard, other player says no, you didn't see it go in, player says yes I saw it fly in, other player, no you didn't actually see it go in.... argument ensues.

I think this rule needs to be cleared up, it's too ambiguous.

It's only ambiguous if you want it to be.
My interpretation is, if there is the remotest chance the ball is lost outside the hazard then you cannot be virtually certain and must treat it as a lost ball.

ShriekingSheet

Just to add, in my experience, the R&A and GUI seem to place far more emphasis on being certain of the point of entry, as opposed to purely being sure of whether or not the ball went into the hazard.

You can see this in clubs who have had to bring special rulings in for certain holes where you can't see a hazard. The ruling given can mean that even if you find your ball sitting within the stakes of the hazard (say on a bank of a river), but the lie of the land means you can't physically have seen it go in, you can't take a drop as you're not sure of the point of entry, so aren't sure where to drop. You can only play it as it lies, or play 3 from the tee.

This isn't always the case, but seems to happen frequently when special rulings are sought. Just thought it was interesting how they put the premium on the POE and not the ball.

Whyner

This must have been the case in Dublin City. The 11th which has a lateral water hazard where you can't always see a ball enter is now "OB Buddy". .Changed last week

It's funny hearing guys say "yes it definitely went into the hazard", they then play a provisional and then look for the original. Covering your arse or wha? Hate pulling people up on rules, feel like such a d!ck...

GUI/Clubs deffo need to do something, loads of new members in my club and they haven't the foggiest.

Whyner

Jul3s wrote: »

It's only ambiguous if you want it to be.
My interpretation is, if there is the remotest chance the ball is lost outside the hazard then you cannot be virtually certain and must treat it as a lost ball.

Ever call a provisional if there is the remotest chance the ball is lost outside the hazard?

stringy

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Taking match play as an example, my interpretation would be that the player (A) hitting the ball can apply the rules as they see fit. Agreement with the opponent (B) doesn't come into it.

If B disagrees, ie: says "you didn't see it go in", then he can make a claim.

The match proceeds based on A's application of the rules.

Following the match, B presents his claim to the committee, and they rule based on the evidence. The main thing is usually whether or not the point of entry can be seen from the tee, ie: is it hidden behind a mound or trees.

If you can see the whole hazard line, and the guy says he saw it cross it and go in, what else can you say? If you can't see the full hazard, and it probably went in, the committee may view that differently.

I think that's a good analysis, cross the line of the hazard, it's in the hazard. What about circumstances where the ball flies high over the line of the hazard and could be either A) in the hazard or crossed the hazard and on another fairway, so possibly lost, yet the player can call it in the hazard?

Or another instance where, for example there's big carry of trees, that has a hazard behind it, and OB on the right, the ball can either fall short and remain unfound, go OB or a player can suggest that it's in the hazard beyond the trees. More confusion.

I'm quite good on rules, but I've witnessed and been party to many a debate on the issue, of it being in the hazard, but "no, you didn't see it go in".

My club tried to clarify the rule earlier this year but tbh made a balls of it, and were wrongly decisive on the issue. (I can't find the email that went to members to try and explain)

AldilaMan

Whyner wrote: »

Ever call a provisional if there is the remotest chance the ball is lost outside the hazard?

That's exactly what you should do. You can only play a provisional ball if you think your ball may be lost. If you find your ball inside or outside the hazard the provisional ball is not in play anymore and you must proceed to the relevant rule for taking a drop. I see lots of guys finding their ball in a hazard and trying to continue with the provisional ball.

Jul3s

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Just to add, in my experience, the R&A and GUI seem to place far more emphasis on being certain of the point of entry, as opposed to purely being sure of whether or not the ball went into the hazard.

You can see this in clubs who have had to bring special rulings in for certain holes where you can't see a hazard. The ruling given can mean that even if you find your ball sitting within the stakes of the hazard (say on a bank of a river), but the lie of the land means you can't physically have seen it go in, you can't take a drop as you're not sure of the point of entry, so aren't sure where to drop. You can only play it as it lies, or play 3 from the tee.

This isn't always the case, but seems to happen frequently when special rulings are sought. Just thought it was interesting how they put the premium on the POE and not the ball.

They're exceptional circumstances and point of entry is not the issue the OP raised, and of course the GUI and RANDA should/would put a premium on the point of entry once you have established "virtual certainty" that the ball is in the hazard.

Whyner wrote: »

Ever call a provisional if there is the remotest chance the ball is lost outside the hazard?

If you play a provisional that does not help your case that your ball is in the hazard, i.e. you cannot have "virtual certainty" that your ball is in the hazard if you have played a provisional.

mike12

Hi,
You cannot play a provisional if you think(are sure) the ball is in a water hazard. It is not a option the ball is either lost OB or in the Hazard there is no i will play a provisional.
Even if there is a big carry across water and you are not sure if u made the carry you cannot play a provisional before you go and look for the ball.
I think that with the rule change blind water hazards are pointless they may as well be OB unless you can actually fish the ball out of the water.
Mike

Whyner

mike12 wrote: »

Hi,
You cannot play a provisional if you think(are sure) the ball is in a water hazard. It is not a option the ball is either lost OB or in the Hazard

That's what I was asking although I phrased it poorly. If you can't see it go in the hazard you can't be sure.

It's the 'virtually certain' part that is open to manipulation

Do you have a rule number for the above mike?

Nemesis

To speed up play a local rule can allow you to hit a provisional.

Keano

27-2/1 Provisional Ball Serving as Ball in Play If Original Ball Unplayable or in Water Hazard

Q. May a player announce that a second ball he is going to play is both (a) a provisional ball in case the original ball is lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds and (b) the ball in play in case the original ball is unplayable or in a water hazard?

A. No

the groutch

what would be the ruling if someone did play a "provisional" having declared their ball as being in the harzard?
could you force them to play the "provisional" regardless of where it landed, as by playing it they have effectively declared the original ball as lost?

AldilaMan

A ball is not lost if it is found. Once the ball is found (even in a hazard) the provisional ball cannot be in play. If you do not announce that you are playing a provisional ball then you must add stroke and distance.

Mr. Larson

mike12 wrote: »

Hi,
You cannot play a provisional if you think(are sure) the ball is in a water hazard. It is not a option the ball is either lost OB or in the Hazard there is no i will play a provisional.
Even if there is a big carry across water and you are not sure if u made the carry you cannot play a provisional before you go and look for the ball.
I think that with the rule change blind water hazards are pointless they may as well be OB unless you can actually fish the ball out of the water.
Mike

Sorry if I am being thick but this one always confuses me.

If someone plays a ball that that is heading toward a red stake hazard but the hazard is not in sight from where the stroke was taken, can they (a) claim the ball went into the hazard and just head off towards it without playing a provisional and drop one down there if they can't find it? Or do they (b) have to play a provisional on the basis that the ball could be lost in the hazard (or somewhere else for that matter)?

In the case of (a) if they find the ball when they get down there, happy days, if they don't find the ball they can just drop down there roughly where it 'might' have gone in, which is bollix if that's allowed.

In the case of (b) if they find their ball in the hazard they can drop outside on line of entry from where the stroke was taken and where the ball lies. If they don't they just carry on with the provisional.

Has to be (b) surely?

AldilaMan

Jabberwocky wrote: »

Sorry if I am being thick but this one always confuses me.

If someone plays a ball that that is heading toward a red stake hazard but the hazard is not in sight from where the stroke was taken, can they (a) claim the ball went into the hazard and just head off towards it without playing a provisional and drop one down there if they can't find it? Or do they (b) have to play a provisional on the basis that the ball could be lost in the hazard (or somewhere else for that matter)?

In the case of (a) if they find the ball when they get down there, happy days, if they don't find the ball they can just drop down there roughly where it 'might' have gone in, which is bollix if that's allowed.

In the case of (b) if they find their ball in the hazard they can drop outside on line of entry from where the stroke was taken and where the ball lies. If they don't they just carry on with the provisional.

Has to be (b) surely?

No to a

Cant assume it's in the hazard unless virtually certain. What would support the notion of virtually certain is fairway height grass all around the area of the hazard where you would be certain to find it if not in the hazard. Rough grass around the area of the hazard leads to the possibility of the ball being lost so unless someone saw the ball go in the hazard or the splash then it's a lost ball.

Yes to b

But to be a little pedantic, the point where it crossed the hazard can be determined like you say on a line between where the ball is found in the hazard and where the stroke was played. But the ball can now be dropped on the point at which it crossed the hazard and a line with the flag (or an additional option of within 2 club lengths if it's red staked)

Jul3s

mike12 wrote: »

Hi,
You cannot play a provisional if you think(are sure) the ball is in a water hazard. It is not a option the ball is either lost OB or in the Hazard there is no i will play a provisional.
Even if there is a big carry across water and you are not sure if u made the carry you cannot play a provisional before you go and look for the ball.
I think that with the rule change blind water hazards are pointless they may as well be OB unless you can actually fish the ball out of the water.
Mike

That's inorrect Mike, you can play a provo if you like, although when you play a provo you then can not then claim with "virtual certainty" that your ball is in the hazard and unless you actually find your ball in the hazard you must proceed with the provo.

Keano A Legend wrote: »

27-2/1 Provisional Ball Serving as Ball in Play If Original Ball Unplayable or in Water Hazard

Q. May a player announce that a second ball he is going to play is both (a) a provisional ball in case the original ball is lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds and (b) the ball in play in case the original ball is unplayable or in a water hazard?

A. No

The player can't play a provo for both situations, if he thinks he's ball is lost or OOB then he plays a provo, if he thinks i.e is "virtually certain" he's ball is in a hazard then there is no point in playing a provo, but the provo can't cover both scenarios.

Jul3s

AldilaMan wrote: »

No to a

Cant assume it's in the hazard unless virtually certain. What would support the notion of virtually certain is fairway height grass all around the area of the hazard where you would be certain to find it if not in the hazard. Rough grass around the area of the hazard leads to the possibility of the ball being lost so unless someone saw the ball go in the hazard or the splash then it's a lost ball.

Yes to b

But to be a little pedantic, the point where it crossed the hazard can be determined like you say on a line between where the ball is found in the hazard and where the stroke was played. But the ball can now be dropped on the point at which it crossed the hazard and a line with the flag (or an additional option of within 2 club lengths if it's red staked)

+1 to this
And just to add if it's a red stake you can drop on the opposite side of the hazard, equidistant and no nearer the hole then where the ball last crossed the hazard.

GreeBo

AldilaMan wrote: »

But to be a little pedantic, the point where it crossed the hazard can be determined like you say on a line between where the ball is found in the hazard and where the stroke was played. But the ball can now be dropped on the point at which it crossed the hazard and a line with the flag (or an additional option of within 2 club lengths if it's red staked)

Not at all.
I have hit balls into a river before and where they end up bears no relation to where they crossed the line of the hazard. We actually have the scenario where the ball can flow OB. And if it does, tough, you need to go back and replay.
Harsh huh.

mike12

Jul3s wrote: »

That's inorrect Mike, you can play a provo if you like, although when you play a provo you then can not then claim with "virtual certainty" that your ball is in the hazard and unless you actually find your ball in the hazard you must proceed with the provo.


The player can't play a provo for both situations, if he thinks he's ball is lost or OOB then he plays a provo, if he thinks i.e is "virtually certain" he's ball is in a hazard then there is no point in playing a provo, but the provo can't cover both scenarios.

Which part is incorrect, Thats what i said there is no way to play a provisional and then say i can't find it it is in the hazard. Its one of those rules where u have to walk back to the tee. You hit the shot and you then have to be certain the ball is in the hazard. Your options then are go forward and see if you can find it before heading back to the tee.

AldilaMan

mike12 wrote: »

Which part is incorrect, Thats what i said there is no way to play a provisional and then say i can't find it it is in the hazard. Its one of those rules where u have to walk back to the tee. You hit the shot and you then have to be certain the ball is in the hazard. Your options then are go forward and see if you can find it before heading back to the tee.

Not true

You should always play a provisional in the event that your ball may be lost. If you don't find your ball then the provisional is the ball in play. This speeds up play for everyone.

Hacker111

Jabberwocky wrote: »

Sorry if I am being thick but this one always confuses me.

If someone plays a ball that that is heading toward a red stake hazard but the hazard is not in sight from where the stroke was taken, can they (a) claim the ball went into the hazard and just head off towards it without playing a provisional and drop one down there if they can't find it? Or do they (b) have to play a provisional on the basis that the ball could be lost in the hazard (or somewhere else for that matter)?

In the case of (a) if they find the ball when they get down there, happy days, if they don't find the ball they can just drop down there roughly where it 'might' have gone in, which is bollix if that's allowed.

In the case of (b) if they find their ball in the hazard they can drop outside on line of entry from where the stroke was taken and where the ball lies. If they don't they just carry on with the provisional.

Has to be (b) surely?

B would the way I see it.... however, how many times have you seen lads drive or hit near water...wander down and say "ah sure it must be in the water" take a drop beside water and move on..rather than go back to the last position played from!

AldilaMan

GreeBo wrote: »

Not at all.
I have hit balls into a river before and where they end up bears no relation to where they crossed the line of the hazard. We actually have the scenario where the ball can flow OB. And if it does, tough, you need to go back and replay.
Harsh huh.

Yea - I take your point about it moving in a stream but generally in a lake you would have a reasonable case for assessing where it crossed the hazard.

I wouldn't agree that if your ball crosses a hazard in play and then flows to an OB part of the stream that your ball is now deemed out of bounds. A lot depends here on whether anyone has seen the ball enter the hazard at a point on the course.

If there is a ruling you know of I'd be grateful if you'll share it

GreeBo

AldilaMan wrote: »

Yea - I take your point about it moving in a stream but generally in a lake you would have a reasonable case for assessing where it crossed the hazard.

I wouldn't agree that if your ball crosses a hazard in play and then flows to an OB part of the stream that your ball is now deemed out of bounds. A lot depends here on whether anyone has seen the ball enter the hazard at a point on the course.

If there is a ruling you know of I'd be grateful if you'll share it

Rule 26-1 Decision 7
Came into effect based on questions from my own club as we have this scenario on the 18th.
Likewise if you hit it OB but it flows back IB then you get to treat it as in the water hazard. Rub of the green and all that.

It comes back to being virtually certain its in the hazard. You have to be virtually certain before you get to the ball. If you are certain and then you get there but find it OB (in the hazard) then its OB.
Also, if you dont find it you cannot be virtually certain its in the hazard in this scenario (you have no way of knowing if its OB or not if you dont find it)
so then you have to treat it as a lost ball I guess.

AldilaMan

GreeBo wrote: »

Rule 26-1 Decision 7
Came into effect based on questions from my own club as we have this scenario on the 18th.
Likewise if you hit it OB but it flows back IB then you get to treat it as in the water hazard. Rub of the green and all that.

It comes back to being virtually certain its in the hazard. You have to be virtually certain before you get to the ball. If you are certain and then you get there but find it OB (in the hazard) then its OB.
Also, if you dont find it you cannot be virtually certain its in the hazard in this scenario (you have no way of knowing if its OB or not if you dont find it)
so then you have to treat it as a lost ball I guess.

Thanks for that. Very unusual scenario but interesting. Did your club introduce a screen to prevent this happening as suggested below?

26-1/7

Ball Moved Out of Bounds by Flow of Water in Water Hazard

Q.The flow of water in a water hazard carries a ball out of bounds. May the player invoke Rule 26-1?
A.No. Since the ball lies out of bounds, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1. Water is not an outside agency - see Definition of "Outside Agency" - and thus the ball would not be replaced under Rule 18-1.

In a situation where it is likely that a ball will be carried out of bounds by the flow of water in a water hazard, it is suggested that a screen be installed to prevent such an occurrence.

Jul3s

mike12 wrote: »

Which part is incorrect, Thats what i said there is no way to play a provisional and then say i can't find it it is in the hazard. Its one of those rules where u have to walk back to the tee. You hit the shot and you then have to be certain the ball is in the hazard. Your options then are go forward and see if you can find it before heading back to the tee.

Apologies Mike I read it wrong you're right, although as I said earlier you can play a provo if you think the ball may be lost outside of a hazard, and if you subsequently find your original ball in the hazard you must play your original ball.

GreeBo

AldilaMan wrote: »

Thanks for that. Very unusual scenario but interesting. Did your club introduce a screen to prevent this happening as suggested below?

Problem with the screen is with maintenance...the amount of crap that accumulates there blocks the river and leads to its own problems...


Would it be fair to say that in this scenario unless you find the ball you have to consider that it is lost and not in the hazard?

SnowDrifts

So a question on this - a playing partner hit his ball towards a staked water/ditch hazard. It went straight into the middle of the hazard so we were all "virtually certain" it was in there. So, there was no provisional played and he proceeded towards the hazard to take his drop.

It was then discovered that, by some miracle, the ball had ricocheted out of the hazard and had gone out of bounds where it was found. So what happens now?

Howjoe1

SnowDrifts wrote: »

So a question on this - a playing partner hit his ball towards a staked water/ditch hazard. It went straight into the middle of the hazard so we were all "virtually certain" it was in there. So, there was no provisional played and he proceeded towards the hazard to take his drop.

It was then discovered that, by some miracle, the ball had ricocheted out of the hazard and had gone out of bounds where it was found. So what happens now?

my guess is that if the ball finishes up out of bounds then it is.....

out of bounds.....and back to the tee box.

but i might be wrong

SnowDrifts

Howjoe1 wrote: »

my guess is that if the ball finishes up out of bounds then it is.....

out of bounds.....and back to the tee box.

but i might be wrong

Thats what he ended up doing but there was a debate along the lines of if you were to declare a ball lost and subsequently find it after playing on, you can't play the first ball. So... if it was virtually certain it was in the hazard.....

nocal

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Thats what he ended up doing but there was a debate along the lines of if you were to declare a ball lost and subsequently find it after playing on, you can't play the first ball. So... if it was virtually certain it was in the hazard.....

Oh holy mother of God....:eek::eek::eek:

SnowDrifts

nocal wrote: »

Oh holy mother of God....:eek::eek::eek:

Ok pedantic pat - I know you can't declare a ball lost. Now, have you got any relevant information to the original post? - No? - Well, be gone.

nocal

Yes - if the ball ends up out of bounds....it is out of bounds....in fact I believe if you even read this thread - this very point is covered - an example of a ball landing in a stream and flowing out of bounds was given. (See post #21.)

So less of your be gone thank you very much.

SnowDrifts

Glad to have a definitive answer, thank you.

PhilipMarlowe

One you have the "virtual certainty" that the ball is in the hazard then it's okay to proceed under the "ball in hazard options". The "virtual" leaves just enough wriggle room. However, if you drop a ball into play and then find the original outside the hazard that's a different story - and it's different again if you played the dropped ball before the original was found (playing from wrong place etc). And it's different again if you elected to drop a ball into play but didn't have the virtual certainty in the first place....

Go to the R&A site and root around in the rules (26, 27, 20?). You'll need to be reading the decisions on the rules rather than the rules themselves where some of these scenarios will likely be covered.