Ball possibly striking power line

Would be curious for some feedback on this situation from today.

Our course has a local rule that any ball that strikes a power line must be replayed with no penalty. It doesn't go into the specifics that the model local rule does as far as virtual certainty on the scorecard, but I assume that virtual certainty still needs to be in place to replay a ball under the rule.

I hit a drive right down the middle of the fairway on our 17th hole of the day, and in mid flight I completely lost it out of the sky. I turned to my group and asked if it hit the power line because it completely disappeared. Everyone said no, because there is a distinct sound you hear if you hit a power line, and no one heard it.

I walked up to where my ball should have been and it was nowhere to be found. I continued to insist that it was possible the ball hit the power line, but didnt get much agreement. The area where the ball should have been had a lot of leaves on the ground, which could have obscured the ball if it was there, but there was no hazard or other long grass where it could've been lost as it was the middle of the fairway.

I advised the group that I believed the ball hit the power line and was going to go back to the tee and replay the shot, which I did and finished the hole with the second ball, making a 4.

We then played 18, and because it was a shotgun I had to walk back along the path of 17 on the way into the clubhouse. On the way back in I found the ball that i had lost, 150 yards behind where we were looking, around 130 off the tee, directly under the power lines. I am now certain I hit the lines and dropped straight down.

So at this point

- Does it matter that I had a suspicion off the tee that I hit the lines and couldn't find the ball where it should have been?

- What constitutes virtual certainty in this case? It's really hard to see a ball hit a power line, so do I have to see it ricochet or hear it to get credit?

- When I went back to replay, is it ok that I only hit one ball under my own assumption that I hit the power lines and then asked for a ruling later, intending to add 2 strokes for a lost ball if the committee disagreed? Or did I need to play 2 balls under 3-3? It seems odd to have to play the hole twice when the result is either 4 or 4+2 but I know that 3-3 is a very specific rule that makes you play very specifically.

- Does it matter that I later found the ball and now have virtual certainty of what happened before I signed my card?

Going from bottom to top:

No, it does not matter that you later established virtual certainty that your ball hit the power line. It had to be established within three minutes of the start of your search.

After going back to replay, you should have stated your intention to have this new ball be either a new ball in play or a replayed shot based on the committee’ view of the matter - otherwise it was simply a new ball put in play under S&D. No matter though, IMO you had a lost ball on your hands anyway.

Virtual certainty is, basically, ”Might the ball reasonably not have struck the power line?” Given your description, IMO it might have simply been lost.

“Suspicion” it hit the line is insufficient, you must be 95% certain to gain the right to replay.

One other thought, unless this was match play, your group’s perception of what happened has no relevance other than the fact that it should be evaluated by the committee.

I don't know what lines your group is hitting but I've never heard a sound from when a ball stuck the lines at our course. The guy wires might make a sound because they are tensioned and no insolation.

We have a high voltage transmission line that runs across our course. There is a distinct sound, and quite audible, when the ball strikes or is deflected by them.

> @Sawgrass said:

> Going from bottom to top:

>

> No, it does not matter that you later established virtual certainty that your ball hit the power line. It had to be established within three minutes of the start of your search.

>

> After going back to replay, you should have stated your intention to have this new ball be either a new ball in play or a replayed shot based on the committee’ view of the matter - otherwise it was simply a new ball put in play under S&D. No matter though, IMO you had a lost ball on your hands anyway.

>

> Virtual certainty is, basically, ”Might the ball reasonably not have struck the power line?” Given your description, IMO it might have simply been lost.

>

> “Suspicion” it hit the line is insufficient, you must be 95% certain to gain the right to replay.

>

> One other thought, unless this was match play, your group’s perception of what happened has no relevance other than the fact that it should be evaluated by the committee.

Prior to returning to the tee to replay, I did state my intention to play the next tee shot as a replayed ball if authorized by the committee.

At that point did I need to play 2 balls under 3-3 or was I ok to play one ball, and treat it as a replayed ball if for committee sided with me or a new ball under stroke and distance if they didnt?

Is it wrong of me as the player to bring up the fact that I found my ball later in discussion with the committee? I feel like it may cloud their judgement of the situation.

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> I don't know what lines your group is hitting but I've never heard a sound from when a ball stuck the lines at our course. The guy wires might make a sound because they are tensioned and no insolation.

They are high voltage municipal power lines. When the ball hits them they normally make a high pitched sound like a gun going off in star wars. You can hear it from a hole away.

I think usually the sound comes from the ball glancing off the line in flight. I believe based on where I ultimately found my ball that mine did not make a sound because it struck the line directly and fell straight down. Good to remember for next time that I may not always hear the sound.

> @mneumann said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > Going from bottom to top:

> >

> > No, it does not matter that you later established virtual certainty that your ball hit the power line. It had to be established within three minutes of the start of your search.

> >

> > After going back to replay, you should have stated your intention to have this new ball be either a new ball in play or a replayed shot based on the committee’ view of the matter - otherwise it was simply a new ball put in play under S&D. No matter though, IMO you had a lost ball on your hands anyway.

> >

> > Virtual certainty is, basically, ”Might the ball reasonably not have struck the power line?” Given your description, IMO it might have simply been lost.

> >

> > “Suspicion” it hit the line is insufficient, you must be 95% certain to gain the right to replay.

> >

> > One other thought, unless this was match play, your group’s perception of what happened has no relevance other than the fact that it should be evaluated by the committee.

>

> Prior to returning to the tee to replay, I did state my intention to play the next tee shot as a replayed ball if authorized by the committee.

>

> At that point did I need to play 2 balls under 3-3 or was I ok to play one ball, and treat it as a replayed ball if for committee sided with me or a new ball under stroke and distance if they didnt?

>

> Is it wrong of me as the player to bring up the fact that I found my ball later in discussion with the committee? I feel like it may cloud their judgement of the situation.

In a circumstance like this where one ball can be played from the same place for either of the possibilities, you are permitted to play one ball under Rule 20.1c (3). See Interpretation 20.1c(3)/7.

> @mneumann said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > Going from bottom to top:

> >

> > No, it does not matter that you later established virtual certainty that your ball hit the power line. It had to be established within three minutes of the start of your search.

> >

> > After going back to replay, you should have stated your intention to have this new ball be either a new ball in play or a replayed shot based on the committee’ view of the matter - otherwise it was simply a new ball put in play under S&D. No matter though, IMO you had a lost ball on your hands anyway.

> >

> > Virtual certainty is, basically, ”Might the ball reasonably not have struck the power line?” Given your description, IMO it might have simply been lost.

> >

> > “Suspicion” it hit the line is insufficient, you must be 95% certain to gain the right to replay.

> >

> > One other thought, unless this was match play, your group’s perception of what happened has no relevance other than the fact that it should be evaluated by the committee.

>

> Prior to returning to the tee to replay, I did state my intention to play the next tee shot as a replayed ball if authorized by the committee.

>

> At that point did I need to play 2 balls under 3-3 or was I ok to play one ball, and treat it as a replayed ball if for committee sided with me or a new ball under stroke and distance if they didnt?

>

> Is it wrong of me as the player to bring up the fact that I found my ball later in discussion with the committee? I feel like it may cloud their judgement of the situation.

Beyond Colin's spot-on citing, I'll add that it is NOT wrong to bring up facts. But this is an irrelevant fact, and a committee should be wise enough to ignore it.

I'm reminded of the parallel situation in 17.1c which states that a person who has legitimate virtual certainty that his ball is lost in a penalty area may not adjust his play if he subsequently discovers that his ball was in fact not in the penalty area. The fact that it later becomes clear that the ball was not in the penalty area has no bearing - it dropped ball must be played as if the virtual certainty was certainty. Similarly, your lack of virtual certainty that the ball struck the power line can not be upended by later, in some way, proving that it did:

c. Relief for Ball Not Found but in Penalty Area

If a player’s ball has not been found and it is known or virtually certain that the ball came to rest in a penalty area:

The player may take penalty relief under Rule 17.1d or 17.2.

Once the player puts another ball in play to take relief in this way:

The original ball is no longer in play and must not be played.

This is true even if it is then found on the course before the end of the three-minute search time (see Rule 6.3b).

Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get gur relief or would've taken an unplayable, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

It's not actually a change. You were previously permitted to play just one ball if the circumstances made it possible. The only change I see is that (if I remember rightly) you were discouraged from doing so by the relevant Decision, but now there is no such discouragement in the Interpretation.

> @mneumann said:

> Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

>

> After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

>

> I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. It's possible those relief areas overlap in some places, but they are different, therefore, play 2 balls. I'm virtually certain this is still the case in 2019 (get it? 95% certain, haha). In the case of the power line vs lost ball, both instances require you to re-tee, so no need to do that twice. The only question would be to add the lost ball penalty stroke.

Apologies in advance for the bad question but if you were pretty sure as to the ball hitting the power line, did you think about going along the path of the powerline to see if it was there. Monday morning quarterbacking is never wrong...and of course it is Monday morning.

> @jacob7071 said:

> > @mneumann said:

> > Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

> >

> > After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

> >

> > I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

>

> The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. It's possible those relief areas overlap in some places, but they are different, therefore, play 2 balls. I'm virtually certain this is still the case in 2019 (get it? 95% certain, haha). In the case of the power line vs lost ball, both instances require you to re-tee, so no need to do that twice. The only question would be to add the lost ball penalty stroke.

> @jacob7071 said:

> > @mneumann said:

> > Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

> >

> > After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

> > le

> > I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

>

> The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. ....

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but the reason for having to play two balls would not be because relief options are different but because there is nowhere that the possible relief areas for both overlap. But I think that's what you go on to say?

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @jacob7071 said:

> > > @mneumann said:

> > > Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

> > >

> > > After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

> > >

> > > I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

> >

> > The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. It's possible those relief areas overlap in some places, but they are different, therefore, play 2 balls. I'm virtually certain this is still the case in 2019 (get it? 95% certain, haha). In the case of the power line vs lost ball, both instances require you to re-tee, so no need to do that twice. The only question would be to add the lost ball penalty stroke.

>

> > @jacob7071 said:

> > > @mneumann said:

> > > Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

> > >

> > > After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

> > > le

> > > I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

> >

> > The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. ....

>

> Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but the reason for having to play two balls would not be because relief options are different but because there is nowhere that the possible relief areas for both overlap. But I think that's what you go on to say?

It's actually possible that they overlap, if the nearest point of relief is within 2 club lengths of where the ball lies, or is back on a line from the hole. I was told by an official in a tournament once (pre 2019) that if the procedure for determining where to drop is different, then play 2 balls. I understood it to mean the different procedure required using 2 balls even if the areas can overlap. That's either not the case anymore, or never was the case. But under the new rules, if you drop in an area where the relief options overlap, then you are allowed, but not required, to play 1 ball.

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Apologies in advance for the bad question but if you were pretty sure as to the ball hitting the power line, did you think about going along the path of the powerline to see if it was there. Monday morning quarterbacking is never wrong...and of course it is Monday morning.

Definitely in hindsight would've been a great idea.

In practice, this is the first time I have had a major issue with the 3 minute search time in the new rules. Everyone in the group said I was fine off the tee, so I went to where my ball should be (270-290 off the tee). Once I start looking there, I have 180 seconds to find the ball, sometimes walking around in the area to locate it, especially with the leaves, takes 30 seconds. At this point, I start to worry at about 150 seconds left, as a walker, my only chance at finding the ball anywhere near the power lines, which are 150 yards behind me is to sprint back up the hole and begin to look and i dont have much time. Since I saw no deflection, I really have no idea where to start looking, so it's a pretty tough ask at that point. Based on where I found the ball in some deeper rough, I doubt I would've found it within the allotted time. And once I go back to the lines, I completely give up my last 2.5 minutes of trying to find the ball in the fairway

Also, if I insist I hit the lines, and I begin to look when I get to them, I would assume that starts my 3 minute search clock. Then how long do I look before I sprint up the fairway to make sure it didnt miss the lines and isnt out where it should be?

It's actually an unfortunate side effect of walking that others who choose to take a cart have a distinct advantage over how much ground they can cover in this type of search.

> @mneumann said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > Apologies in advance for the bad question but if you were pretty sure as to the ball hitting the power line, did you think about going along the path of the powerline to see if it was there. Monday morning quarterbacking is never wrong...and of course it is Monday morning.

>

> Definitely in hindsight would've been a great idea.

>

> In practice, this is the first time I have had a major issue with the 3 minute search time in the new rules. Everyone in the group said I was fine off the tee, so I went to where my ball should be (270-290 off the tee). Once I start looking there, I have 180 seconds to find the ball, sometimes walking around in the area to locate it, especially with the leaves, takes 30 seconds. At this point, I start to worry at about 150 seconds left, as a walker, my only chance at finding the ball anywhere near the power lines, which are 150 yards behind me is to sprint back up the hole and begin to look and i dont have much time. Since I saw no deflection, I really have no idea where to start looking, so it's a pretty tough ask at that point. Based on where I found the ball in some deeper rough, I doubt I would've found it within the allotted time. And once I go back to the lines, I completely give up my last 2.5 minutes of trying to find the ball in the fairway

>

> Also, if I insist I hit the lines, and I begin to look when I get to them, I would assume that starts my 3 minute search clock. Then how long do I look before I sprint up the fairway to make sure it didnt miss the lines and isnt out where it should be?

>

> It's actually an unfortunate side effect of walking that others who choose to take a cart have a distinct advantage over how much ground they can cover in this type of search.

You're of course so right about the advantage of taking a cart. And I must say that while I'm super happy with the 2019 Rules, I would have preferred a switch from five minutes to four minutes rather than to three.

Your situation sounds like a tough one from a rules point of view. The only thing you could have done to improve your lot was to ask your partner or caddie, or any willing person for that matter, to search one area while you searched the other. Perhaps that's not much help.

> @jacob7071 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @jacob7071 said:

> > > > @mneumann said:

> > > > Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

> > > >

> > > > After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

> > > >

> > > > I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

> > >

> > > The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. It's possible those relief areas overlap in some places, but they are different, therefore, play 2 balls. I'm virtually certain this is still the case in 2019 (get it? 95% certain, haha). In the case of the power line vs lost ball, both instances require you to re-tee, so no need to do that twice. The only question would be to add the lost ball penalty stroke.

> >

> > > @jacob7071 said:

> > > > @mneumann said:

> > > > Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I guess being able to play one ball is part of the new rules that I wasnt aware of, as I have had similar situations in the past, essentially exactly as the interpretation reads where I was trying to get **gur relief or would've taken an unplayable**, where it was very clearly laid out that I had to play two balls with one under each rule and declare which one counted and sort it out at the end. I always thought that was a little odd, so this change is welcome.

> > > >

> > > > After reading all this info believe that the committee probably gave me incorrect relief in this situation, as they did allow my second ball to stand with no penalty. I also believe that the fact that I found my ball where I did influenced their decision.

> > > > le

> > > > I think the leaves in the fairway were the big sticking point here. If there were no leaves then there would be no where else for the ball to be, so I would then be virtually certain that the ball hit the lines as I suspected and was thrown off course. But the leaves bring a variable into play that makes it so I cant say what happened with certainty prior to later finding the ball.

> > >

> > > The reason for requiring 2 balls in this case is the relief options are different - one club length from the nearest point of full relief vs 2 club lengths from current lie, go back on a line, replay last shot. ....

> >

> > Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but the reason for having to play two balls would not be because relief options are different but because there is nowhere that the possible relief areas for both overlap. But I think that's what you go on to say?

>

> It's actually possible that they overlap, if the nearest point of relief is within 2 club lengths of where the ball lies, or is back on a line from the hole. I was told by an official in a tournament once (pre 2019) that if the procedure for determining where to drop is different, then play 2 balls. I understood it to mean the different procedure required using 2 balls even if the areas can overlap. That's either not the case anymore, or never was the case. But under the new rules, if you drop in an area where the relief options overlap, then you are allowed, but not required, to play 1 ball.

If my memory is correct, there has been a bit of misunderstanding between you and the rules person. Perhaps he was just saying that's what you should do without referencing the unusual circumstance in which you were allowed to play the one ball and get a ruling. There wasn't then a _requirement_ to play two balls if you could proceed under two rules by dropping in the one place. It was a matter of being permissible but not recommended.

This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

> @Kossuvissy said:

> This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

>

> It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

LR E-11 says that if virtual certainty exists that a ball hit a power line, the stroke must be cancelled.

If that legitimate virtual certainty exists and a replacement stroke is made, you must continue with that replaced ball.

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Kossuvissy said:

> > This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

> >

> > It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

>

> LR E-11 says that if virtual certainty exists that a ball hit a power line, the stroke must be cancelled.

>

> If that legitimate virtual certainty exists and a replacement stroke is made, you must continue with that replaced ball.

That is my view as well, the player is hitting his 2nd stroke. However, this question was one of the questions in MGA Quiz some years ago and their answer was that the player is lying 3 as there was no possibility for the first ball to hit the cable. I find that answer utterly wrong but it had been approved by the USGA.

The third view given (by an esteemed referee) was that the player may choose which ball to continue with. IMO that is a very strange view and has no support from the Rules.

> @Kossuvissy said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

> > >

> > > It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

> >

> > LR E-11 says that if virtual certainty exists that a ball hit a power line, the stroke must be cancelled.

> >

> > If that legitimate virtual certainty exists and a replacement stroke is made, you must continue with that replaced ball.

>

> That is my view as well, the player is hitting his 2nd stroke. However, this question was one of the questions in MGA Quiz some years ago and their answer was that the player is lying 3 as there was no possibility for the first ball to hit the cable. I find that answer utterly wrong but it had been approved by the USGA.

>

> The third view given (by an esteemed referee) was that the player may choose which ball to continue with. IMO that is a very strange view and has no support from the Rules.

I suspect the distinction here is in regard to the legitimate establishment of virtual certainty, which at times can be subjective.

This seems to address a power line that crosses the normal line of play. We have one that is in the rough, but runs parallel to the first hole. After a bitter rules dispute in a tournament, it was determined that a power line in that location was essentially the same as a tree branch. Correct?

> @farmer said:

> This seems to address a power line that crosses the normal line of play. We have one that is in the rough, but runs parallel to the first hole. After a bitter rules dispute in a tournament, it was determined that a power line in that location was essentially the same as a tree branch. Correct?

Not in my opinion. A power line is a power line, not a tree branch. We have power lines that run parallel to our fifth hole, in the rough, not particularly near the fairway. The local Rule says that if a ball strikes the power line , the stroke is cancelled and must be replayed. This applies regardless of the power line's location or the "quality" of the shot, unless specified.

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > > This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

> > > >

> > > > It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

> > >

> > > LR E-11 says that if virtual certainty exists that a ball hit a power line, the stroke must be cancelled.

> > >

> > > If that legitimate virtual certainty exists and a replacement stroke is made, you must continue with that replaced ball.

> >

> > That is my view as well, the player is hitting his 2nd stroke. However, this question was one of the questions in MGA Quiz some years ago and their answer was that the player is lying 3 as there was no possibility for the first ball to hit the cable. I find that answer utterly wrong but it had been approved by the USGA.

> >

> > The third view given (by an esteemed referee) was that the player may choose which ball to continue with. IMO that is a very strange view and has no support from the Rules.

>

> I suspect the distinction here is in regard to the legitimate establishment of virtual certainty, which at times can be subjective.

The whole idea of 95% certainty is a 5% chance that you are dead wrong. The fact that much later you determined that you are dead wrong doesn't change your KVC determination and rule application. But I think that was previously stated. I just felt like typing -:)

dave

> @rogolf said:

> > @farmer said:

> > This seems to address a power line that crosses the normal line of play. We have one that is in the rough, but runs parallel to the first hole. After a bitter rules dispute in a tournament, it was determined that a power line in that location was essentially the same as a tree branch. Correct?

>

> Not in my opinion. A power line is a power line, not a tree branch. We have power lines that run parallel to our fifth hole, in the rough, not particularly near the fairway. The local Rule says that if a ball strikes the power line , the stroke is cancelled and must be replayed. This applies regardless of the power line's location or the "quality" of the shot, unless specified.

>

In the “purpose” text of the local rule it says: ”This Local Rule should not generally be used for power lines that do not interfere with play of a hole or are out of bounds.”

While the local rule itself does not leave a blank for this sort of specificity, that statement surely makes it a committee decision.

Our hard card specifics that the part of line struck must be in bounds.

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > > > This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

> > > > >

> > > > > It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

> > > >

> > > > LR E-11 says that if virtual certainty exists that a ball hit a power line, the stroke must be cancelled.

> > > >

> > > > If that legitimate virtual certainty exists and a replacement stroke is made, you must continue with that replaced ball.

> > >

> > > That is my view as well, the player is hitting his 2nd stroke. However, this question was one of the questions in MGA Quiz some years ago and their answer was that the player is lying 3 as there was no possibility for the first ball to hit the cable. I find that answer utterly wrong but it had been approved by the USGA.

> > >

> > > The third view given (by an esteemed referee) was that the player may choose which ball to continue with. IMO that is a very strange view and has no support from the Rules.

> >

> > I suspect the distinction here is in regard to the legitimate establishment of virtual certainty, which at times can be subjective.

>

> The whole idea of 95% certainty is a 5% chance that you are dead wrong. The fact that much later you determined that you are dead wrong doesn't change your KVC determination and rule application. But I think that was previously stated. I just felt like typing -:)

>

> dave

Of course, I agree. But I trust we also agree that sometimes people inappropriately claim VC, and that can have some remarkable outcomes.

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > > @Kossuvissy said:

> > > > > > This reminds me of one of rather interesting questions that came up some years ago in which all members of a group of 4 saw one of the players' tee shot to strike an elevated cable and the player cancelled the stroke and played a new one, i.e. his first stroke on that hole. As they reached the area of his ball they all noticed that the cable was so far that there was no way that ball could have hit the cable, meaning they all had experienced an optical illusion / deception. The question was which ball must the player continue with and how many strokes had he already made.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It was (and still is) an interesting question. At the time I presented it to a number of experienced referees and got three different answers. How many do we get here now?

> > > > >

> > > > > LR E-11 says that if virtual certainty exists that a ball hit a power line, the stroke must be cancelled.

> > > > >

> > > > > If that legitimate virtual certainty exists and a replacement stroke is made, you must continue with that replaced ball.

> > > >

> > > > That is my view as well, the player is hitting his 2nd stroke. However, this question was one of the questions in MGA Quiz some years ago and their answer was that the player is lying 3 as there was no possibility for the first ball to hit the cable. I find that answer utterly wrong but it had been approved by the USGA.

> > > >

> > > > The third view given (by an esteemed referee) was that the player may choose which ball to continue with. IMO that is a very strange view and has no support from the Rules.

> > >

> > > I suspect the distinction here is in regard to the legitimate establishment of virtual certainty, which at times can be subjective.

> >

> > The whole idea of 95% certainty is a 5% chance that you are dead wrong. The fact that much later you determined that you are dead wrong doesn't change your KVC determination and rule application. But I think that was previously stated. I just felt like typing -:)

> >

> > dave

>

> Of course, I agree. But I trust we also agree that sometimes people inappropriately claim VC, and that can have some remarkable outcomes.

I agree. I recall once (15 years ago maybe) we were playing a hole late in the day and into the sun. Where I hit my ball the fairway necked down and was bounded by lateral hazards (terminology of the day) on each side. Closely mowed grass to the hazard boundaries. Everybody assumed that my seemingly perfect drive was in the fairway but it could not be found. We were KVC that the ball was in one of the hazards but we had no idea which one. No way was I going back to the tee that late in the day (we wanted to finish the round) so I just took my score out of play WRT the team score and I think ESC'ed the hole (double bogey). That one was interesting.

dave

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @farmer said:

> > > This seems to address a power line that crosses the normal line of play. We have one that is in the rough, but runs parallel to the first hole. After a bitter rules dispute in a tournament, it was determined that a power line in that location was essentially the same as a tree branch. Correct?

> >

> > Not in my opinion. A power line is a power line, not a tree branch. We have power lines that run parallel to our fifth hole, in the rough, not particularly near the fairway. The local Rule says that if a ball strikes the power line , the stroke is cancelled and must be replayed. This applies regardless of the power line's location or the "quality" of the shot, unless specified.

> >

>

> In the “purpose” text of the local rule it says: ”This Local Rule should not generally be used for power lines that do not interfere with play of a hole or are out of bounds.”

>

> While the local rule itself does not leave a blank for this sort of specificity, that statement surely makes it a committee decision.

>

> Our hard card specifics that the part of line struck must be in bounds.

>

>

>

>

At one point in the Rules evolution (probably prior to 2006), the Decision questioned whether a "well-played shot" that struck an overhead power line should be cancelled. After discussion, it was decided that there was no adequate definition of a "well-played shot" and that the term should be removed and only refer to any stroke (even a shank or a stroke played across out of bounds towards the hole). Without specificity in the written Local Rule, imo, it applies to any overhead power line that the ball strikes, and should not specifically exclude power lines just because they are off the course without considering the course/hole layout.

> @rogolf said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @farmer said:

> > > > This seems to address a power line that crosses the normal line of play. We have one that is in the rough, but runs parallel to the first hole. After a bitter rules dispute in a tournament, it was determined that a power line in that location was essentially the same as a tree branch. Correct?

> > >

> > > Not in my opinion. A power line is a power line, not a tree branch. We have power lines that run parallel to our fifth hole, in the rough, not particularly near the fairway. The local Rule says that if a ball strikes the power line , the stroke is cancelled and must be replayed. This applies regardless of the power line's location or the "quality" of the shot, unless specified.

> > >

> >

> > In the “purpose” text of the local rule it says: ”This Local Rule should not generally be used for power lines that do not interfere with play of a hole or are out of bounds.”

> >

> > While the local rule itself does not leave a blank for this sort of specificity, that statement surely makes it a committee decision.

> >

> > Our hard card specifics that the part of line struck must be in bounds.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> At one point in the Rules evolution (probably prior to 2006), the Decision questioned whether a "well-played shot" that struck an overhead power line should be cancelled. After discussion, it was decided that there was no adequate definition of a "well-played shot" and that the term should be removed and only refer to any stroke (even a shank or a stroke played across out of bounds towards the hole). Without specificity in the written Local Rule, imo, it applies to any overhead power line that the ball strikes, and should not specifically exclude power lines just because they are off the course without considering the course/hole layout.

I have some buddies where I can be KVC (to the 95% certainty standard) that any shot that they hit was not well-played and I can be KVC regarding that without even seeing said shot :-)

dave