PA: Virtual Certainty Impossible?

Can you have Penalty areas where, short of finding your ball, it vitually impossible to have vitual certainty that your ball is lost within the penalty area?

I.e. penalty area is 270 yards from the tee, numerous trees between PA and tee (making it unlikely to see a ball actually land in the PA), moderate kikuyu rough surronding PA, or

Nartow wooded PA that borders on Out of Bounds

Or

PA that consists of fast flowing river without netting that exits golf course property.

Put another way, should intention (of the designers/committee/etc.) in creating the PA allow players to take PA relief (ratger tham LB) when they reasonably suspect their ball is lost in the PA when the circumstances surrounding the PA make it extremely unlikely that a player could ever be virtualy certain their ball is lost within the PA.

My take on the first question is Yes and the 2nd No but a buddy was not too happy with this interpretation (and I have long felt this is a bad rule that is misunderstood and misplayed by many).

I don't agree that it's a bad Rule, but do agree that it is misunderstood by many! There are situations, often created by the Committee marking the course, where it will be impossible to have virtual certainty that the ball not found is in the penalty area. Short of finding the ball in the penalty area, the player has a lost ball. In fact, I've used a response to players that equates to "find me the ball and I'll give you relief from the penalty area, otherwise it's lost". Before marking the course, Committees should read Sections 2C, 5B and 8B of Committee Procedures in the Official Guide to the Rules of Golf.

As it should be, known or virtually certain is a very high standard that must be met; if it's not met and the player uses penalty area relief, he or she has gained a significant advantage over other players.

Thanks for the reply.

So, using my fast flowing river example where there is a chance that a ball you see go splash could eventually come to rest off property. Do you think it is a good rule that the player should have to treat that as a lost ball?

Here are a few reasons I think that is a bad rule:

1. Its confusing to make a distinction between a ball lost inside and outside a Penalty Area when some balls that you see disappear in a PA should really be played under the other rule.

2. For environmental reasons, its not always possible to put up netting as the USGA has recommended.

3. The virtual certainty rule (and severe LB penalties) give an advantage to players with caddies, large galleries, fellow competitors with good eyes, etc

4. 90+% of the time you are going to have an argument when you try to tell someone they have to play it as a lost ball when they feel its very likely to be in a PA (at most levels of competition).

5. It does not always honor the intention of course designers, architects and committees.

I still disagree that it is a bad Rule - it's a Rule designed and written to protect all players in the competition. The previous Rule was much worse ("reasonable evidence" and "preponderance of evidence"). It was changed because of lack of precision that the Rules expected, and I think it is an exactly correct Rule and interpretation. Your example of a "fast flowing river" is extremely rare, and in such circumstances, the Committee in charge could have recognized the possibilities and marked the "fast flowing river" as out of bounds instead of a penalty area, thus avoiding any issues that you describe.

Yes, issues of "known or virtually certain" can be a disagreement between the player and the referee making the decision. As I said, known or virtually certain is a high standard, and the referee will make the call to protect the rest of the players in the competition, as is intended by the high standard. Anything less than that is a disservice to every other player in the field.

I understand what you are saying about protecting other players and maybe the current rule is an improvement over the old one...if it was up to me, I would have the rules treat lost balls, out of bounds AND penalty areas EQUALLY (with the exception being you can play a ball from a PA if you want, but not from OB).

Yes, I know this simplifies some strategy decisions (and may not be as penal as some people like assuming you adopt the PA penalties/options which is what I would do), but it would make the rules less complicated. Overall, I think more players would be oblivious or prefer this approach rather than object to it. I also think it would increase rule compliance.

I’ll piggyback here as this thread came up in a recent round.

We were playing a course for the first time. Par 3. Red stakes in front of the green with a creek that goes across. I hit my ball and see it go directly into the creek. No splash though. There were, what looked like, large tufts of grass in the PA, which isn’t uncommon for Florida.

I walk up there to take a drop, and find out the entire PA is completely dry. Moreover, the “tufts of grass” are actually large rocks. I can’t find my ball in the PA and it’s at that point I realize there’s no way I can take PA relief as I can’t have KVC. I don’t want to go back as there is already a group there, so I concede the hole.

We get up to the raised green and my ball had bounced off a rock and was about 20 feet from the pin. It’s situations like this that just completely irk me about the ROG, PA’s and KVC. I will admit it’s quite infrequent, but if we even had ONE spectator they could have told me my ball was on the green.

Because I didn’t have KVC, I either had to go back or take the 2SP lost ball drop. If I had known they were rocks in that PA, I would have hit a provisional ball from the tee, found my original ball, and likely won the hole.

It’s a hard game.

I just left a course (thank God) where the 6th and 7th holes had the same hazard running down the entire left side and on the other side of the hazard was OB. It caused so many problems. So many times people just assumed their ball was in the hazard and when an opponent or FC would question that, it often times led to an argument. It was always bothersome when one party would have rational view of the situation and try to work through the rule and the other party is flying off the handle. I'm glad to no longer be playing there.

Well, your fault for not looking in the surrounding area 1st, especially for a par 3 where you can give a cursory look around before making the drop. I get what you're saying as "you were positive" it went in, but... you're still allowed to look around. Also, your FCs didn't help much either? Usually, someone is on/near the green and go "hey, is this yours?".

Always give a look on the green when you're near the green an can't find your ball. Usually, if there's a ball missing, I go to the green and walk backwards to make the drop.

You can even take a drop as long as you hadn't hit it yet before someone finds it (14.5.a).

--kC

Such disagreements are easy for the Committee to resolve - move the out of bounds line to the course side of the penalty area.

There were many things at that club that seemed like easy resolutions to issues that never came to fruition. Large part of the reason that I am glad to no longer be there.

Cases regarding penalty areas and KVC are by far the most common of the challenging rulings I've faced as a rules official. People take relief from PAs only to find their balls somewhere in the general area. Sometimes it's a thinned fairway wood shot that skipped over a pond, sometimes the ball hits a rock in a ditch and sometimes the landing area just isn't visible and because the player can't find the ball in the rough, it's assumed to be in the PA. Of course, the true problem is with people not really understanding the requirements of KVC.

Who wants to get into counting shots? I just recalled more precisely what went down.

I looked around for a minute. The green is WELL above the creek so the surface isn’t visible from the creek. I then realized it must have hit one of the rocks and likely still isn’t inside the PA. I don’t have KVC. There is a group on the tee, so I take a PA drop anyway and pitch the ball up onto the green.

At that point we drive up and see my original and my illegally dropped ball. I didn’t want to look up the actual rules as my opponent was going to make 3, or 4, and I doubt I’d beat that, and with the illegal drop I had likely already lost the hole, so I just conceded.

When I don’t have KVC and I drop anyway, in match play, and my opponent doesn’t care and isn’t going to make a claim, do we just play on? Or do I just lose the hole because I dropped when I didn’t have KVC? My opponent is one of those “I don’t want to win like that” types. He was going to let me putt my original ball lying 1 after all that BS. I figured I had lost the hole somewhere in there, even though he didn’t know or care, so I just conceded.

Situationally this is why I believe provisionals should be allowed for PA relief. I had an incident this month where I had to hit over a penalty area and we saw the ball land in the penalty area but the PA had a bunch of rocks. So no one is sure if the ball is playable or not & that ball never crossed the other side off the penalty area so my relief option was from where I just hit from. Instead I have to make the decision from 90 yards away whether that ball is playable or not in the PA before I drop. And if I think it’s playable walk up and find it’s not I have to walk back and slow the entire field up.

I looked around for a minute. The green is WELL above the creek so the surface isn’t visible from the creek. I then realized it must have hit one of the rocks and likely still isn’t inside the PA. I don’t have KVC. There is a group on the tee, so I take a PA drop anyway and pitch the ball up onto the green.

On this sequence, when you know you don't have KVC but take a PA drop anyway and play, you have played from a wrong place (14.7) so have lost the hole in match play. When I don’t have KVC and I drop anyway, in match play, and my opponent doesn’t care and isn’t going to make a claim, do we just play on? 

You have already lost the hole and should recognise that if you are aware of it. If you are both unaware and no-one seeks a ruling the outcome is whatever you agree it is.

The observations in my previous post remain valid.

There is no Rule which permits a provisional for an unplayable ball. (Nor should there be, imo.) And the unplayable ball Rule (Rule 17) is not applicable for a ball in a penalty area.

i understand that. I’m talking about whether or not my ball is playable in a penalty area. Which from the location you last hit your shot you can not tell. That’s why I think you should be allowed in such cases a provisional ball.

solely from a pace of play standpoint think about this , you hit from 190 and know with Virtual certainty that your ball is in the penalty area and did not cross land on the other side off the PA, which rules out a drop from that side. Now you either have to determine if you want to abandon that ball and take your penalty and play from the proper place or walk up to said ball too see if you have a swing & shot. If not you must back and play accordingly. The provisional would only save time.

It might be nice, but won't happen, mainly because it then gives you a choice of which ball you want to play - the original or the second ball - and that's a no-no in the Rules (although it does exist in one Local Rule - the one for a provisional ball when it is not known whether or not your ball is in a penalty area, but if you know your original is in a penalty area, no provisional is permitted). While pace of play is important, it does not override other principles of the game.

There is a model local rule that, if the course’s design meets its conditions, allows for provisional balls for shots feared to be in a penalty area or findable outside it. You take a provisional drop at an acceptable PA relief area, hit that shot, then go search. If you find your original outside the PA, you must abandon the provisional. If you find your ball in a playable position within the PA, you may choose to play it, or abandon it and use the provisional.

I'm not seeing the logic here. Provisional ball is for when, if the ball is not found, you have no choice but to hit again from the previous place. It's all about saving time. If you know the ball is in the PA, no provisional is required, because you have options to play near the PA. If the PA has rocks and your ball is headed there, so the ball may rebound and be lost outside the PA, then you are free to hit a provisional ball. If you find the original ball in the PA, you must lift the provisional. If you don't find the original ball, then you need to decide whether you have KVC that the original came to rest in the PA. If yes, lift the provisional and proceed under PA rule, if no, provisional is now ball in play.

And as RO notes, there should normally never be a situation where you can choose which ball you prefer.

Here’s the logic embraced by the local rule I described: a wide and deep creek crosses a fairway, manicured grounds right up to the PA edge on both sides. Tall reeds within the PA preventing you from seeing if your ball cleared the far side. Without the local rule you must first walk to a bridge crossing the creek, then search for your ball, then go back to the bridge and walk back to a suitable relief area if you can’t find the original. That takes quite a bit of time, and it can neatly be saved with the LR in place.

sure, it gives you more information before you proceed than you’d have without the LR, but that’s true with every provisional you hit (decide not to search for the original or desperately search for the original).

Anyway, I respect it in certain situations.

Yup, fully familiar with that special situation and it's logic. I have put it in place on my course on a hole where you cannot tell from the tee whether you cleared the PA carry from the tee on a par three - the classic pace of play versus potentially offering the player the option of choosing between two outcomes.

Your previous post went up when I was writing my last one, I had not seen it, and mine was only discussing the general principles raised by Aaron, which I think are very different from that special case. I don't know if you ever saw it, but our Rules friend Barry Rhodes used to rail against that local rule, he truly hated it.

'Because I didn’t have KVC, I either had to go back or take the 2SP lost ball drop.'

What is a 2SP lost ball drop, is it LR E-5? But what would have been the area you assumed your ball was lost in? You need to establish that in order to invoke E-5.

I guess you could try to work around it buy saying: Ball hit towards penalty area. Provisional hit. Original ball not found, must play provisional, by hitting provisional, forfeit rights to other PA relief options. Original ball found in PA, must abandon provisional, proceed under applicable PA relief rules.

Isn't that similar to: player hits ball into forest, hits provisional, finds original ball sandwiched between two rocks (literally unplayable) and then being required to abandon the provisional and electing to proceed under unplayable ball?

I guess you could try to work around it buy saying: Ball hit towards penalty area. Provisional hit. Original ball not found, must play provisional, by hitting provisional, forfeit rights to other PA relief options. Original ball found in PA, must abandon provisional, proceed under applicable PA relief rules.

These words are not consistent with the Rules. Ball hit towards PA is not an authority to play a provisional. And hitting a provisional (if it is authorised) does not 'forfeit rights to other PA relief options'. So I'm not making any sense of these words James.

I see that.

I am not debating the rules as written. A ball hit into a penalty area does not allow a provisional.

Suppose we were to create a rule which would provide Aaronwilson a possible means of a provisional for a ball potentially lost in a penalty areas. What I wrote was a way to create this without ever giving player choice of two balls.

I realize I did not clarify this was 'how I'd write a rule to legalize an outcome' I know that outcome is not permitted under current rules.

Edit: model LR B-3 seems to have the matter pretty well covered.

We had the Model Local Rule in place for a hole on our course previously. We discontinued it because of abuse, mainly caused by lack of proper understanding (in spite of postings with explanations and drawings). Players would hit their shot from one side of the (now) yellow penalty area and see the ball land inside the penalty area or outside the penalty area and then roll back into the penalty area, stopping on the "beach" above the water line. It was known or virtually certain that the visible ball was inside the penalty area. The players were not sure if they could play it or not, so they would hit a "provisional", walk the 100 yards or so around the water and then decide which ball they would play. Clear abuse, so the Local Rule was removed. That was about eight years ago, and some members still proceed as it it was still available.

With local rule E5, you just make an honest “estimate” where your ball may have ended up on the course (or OB) and drop either there, or in the nearest closely mown area.

After I figured I hit the rocks, I didn’t, in my mind, have KVC anymore. Lost ball. So my drop in the fairway would satisfy PA relief, which I wasn’t allowed, and E5 relief as my best “estimate” was it caromed well right and into longer grass outside the PA. The relief area in the fairway would be correct for a LARGE area of possible estimates. It’s a par 3 and there’s only so much fairway actually mown.

Really no different than hitting a 250 yard drive on a really foggy day. Look for it, estimate, drop in the fairway with 2SP and keep moving.

I made a comment but discarded it.

(Why cannot you delete your OWN posts???? Gosh, this platform sucks....)

I suppose those members think when you are on a good thing.....

We've come up with a different, almost complete negation of that negative feature of MLR B-3. We've put masses of rocks bordering the PA lake and there is only a metre of ground inside the PA but outside the rocks and we've declared everything within the outer limits of the rocks to be NPZ. So the 'zone of choice' is extremely limited.