Here is your opportunity to show what you know about the Rules. Use the Rule Book to answer the following question. Keep you answer brief and to the point and state which Rule(s) you are relying upon to justify your answer.
Ian hits his tee
shot into a lateral water hazard. The ball is visible and he decides to play
it as it lies. Ian plays the ball but neither he nor any of his fellow-competitors see
where it finished, although they all agree that it is virtually certain that the
ball did not remain in the hazard.
Describe the
options which are available to Ian and state the penalty (if any) which applies
to each option.
The player would proceed as detailed according to Rule 26-2b (1), (2) or (3). The penalty would be one or two strokes depending on the option taken. ie. option (1)one stroke option (2) or (3) two strokes.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't Ian just play the ball where it lies, with no penalty, and no fuss?
ReplyDeleteGeneral
DeleteOnce again I can see why you are a General.
As a result of your comment I have looked more closely at the question and feel that it may be possible that you are alluding to a lack of information provided to you as the Rules Official.
Hence, following further questioning of the players concerned, I have modified the question to confirm that neither Ian nor any of his fellow-competitors was able to identify where the ball finished.
I hope this now makes the situation clear. If not, please let me know.
Thanks
Rog
What do you mean by virtually certain Rog? Does this mean certain, or does it mean very nlikely, or dooes it mean likely?? It seems to be a very subjective pair of words!
ReplyDeleteGeneral
DeleteUp until 31/12/2007 we had a standard of ‘proof’ termed ‘reasonable evidence’. Rule 26 of the time, for example, stated that: ‘It is a question of fact …’ whether a ball is lost inside a water hazard. It goes on to say that there must be ‘reasonable evidence’ that the ball is in the hazard. This, of course, was nonsense, as one cannot prove a ‘fact’ on ‘reasonable evidence’. A ‘fact’ and ‘high probability’ are far from the same thing.
The Decisions Books of the time defined ‘reasonable evidence’ in around 175 words. This definition included the words: ‘The evidence must be preponderantly in favour of its (the ball) being in the hazard.’ This seemed straight-forward to the punters, and was easy to manage.
But it was not good enough for the Castle Dwellers. In order to ‘clarify’ (that word again) the situation they dreamt-up ‘known or virtually certain’, or KVC as some like to refer to it (curiously, when I see KVC I always think of fried chicken). The express objective of this development was to overcome the misunderstandings and lack of precision associated with ‘reasonable evidence’, and this new concept became operational from 1/1/2008.
Again, ‘known’ is known, so we do not need to spend much time on that. However, the Decision Book of 2008-09 required 279 words to explain this simplified/clarified KVC concept. But that was not enough: in the current Decisions Book this explanation has been expanded to around 420 words!
It is interesting (and reassuring) to note from this ‘decision’ that “knowledge” can be gained by seeing the ball enter and come to rest in the hazard!
So my suggestion, Zeke, is to ignore the silliness of The Castle and to think in terms of ‘reasonable evidence' that a ball is somewhere or another. If you would like to be creditably conscientious you could apply the burden of proof (used to convict people of murder): ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In lay terms this simply means: ‘you’d better be damned sure’.
Alternatively you could memorise the 420 words of The Decisions Book and try to apply them, bearing in mind, of course, that during the Thursday competition spectators, marshalls and fore-caddies are likely to be thin on the ground.
Or, at a pinch, you could even just apply common sense.
Dearest Rog,
ReplyDelete(1) I wonder where VC could be placed within Rummi's retort?
"[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know."
(2) Why is there not an independent body to interpret the ROG - as there is in case law? Rosie
Dr Rosie
Delete(1) Yes, it is a bit like that. I am sure that DR would be a natural as a rules official, with all its known knowns and unknown unknowns, but when it came to the point he would
'know' all that he needed, or wanted, to know.
(2) I am aware that there are those who view the Decisions Book as the 'case law' of golf. This is, of course, a quite fallacious analogy. As you indicate, case law derives from an independent body (the judiciary) interpreting the law as created by the law-makers (the legislature). The results of this review lead either to ‘case law’ (where the law remains in place as interpreted) or a change to the law by the legislature. The Decisions Book represents the legislature interpreting its own law; and pretty much making it up as they go along (as the recent 'addressing the ball' fiasco exemplifies). It is Caesar judging Caesar. It would be of benefit to all of us if The Castle set up an independent (learned) body which, preferably prior to promulgation of new Rules but cetainly as a result of a query, could advise the Castle Dwellers on what their words actually mean (and possibly suggest improvements where required). Necessary modifications to the Rule(s) could then be made and we would all be clear on the meaning. It is plainly unsatisfactory to be relying on the national association representatives, who attend regular Castle soirees, to apply an objective eye and identify potential problems. Golf does not need a 168000 word 'decisions book' which 'no-one' is interested in, or reads.
Dearest Rog,
ReplyDeleteI have a young friend who was playing in a pro-am recently. On a par 5 hole he played his second shot over some trees towards the green while his playing partners were searching for their balls in the rough. He walked forward to a position where he could see his ball safely on the fairway and then went to help his partners search.
The group in front was on the green and there were several young caddies and other people around. When he went to play his ball, it had disappeared. The Rules Official asked him whether he had identified the ball on the fairway as his or whether he was certain that it was his ball. As the ball was a very long way ahead of where the players were searching he had not been able to identify it but he said that he was quite sure that it was his ball on the fairway. He was advised that his ball was lost and that he had to play another one under stroke and distance penalty.
What does 'known or virtually certain' mean in a case like this?
Incidentally his second ball finished in the virtually identical position on the fairway as his first had done.
Dr Rosie
DeleteI agree with Larry's comments (below) on this situation.
I would like to add, however, that Rules Officials (ROs) are generally keen to be of assistance to players and to be generous where it is possible, but it is up to the player to make the RO's job manageable. Where a player is hesitant or unsure in his assertions as to his view of the situation, it makes it difficult for the RO to give the benefit of the doubt. If we consider possibilities such as the ball which the player saw on the fairway having come from another group while this player was waiting to play towards the green then all available evidence needs to be considered and tested in terms of, for example, where it might have come from, why did no-one see the other player, and so on.
I would also be asking whether the player and the RO inspected the area in which the ball was thought to have come to rest to assess the possibility of it being lost in, say, long grass or water. And as there was a group on the green while the player was playing his shot, I would also be interested to know whether those people were asked whether they had any information of relevance.
As Larry says, there is really not much room for this RO to move, based on the facts provided.
Dearest Rog,
ReplyDeleteReferencing your May question. If it is VC the ball now not in the water hazard, then it is lost. He can drop a new ball into the water hazard from where he hit his previous shot and take a one shot penalty. If he subsequently decides to take rleif from the hazard then there would be an additional one shot penelaty for doing so (so in this case two shots are lost). Forgive me for not referencing the relevant rules - I was trying to apply common sense!
Rosie
Dr Rosie, we cannot have knowledge that the ball seen by your young friend was his ball because nobody saw the ball land on the fairway, the ball had not been identified as his, also we cannot be virtually certain that his ball has been moved by an outside agency as the ball in question may have belonged to another player who played while your friend was assisting his partners looking for their ball, his ball could well be lost in the rough. There is too much doubt for virtual certainty. I think the rules official made the right decision.
ReplyDeleteThank you Larry. I will pass this onto my younger friend who readily admits that it was a learning experience. My point to him at the time was to always identify your ball first. He thought that such action was not showing enough respect for his playing partner and his lost ball. The second takeaway - was for him to tell the RO that he was virtually certain and as Rog said above - generally they will take you at your word. Rosie.
ReplyDeleteLarry and Rosie.
ReplyDeleteWell done.
I think the significant point to take from this question is that no matter how many strokes a player plays within a water hazard, until his/her ball is extricated from the hazard the options described in Rule 26-1 remain open and the point of entry into the hazard remains the reference point for relief pursuant to the Rule.
Only just come across this thread.
ReplyDeleteI believe there were some thoughts about extending this concept to bunkers about 4 years ago but it never got past the drafting stage.
Interesting idea?
aaa
ReplyDeleteAm I reading you correctly? Was the suggestion that bunkers and water hazards be treated in the same way in regard to relief?
That is, a player whose ball is in a bunker would have the option of playing it or taking relief similar to Rule 26-1 a and b.
I have met many players who would think this is a very good idea.
It is strange that while bunkers and water hazards are both hazards they get treated differently in significant ways.
The idea has merit in my view. I will give it some thought and consider a greater alignment of bunker and water hazard provisions within the 'revised rules'. You may have noted that I have already removed the distinction between the two in the matter of immovable obstructions.
My impression was that it would be similar to 26-2 in allowing a ball to be played from where the last stroke outside the bunker was made.
ReplyDeletebut it would only apply to the same bunker as I understood it.
ReplyDeleteThanks
ReplyDeleteI think there is rationality to that.
I am sure you know that to effect such a change would require a simple modification to Rule 28. Definitely worth considering.