Author: Hilary

Ladies:

It is difficult to understand just why you can’t hit a provisional ball when using Rule 26, Water hazard. I will be trying to help you with this in TWO e mails. This first one addresses the part about “Virtual certainty” which is what you MUST HAVE to take relief under Rule 26, if you don’t you MUST declare your ball LOST.

Sadly there is no easy way for me to do this for you, so below for you to read is the wording that the USGA has put into the Decisions book this year. They know how hard a concept it is and this is the reason for this amendment to the 2012 Decisions book.

I am more than willing to talk to you about this but this is a good start on your road to understanding this most difficult concept for Rule 26. I will e mail you with yet another way to understand the reasoning next week

HERE BELOW IS WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE DECISIONS BOOK TO HELP GOLFERS UNDERSTAND. THERE ARE SOME GREAT EXAMPLES TOO if you have the stamina to get that far. Good luck!

26-1/1

Meaning of “Known or Virtually Certain”

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be “known or virtually certain” that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of “knowledge or virtual certainty” that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
When a player’s ball cannot be found, “knowledge” may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or groupmay actually observe the ball disappear into the waterhazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide “knowledge” that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.
In the absence of “knowledge” that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be “virtual certainty” that the player’s ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike “knowledge,” “virtual certainty” implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, “virtual certainty” also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.
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.

26-1/1.3

When is it Necessary to Go Forward to Establish “Virtual Certainty”?

Q. Rule 26-1 requires there to be “knowledge or virtual certainty” before proceeding under the provisions of the Rule. In the absence of “knowledge” that a ball is in a water hazard, is it possible to establish the existence of “virtual certainty” without going forward to assess the physical conditions around the water hazard?
A. In the majority of cases, in order for it to be reasonably concluded that the ball does not lie anywhere outside the water hazard, it is necessary to go forward to assess the physical conditions around the hazard. However, there are situations where there will be sufficient evidence that the ball is in the hazard to establish “virtual certainty” without anyone having to go forward to review the physical conditions around the hazard.
In the following examples, the conclusion that it is “virtually certain” that the ball is in the water hazard would be justified without anyone going forward to the water hazard so that the player would be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Rule 26-1.
·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.
·It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards an island putting green. The margin of the water hazard coincides with the apron of the putting green. Both from prior experience and a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is understood that any ball that comes to rest on the apron or the putting green will be visible from where the stroke was made. In this instance, the ball is observed to land on the putting green and roll out of sight. It is therefore concluded that the ball has carried over the green and into the water hazard. The player drops a ball in a dropping zone in front of the hazard, which has been provided by the Committee as an additional option to those under Rule 26-1, and plays to the green. When he arrives at the putting green, he discovers his original ball on the back apron of the green lying on a sunken sprinkler head. Nonetheless, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from where the ball was last played that the ball must be in the water hazard.
In the following example, it cannot be established that there is “virtual certainty” that the ball is in the water hazard without going forward to assess the area surrounding the hazard.
·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 travelling in the direction of the water hazard and it is known from prior experience that, with normal turf conditions, the ball would undoubtedly go into the water hazard. However, on this day, the fairways are wet and therefore it is possible that the ball could have embedded in the fairway and thus might not be in the water hazard. (New)

Well ladies here I am for the last time in 2011, do I hear yippee??!!

I just wanted to go over three more of the Rules/Decisions amendments that may effect your game in 2012.

Jill will be happy about this one. Rule 6-3a time of Starting. This will not effect many of us except in tournaments but it will eliminate confusion.

This Rule is amended to provide that the penalty for starting late, but within five minutes of the starting time, is reduced from disqualification to loss of the first hole in match play or two strokes at the first hole in stroke play. Previously this penalty reduction could only be introduced as a “Condition of Competition” by the Committee.

The big change connected to Rule 6-3 is that you can now be penalized two strokes for STARTING EARLIER, but within five minutes of your starting time.

So ladies synchronize your watches on Tournament days.

Rule 18-2b Ball moved after address. To date the Rules have said that the player has caused their ball to move if it moves after he has addressed it, as in taken his stance and grounded his club. There have been a number of instances where it was certain that the player had not caused his ball to move but as they had addressed it they were given a penalty. This will see an end to situations like the one witnessed during the final round of this year’s Open Championship when Northern Ireland’s Rory McIlroy was penalized when his ball was moved on the seventh green by the wind after he had addressed it.

A new exception is added which exonerates the player from penalty if their ball moves after it has been addressed when it is known or virtually certain that they did not cause the ball to move. For example, if it is seen that a gust of wind moves the ball after it has been addressed, there is no penalty and the ball is played from its new position.

The wording for this exception for 2012 is “If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move THERE IS NO PENALTY”

The 2012 version of the Rules removes the issue of the player’s STANCE and the ball is only addressed when the player has grounded their club immediately in front, or behind his ball.

Lastly………….

Decision 26-1/1.3 Water Hazards They have tried to eliminate inconsistencies and make it clearer when it is necessary to go forward to establish “Virtual Certainty” that your ball has gone in a water hazard. As soon as I receive my Decisions book from the USGA I’ll let you know the exact wording.

That’s all she wrote.

Have a great Holiday season and great golf in 2012.

I hope this helps you.

Hilary