Bryson’s lost ball / spectator

[rogolf]

15 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

It’s an interesting idea, that officials might have some responsibility to convey information, and if they fail to do so in a timely manner, the rules act as though they did do so in a timely manner.   I would be happy if the tour came out and elaborated along those lines, but won’t hold my breath.  
 

It’s also clear to me that this would be some as-yet-unwritten exception to the rule, contrary to everyone’s insistence here that the ruling was obvious under Rule 9 / 18.  

Agree, the ruling is not obvious and it is very doubtful if there is any "yet-written exception to the Rule".

A standard question/example used to be this - player hits his ball into the rough, a child finds it, picks it up and runs off with it.  The child returns five seconds after the permitted search time and tells the player and referee that he's sorry.  What is the ruling?  Answer - lost ball.

[rogolf]

Jimbo is quoting from the Rules of golf and an Interpretation for the definition of Known or Virtually Certain, shown below.

What evidence is there in this situation that the player or referee knew, before the three minute search time expired, that the ball had been picked up and taken by an outside influence? 

It's a good question for the PGATour Rules staff to answer, because the answer is not in the Rules.

 

Known or Virtually Certain/2 – Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires

Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.

Examples of when the player’s later findings are irrelevant include when:

• A player’s tee shot comes to rest in an area containing heavy rough and a large animal hole. After a three-minute search, it is determined that it is not known or virtually certain that the ball is in the animal hole. As the player returns to the teeing area, the ball is found in the animal hole.

  Even though the player has not yet put another ball in play, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball (Rule 18.2b – What to Do When Ball is Lost or Out of Bounds) since it was not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the animal hole, when the search time expired.

• A player cannot find his or her ball and believes it may have been picked up by a spectator (outside influence), but there is not enough evidence to be virtually certain of this. A short time after the three-minute search time expires, a spectator is found to have the player’s ball.

  The player must take stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball (Rule 18.2b) since the movement by the outside influence only became known after the search time expired.

[jimbo123]

8 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

Looking through rule 9 re; ball being moved by outside forces and known/virtually certain, I think it's here:

 

"In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonably delaying play."

 

Very interesting.  What I’m looking at is the second interpretation of KVC here:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/definitions-interpretations.html

 

But now I wonder if the wording you copied from 9.2b(2) “overrides” the general definition of KVC?   It certainly seems broader, allowing not just for known info but info that could be reasonably known (just as you say). 

[rogolf]

3 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

Very interesting.  What I’m looking at is the second interpretation of KVC here:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/definitions-interpretations.html

 

But now I wonder if the wording you copied from 9.2b(2) “overrides” the general definition of KVC?   It certainly seems broader, allowing not just for known info but info that could be reasonably known (just as you say). 

I would suggest that the specific (Interpretation) overrides the general.  That is the purpose of Interpretations.

Edited September 7, 2021 by rogolf

[antip]

IMO, there can be no question, the decision given to Bryson is not consistent with the published Rule book. Clearly the Tournament Referee considered they had sufficient justification to take the action they did, it just didn't come from the Rule book. Unless they make a statement, we can only guess, but the degree of malice he has been receiving (eg "Brooksie, Brooksie") from some audience folk is likely part of the explanation. I'm not expressing any personal opinion on that, or on the player, but it is disappointing some in the audience feel licensed to intervene in the athlete's head space.

[nsxguy]

15 hours ago, bnperrone said:

Looking through rule 9 re; ball being moved by outside forces and known/virtually certain, I think it's here:

 

"In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonably delaying play."

 

If he asked the rules official if there is video or anything to that effect then it's a reasonable effort made and doesn't unreasonably delay play.

 

15 hours ago, antip said:

IMO, there can be no question, the decision given to Bryson is not consistent with the published Rule book. Clearly the Tournament Referee considered they had sufficient justification to take the action they did, it just didn't come from the Rule book. Unless they make a statement, we can only guess, but the degree of malice he has been receiving (eg "Brooksie, Brooksie") from some audience folk is likely part of the explanation. I'm not expressing any personal opinion on that, or on the player, but it is disappointing some in the audience feel licensed to intervene in the athlete's head space.

 

There was a suggestion earlier that the video review was undertaken/requested by Bryson within the 3 minutes.

 

You don't agree Mr perrone's post on KVC would have some bearing on the outcome ?

[bnperrone]

16 hours ago, bnperrone said:

9.6 Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence (including another player in stroke play or another ball) lifted or moved a player’s ball:

• There is no penalty, and

• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

This applies whether or not the player’s ball has been found.

But if it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was lifted or moved by an outside influence and the ball is lost, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief under Rule 18.2.

@nsxguy Exactly. This part has to be what determined the decision and would render the decision 100% in line with the written rules. After all, it states that this applies whether or not the player's ball has been found. If it applies when the ball is never found then certainly it has to supersede the time limit. Like they said during the broadcast. 

 

The players thinking the ball must have been picked up wouldn't be known or virtually certain and the time limit and S&D would've applied. Clear video evidence and shotlink data, on the other hand, makes it known or virtually certain and this is the specific rule to apply.  

[jimbo123]

6 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

There was a suggestion earlier that the video review was undertaken/requested by Bryson within the 3 minutes.

 

You don't agree Mr perrone's post on KVC would have some bearing on the outcome ?

 

A player simply requesting a review within 3 minutes surely can't be sufficient to stop the clock.  They are already getting the enormous advantage of the review aiding in their search; if the player plus the video ref fail to find it within 3 minutes, it must be lost, surely.

 

I agree that Mr perrone's post on KVC raises an interesting question about the case where the review finds that an outside influence moved the ball within 3 minutes but the officials don't communicate it back to the player in time.  It seems that the player might have KVC under the rule 9 definition of KVC in that case.   

 

FWIW though I never saw a suggestion that that happened in Bryson's case.  All the accounts I could find suggested that he was looking blindly for 3 minutes, failed, then subsequently all the review business happened.  In that case I think the rule 9 definition of KVC is irrelevant; Bryson lost his ball under rule 18 before anyone even started considering rule 9.   

[bnperrone]

@jimbo123  Rule 18 accounts for the same KVC scenario, and makes no mention of time limit applying. So, 9.6 and 18 both say the same thing, and 18 refers back to 9.

b. What to Do When Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds

If a ball is lost or out of bounds, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief by adding one penalty stroke and playing the original ball or another ball from where the previous stroke was made (see Rule 14.6).

Exception – Player May Substitute Another Ball Under Other Rule When It Is Known or Virtually Certain What Happened to Ball: Instead of taking stroke-and-distance relief, the player may substitute another ball as allowed under a Rule that applies when his or her ball has not been found and it is known or virtually certain that the ball:

• Came to rest on the course and was moved by an outside influence (see Rule 9.6) or played as a wrong ball by another player (see Rule 6.3c(2)),

• Came to rest on the course in or on a movable obstruction (see Rule 15.2b) or an abnormal course condition (see Rule 16.1e),

• Is in a penalty area (see Rule 17.1c), or

• Was deliberately deflected or stopped by any person (see Rule 11.2c).

[jimbo123]

25 minutes ago, bnperrone said:

@jimbo123  Rule 18 accounts for the same KVC scenario, and makes no mention of time limit applying. So, 9.6 and 18 both say the same thing, and 18 refers back to 9.

b. What to Do When Ball Is Lost or Out of Bounds

If a ball is lost or out of bounds, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief by adding one penalty stroke and playing the original ball or another ball from where the previous stroke was made (see Rule 14.6).

Exception – Player May Substitute Another Ball Under Other Rule When It Is Known or Virtually Certain What Happened to Ball: Instead of taking stroke-and-distance relief, the player may substitute another ball as allowed under a Rule that applies when his or her ball has not been found and it is known or virtually certain that the ball:

• Came to rest on the course and was moved by an outside influence (see Rule 9.6) or played as a wrong ball by another player (see Rule 6.3c(2)),

• Came to rest on the course in or on a movable obstruction (see Rule 15.2b) or an abnormal course condition (see Rule 16.1e),

• Is in a penalty area (see Rule 17.1c), or

• Was deliberately deflected or stopped by any person (see Rule 11.2c).

 

Good point, it does make sense that Rule 18 and Rule 9 would use the same definition of KVC in that instance.

 

However, the 3 minute time limit is still relevant.  I refer back to "Interpretation Known or Virtually Certain/2 - Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires".  That interpretation is solely about rule 18 and the 18.2b exception.   

 

So I think the only fact-pattern which might be interesting here is the one in which the officials determine what happened to the ball within 3 minutes, but don't communicate it to the player.  

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by jimbo123
edit

[bnperrone]

26 minutes ago, jimbo123 said:

 

Good point, it does make sense that Rule 18 and Rule 9 would use the same definition of KVC in that instance.

 

However, the 3 minute time limit is still relevant.  I refer back to "Interpretation Known or Virtually Certain/2 - Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires".  That interpretation is solely about rule 18 and the 18.2b exception.   

 

So I think the only fact-pattern which might be interesting here is the one in which the officials determine what happened to the ball within 3 minutes, but don't communicate it to the player.  

 

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find that the interpretation above is just wrongly written. It doesn't really mesh with the full rules for 9 or 18 but instead stands on its own counter to both. And both rules point back to each other.

 

It is bizarre, I'll give you that, but it is perfectly reasonable for available technology to give the player KVC well within the search time, so I imagine that's how it shook out.

 

At least we aren't talking about DJ being told he might get a penalty after the final round concludes. He DGAF since he won by a high enough margin to brush it off, but I wish that one had come to a head.

 

 

[antip]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

There was a suggestion earlier that the video review was undertaken/requested by Bryson within the 3 minutes.

 

You don't agree Mr perrone's post on KVC would have some bearing on the outcome ?

The rules to date (prior to this ruling) have been very clear. The clock on KVC stops when the clock on search stops. It is not enough for the player to ask whether video can be checked prior to that 3 minute point (we'd all like that capacity), such a request does not stop the clock under the currently published rules. After all, there is ALWAYS someone that knows the truth about whether there was interference by an outside agency, and that truth is known from the split second a ball is lifted.

The 'facts' as reported earlier, on which my previous post was based, were that the new information that the ball was lifted by an outside agency did not arrive within the three minute deadline. If that is true, game over, that ball was "lost" per the rules published to date and no newly arriving information to the player is relevant.

If the info it was lifted arrived before the end of the search time, then there is no issue and the processes were consistent with the currently published rules. And the only thing wrong here was the mis-reporting of the facts (shock/horror!)

But if not, then the PGA Tour, with the explicit agreement of the USGA on their most recent comment on this on their F/B rules page, have just re-written this rule. Would that shock/outrage me? Not at all, the Rules are dynamic and the big money stuff and public perception underpins many of the changes, most of which are good for the game. Just give me full transparency of the changes, and hopefully much more simplification over time, and I'm very happy.

[nsxguy]

30 minutes ago, antip said:

The rules to date (prior to this ruling) have been very clear. The clock on KVC stops when the clock on search stops. It is not enough for the player to ask whether video can be checked prior to that 3 minute point (we'd all like that capacity), such a request does not stop the clock under the currently published rules. After all, there is ALWAYS someone that knows the truth about whether there was interference by an outside agency, and that truth is known from the split second a ball is lifted.

The 'facts' as reported earlier, on which my previous post was based, were that the new information that the ball was lifted by an outside agency did not arrive within the three minute deadline. If that is true, game over, that ball was "lost" per the rules published to date and no newly arriving information to the player is relevant.

If the info it was lifted arrived before the end of the search time, then there is no issue and the processes were consistent with the currently published rules. And the only thing wrong here was the mis-reporting of the facts (shock/horror!)

But if not, then the PGA Tour, with the explicit agreement of the USGA on their most recent comment on this on their F/B rules page, have just re-written this rule. Would that shock/outrage me? Not at all, the Rules are dynamic and the big money stuff and public perception underpins many of the changes, most of which are good for the game. Just give me full transparency of the changes, and hopefully much more simplification over time, and I'm very happy.

 

Couple of things.

 

IIRC the old Rules said something like "If anything arises that isn't covered by the Rules the issue should be resolved "in/with equity", i.e. "do what's fair".

 

And even though you (and others), what Mr Perrone posted notwithstanding, appear to be correct about finding out for sure before the 3 minutes are up, I believe the Rules point out that an incorrect application of a/some(?) rule(s) can be corrected before the player hits his next shot with no time limit specified.

 

in any case, and with replay being a part of virtually every major sport nowadays, I have no problem with discovering the theft of the ball before BDC played his next shot even though it's after the 3 minute time limit for a lost ball.

 

That may or may not be the rule here but I don't think anyone would disagree - that IS the right fair outcome here.

 

[rogolf]

4 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Couple of things.

 

IIRC the old Rules said something like "If anything arises that isn't covered by the Rules the issue should be resolved "in/with equity", i.e. "do what's fair".

 

And even though you (and others), what Mr Perrone posted notwithstanding, appear to be correct about finding out for sure before the 3 minutes are up, I believe the Rules point out that an incorrect application of a/some(?) rule(s) can be corrected before the player hits his next shot with no time limit specified.

 

in any case, and with replay being a part of virtually every major sport nowadays, I have no problem with discovering the theft of the ball before BDC played his next shot even though it's after the 3 minute time limit for a lost ball.

 

That may or may not be the rule here but I don't think anyone would disagree - that IS the right fair outcome here.

 

I disagree.  The Interpretation is very clear about establishing KVC within three minutes.  If not, then how long?

[antip]

24 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Couple of things.

 

IIRC the old Rules said something like "If anything arises that isn't covered by the Rules the issue should be resolved "in/with equity", i.e. "do what's fair".

 

And even though you (and others), what Mr Perrone posted notwithstanding, appear to be correct about finding out for sure before the 3 minutes are up, I believe the Rules point out that an incorrect application of a/some(?) rule(s) can be corrected before the player hits his next shot with no time limit specified.

 

in any case, and with replay being a part of virtually every major sport nowadays, I have no problem with discovering the theft of the ball before BDC played his next shot even though it's after the 3 minute time limit for a lost ball.

 

That may or may not be the rule here but I don't think anyone would disagree - that IS the right fair outcome here.

 

Applying a 'fairness' filter after applying a definitive rule, and changing the rule-based outcome if 'fair' to do so, is perhaps the most certain way to golf chaos you could think of.

There is absolutely no rule uncertainty in the BDC scenario, it is simply a function of the true facts. If KVC arose during the search 3 minutes then replace ball, otherwise S&D. Would it be 'unfair' to require BDC to take S&D? It would depend whether you wished to compare it with every other situation where an outside influence lifts a ball but the rules applied S&D. 

 

 

[nsxguy]

44 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I disagree.  The Interpretation is very clear about establishing KVC within three minutes.  If not, then how long?

 

14 minutes ago, antip said:

Applying a 'fairness' filter after applying a definitive rule, and changing the rule-based outcome if 'fair' to do so, is perhaps the most certain way to golf chaos you could think of.

There is absolutely no rule uncertainty in the BDC scenario, it is simply a function of the true facts. If KVC arose during the search 3 minutes then replace ball, otherwise S&D. Would it be 'unfair' to require BDC to take S&D? It would depend whether you wished to compare it with every other situation where an outside influence lifts a ball but the rules applied S&D. 

 

 

 

Well, the point of my last post was that it turned our FAIRLY, not whether or not the Rules were (really) followed.

 

But I took another look at what Perrone posted on the previous page.

 

9.6 Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence (including another player in stroke play or another ball) lifted or moved a player’s ball:

• There is no penalty, and

• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

This applies whether or not the player’s ball has been found.

 

But if it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was lifted or moved by an outside influence and the ball is lost, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief under Rule 18.2.

 

"This applies whether or not the player's ball has been found"

 

Wait. What ? 3 minutes have passed. By rule the ball is LOST. Why the "whether or not ball has been found" if the outcome (lost ball) has already been decided ?

 

Why follow with the "But" (after the red) if the outcome has already been decided by the lost ball rule ?

[antip]

16 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Well, the point of my last post was that it turned our FAIRLY, not whether or not the Rules were (really) followed.

 

But I took another look at what Perrone posted on the previous page.

 

9.6 Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence (including another player in stroke play or another ball) lifted or moved a player’s ball:

• There is no penalty, and

• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

This applies whether or not the player’s ball has been found.

 

But if it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was lifted or moved by an outside influence and the ball is lost, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief under Rule 18.2.

 

"This applies whether or not the player's ball has been found"

 

Wait. What ? 3 minutes have passed. By rule the ball is LOST. Why the "whether or not ball has been found" if the outcome (lost ball) has already been decided ?

 

Why follow with the "But" (after the red) if the outcome has already been decided by the lost ball rule ?

The published rules information relevant to the BDC scenario is below:

 

Known or Virtually Certain/2 – Virtual Certainty Is Irrelevant if It Comes to Light After Three-Minute Search Expires

 

Determining whether there is knowledge or virtual certainty must be based on evidence known to the player at the time the three-minute search time expires.

 

Examples of when the player’s later findings are irrelevant include when:

A player’s tee shot comes to rest in an area containing heavy rough and a large animal hole. After a three-minute search, it is determined that it is not known or virtually certain that the ball is in the animal hole. As the player returns to the teeing area, the ball is found in the animal hole.

Even though the player has not yet put another ball in play, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball (Rule 18.2b – What to Do When Ball is Lost or Out of Bounds) since it was not known or virtually certain that the ball was in the animal hole, when the search time expired.

A player cannot find his or her ball and believes it may have been picked up by a spectator (outside influence), but there is not enough evidence to be virtually certain of this. A short time after the three minute search time expires, a spectator is found to have the player’s ball.

The player must take stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball (Rule 18.2b) since the movement by the outside influence only became known after the search time expired.

[jimbo123]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Well, the point of my last post was that it turned our FAIRLY, not whether or not the Rules were (really) followed.

 

But I took another look at what Perrone posted on the previous page.

 

9.6 Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence (including another player in stroke play or another ball) lifted or moved a player’s ball:

• There is no penalty, and

• The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

This applies whether or not the player’s ball has been found.

 

But if it is not known or virtually certain that the ball was lifted or moved by an outside influence and the ball is lost, the player must take stroke-and-distance relief under Rule 18.2.

 

"This applies whether or not the player's ball has been found"

 

Wait. What ? 3 minutes have passed. By rule the ball is LOST. Why the "whether or not ball has been found" if the outcome (lost ball) has already been decided ?

 

Why follow with the "But" (after the red) if the outcome has already been decided by the lost ball rule ?

 

I think that whole passage is fine.  If you get KVC it was moved within 3 minutes, you replace without penalty, even if you never find the ball.  This would cover lots of situations, eg, you see a bird pick up the ball and fly away.  

 

The "But" sentence covers what happens if you don't get KVC within 3 minutes.  

 

[jimbo123]

1 hour ago, antip said:

Applying a 'fairness' filter after applying a definitive rule, and changing the rule-based outcome if 'fair' to do so, is perhaps the most certain way to golf chaos you could think of.

There is absolutely no rule uncertainty in the BDC scenario, it is simply a function of the true facts. If KVC arose during the search 3 minutes then replace ball, otherwise S&D. Would it be 'unfair' to require BDC to take S&D? It would depend whether you wished to compare it with every other situation where an outside influence lifts a ball but the rules applied S&D. 

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing to the USGA facebook post.   They state that there was KVC within 3 minutes, but are noticeably vague about who had KVC.   It seems possible (likely?) that the video was reviewed within three minutes but Bryson didn't learn about it within 3 minutes.   To me that raises an element of rules uncertainty.   

 

Known or Virtually Certain/2 states that the player must have the evidence by the end of 3 minutes.  But 9.6b(2) defines KVC a little more generously: In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort. 

 

Do you see an inconsistency there or no?  Do you think that the ref having information at 3 minutes can satisfy KVC even if the player is oblivious?  

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, antip said:

 

If the info it was lifted arrived before the end of the search time, then there is no issue and the processes were consistent with the currently published rules. And the only thing wrong here was the mis-reporting of the facts (shock/horror!)

 

And that would be the only rule-based justification  for the decision.  

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Colin L

[antip]

2 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

 

Thanks for pointing to the USGA facebook post.   They state that there was KVC within 3 minutes, but are noticeably vague about who had KVC.   It seems possible (likely?) that the video was reviewed within three minutes but Bryson didn't learn about it within 3 minutes.   To me that raises an element of rules uncertainty.   

 

Known or Virtually Certain/2 states that the player must have the evidence by the end of 3 minutes.  But 9.6b(2) defines KVC a little more generously: In applying this standard, all reasonably available information must be considered, which means all information the player knows or can get with reasonable effort. 

 

Do you see an inconsistency there or no?  Do you think that the ref having information at 3 minutes can satisfy KVC even if the player is oblivious?  

Do you think that the ref having information at 3 minutes can satisfy KVC even if the player is oblivious?  

 

If that ref is on the spot with the group and monitoring search time then I don't see any issue with the ref calling it. His job is to help apply the rules as written.

 

[bnperrone]

5 hours ago, antip said:

Do you think that the ref having information at 3 minutes can satisfy KVC even if the player is oblivious?  

 

If that ref is on the spot with the group and monitoring search time then I don't see any issue with the ref calling it. His job is to help apply the rules as written.

 

Not to mention, there should be no room for a video reviewer to influence the outcome by, say, waiting an extra minute before relaying what they've found. 

 

This is a question of technology and access to information, really. It's similar to the advent of video quality that could pick up grains of sand being moved that the player couldn't see. Or somebody at home triangulating drop positions and determining that the ball may have broken the plane and been millimeters closer but nobody on ground at the time realized it. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see KVC adapted to eliminate broadcast and/or shotlink information given that it isn't universally available. But, then again, Tiger had a huge crowd willing to move a boulder and not every player has that either. 

 

IMO, regarding this scenario, the 3-minute search time doesn't even begin until they actively begin a search. There's the time for everybody to play their tee ball and for the player to arrive. If cameras caught a spectator picking up the ball and walking/running away with it at the time it happened then it is more than reasonable for that information to be relayed in that time. 

[antip]

20 hours ago, jimbo123 said:

 

I think that whole passage is fine.  If you get KVC it was moved within 3 minutes, you replace without penalty, even if you never find the ball.  This would cover lots of situations, eg, you see a bird pick up the ball and fly away.  

 

The "But" sentence covers what happens if you don't get KVC within 3 minutes.  

 

I'm not sure precisely what is in your mind and these words might be misunderstood by someone, so - a determination of whether KVC existed is not required to be completed within 3 minutes of the start of search time but the determination can only use the information available up to that 3 minute cut off point. For example, ball may be lost in PA or outside PA (90/10 probability), player searches 3 minutes, no joy, ball is lost. 5 seconds later, ball is found in PA. The player must return and do S&D, there was no KVC ball was in PA at the 3 minute point, the new information is irrelevant.