Cejka ruling. How was that KVC?

[Hardluckster]

Nobody saw whether the ball bounced above the hazard line or not. TV video did not show, for sure, that it completely crossed the hazard line (they supposed that since it bounced twice before going back into the water it must have landed above the red line). 
 

To me, that ruling was completely wrong. I agree with Miguel. 

[flip flappy]

I had to rewind and go back to see what MAJ said and I too agree with him. If it hit below the hazard line does that mean he would have to go back and re tee?

[Hardluckster]

Either that or a drop from where it crossed the penalty area on the tee side of the water. 

[Newby]

Or drop back on a line from the hole through the crossing point

[Hardluckster]

Yes. That would be another option but I don’t think it was viable in that instance. 

[Hardluckster]

Just now, Hardluckster said:

Yes. That would be another option but I don’t think it was viable in that instance. 

With KVC, an official surely cannot “suppose” that it must have crossed the line, can he?

[Newby]

18 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

With KVC, an official surely cannot “suppose” that it must have crossed the line, can he?

Did the referee have a different view to MAJ (whoever he is) and different to the TV pictures?

In fact, was there referee on the spot to make a decision?

Edited October 17, 2021 by Newby

[sui generis]

Does reading R1.3b help anyone understand the process?

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=1&subrulenum=3

[Hardluckster]

32 minutes ago, Newby said:

Did the referee have a different view to MAJ (whoever he is) and different to the TV pictures?

As I understood it, nobody clearly saw the ball land. 
 

An official was there to aid in the drop. 
 

MAJ = Miguel Angel Jimenez, who was in the same playing group and questioned the ruling.  

Edited October 17, 2021 by Hardluckster

[Hardluckster]

16 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Does reading R1.3b help anyone understand the process?

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=1&subrulenum=3

So is KVC no longer applicable? Is it now “reasonable judgement” instead of KVC?

 

To my thinking, those two are far from the same. 

[nsxguy]

17 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

So is KVC no longer applicable? Is it now “reasonable judgement” instead of KVC?

 

To my thinking, those two are far from the same. 

 

From what I can see KVC applies to where the ball IS.

 

From your description of the events they all knew where it was and it seems the (new/next) issue is covered by Rogolf's 1.3b

[sui generis]

17 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

So is KVC no longer applicable? Is it now “reasonable judgement” instead of KVC?

 

To my thinking, those two are far from the same. 

 

I didn't see the event. Is there any question that the player's ball was in the penalty area? If it was established that the ball was in there. then KVC has been satisfied. KVC is not a part of the process for estimating the penalty area edge crossing point. 

[nsxguy]

On another note, here we go again with waiting for a ball on the lip to drop.

 

S.Kim has 4 feet max for birdie on 18. Putt does a 350 around and the ball hangs on the lip.

 

He waits a full 10 seconds before even starting towards the ball (1 pace away) and instead of going directly to the ball walks around the hole in roughly the same 4 foot radius to almost the other side of the hole and waits there another 12 seconds or so before going up to the ball.

 

About to tap it in he apparently sees it moving slightly and ball falls in at 26 seconds after it lipped out.

 

Wonder if they'll assess him the stroke later on.

[Hardluckster]

13 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

I didn't see the event. Is there any question that the player's ball was in the penalty area? If it was established that the ball was in there. then KVC has been satisfied. KVC is not a part of the process for estimating the penalty area edge crossing point. 

Thanks. I figured that out after going back and re-reading the full rule 1.3 that you referenced earlier. Thanks for the help. 
 

Cejka teed off and hit it right, flying over a water hazard that began close to the tee area. It carried the water, because there was no splash and the ball was shown using video to bounce on the far side (I’m not sure whether one bounce or two but I think they said twice - I tried to rewind but was unable to do so). The video did not show whether the ball bounced while still inside the hazard or outside. The hazard line was about 3 feet from the dropoff and the ground appeared relatively flat on both sides of the line all the way to the dropoff.  Cejka dropped on the green side of the hazard (with an official present to aid him with the drop) and made a really good par. Jimenez questioned the drop and suggested that had the ball landed outside of the hazard it would have almost certainly kicked further toward the green rather than toward the hazard. Langer was also in the grouping and as far as I know he didn’t express an opinion on the drop. 
 

In defense of Cejka the cart path was about four feet from the hazard line (about 7 feet from the dropoff. The ball could have ricocheted from the path back toward the water, although I didn’t notice a big change of direction in the bounce (maybe it bounced twice - if so, I didn’t see both bounces, only the one before it left the screen). 
 

Sorry for being so long, but I wanted to explain as well as I could what occurred. 
 

Regardless, I’ve learned something else about the rules today. That’s a good thing. Thanks for the help. 

[nsxguy]

30 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

Thanks.
 

Regardless, I’ve learned something else about the rules today. That’s a good thing. Thanks for the help. 

 

You're welcome.

[nsxguy]

59 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

On another note, here we go again with waiting for a ball on the lip to drop.

 

S.Kim has 4 feet max for birdie on 18. Putt does a 350 around and the ball hangs on the lip.

 

He waits a full 10 seconds before even starting towards the ball (1 pace away) and instead of going directly to the ball walks around the hole in roughly the same 4 foot radius to almost the other side of the hole and waits there another 12 seconds or so before going up to the ball.

 

About to tap it in he apparently sees it moving slightly and ball falls in at 26 seconds after it lipped out.

 

Wonder if they'll assess him the stroke later on.

 

Looks like someone did the right thing.

 

The ball falling in for birdie made him -17 for the tourney.

 

I look now, an hour or so later and his score is changed to -16.  👍

[NJBigFish22]

What is KVC?  Didn’t watch the coverage so not debating the rule or how it was applied.

[sui generis]

11 minutes ago, NJBigFish22 said:

What is KVC?

 

Known or Virtually Certain - The standard for deciding what happened to a player’s ball – for example, whether the ball came to rest in a penalty area, whether it moved or what caused it to move.

 

Known or virtually certain means more than just possible or probable. It means that either:

 

There is conclusive evidence that the event in question happened to the player’s ball, such as when the player or other witnesses saw it happen, or

Although there is a very small degree of doubt, all reasonably available information shows that it is at least 95% likely that the event in question happened.

 

“All reasonably available information” includes all information the player knows and all other information he or she can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonable delay.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=31

[NJBigFish22]

5 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Known or Virtually Certain - The standard for deciding what happened to a player’s ball – for example, whether the ball came to rest in a penalty area, whether it moved or what caused it to move.

 

Known or virtually certain means more than just possible or probable. It means that either:

 

There is conclusive evidence that the event in question happened to the player’s ball, such as when the player or other witnesses saw it happen, or

Although there is a very small degree of doubt, all reasonably available information shows that it is at least 95% likely that the event in question happened.

 

“All reasonably available information” includes all information the player knows and all other information he or she can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonable delay.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=31

Thank you Sir!

[Augster]

KVC is for when the ball is in the PA or not. I’m pretty sure they had it. 
 

Point Last Crossed is a judgement call using all available information but ultimately up to the player. 
 

This is the same thing as the cheater Sung Kang a few years ago (2018) when Joel Dahmen initially refused to sign Kang’s card. Kang took a VERY generous PLC drop that the ball couldn’t have possibly crossed. Dahmen argued for over 20 minutes, but ultimately, with no video evidence or good info to the contrary, the ref sided with Kang. 
 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/pga/2018/07/02/golfer-joel-dahmen-sung-kang-cheated-quicken-loans-national/750310002/