Lost ball or hazard?

[RCGA]

Playing my tee-shot on a par 5. The landing area (blind) is 75y wide with OB on the right and a water hazard running all the way on the left. The rough is thin and wet and not long enough to lose a ball in. Seagulls have overtaken the area (feathers aplenty) and love to pick up white balls and fly away with them. There's no one in front of us. 

 

I stripe a tee shot down the left side of the fairway (~25y away from the hazard). It's unlikely I'm in the water but the ball isn't anywhere to be found with 4 people searching in a 25yx25y grid in the rough. 

 

Is the ball lost or can I claim it must be in the hazard? 

 

 

[antip]

No one sitting in front of their computer can answer this for you. You have to assess, on all the information before you, whether it is known or virtually certain - defined as at least 95 per cent probability - that the ball that cannot be found is in the penalty area. Put differently, is there more than a 5 per cent probability that the ball is anywhere other than in the penalty area - and, if so, you cannot take penalty area relief.

Similarly, you cannot claim the ball was stolen by a seagull unless you have at least 95 per cent certainty that the ball was taken by a seagull - and in this blind hitting area case, that hurdle effectively means it doesn't apply unless you see a gull do the deed or flying away with ball in mouth.

[Augster]

You need KVC with 95% certainty that it’s in the PA to take PA relief. As antip said, nobody but you can really assess that. 
 

Look at your ball flight, how you hit it, what your playing partners saw, and your “usual” results on the hole and assess a % chance it made it in the PA. If you say, “That ball would be in 8/10 times”, it’s a lost ball. If you think, “19/20 times that ball is in the PA”, take the PA drop. 

[limegreengent]

You "stripe" a ball ( do you mean 100yds😂) which lands out of sight in some wet rough , covered in lots of feathers and where in the past balls have been moved by seagulls.

 

Do me a favour - the ball is lost if you have any integrity at all.😱😱😱

 

 

[davep043]

3 hours ago, limegreengent said:

Do me a favour - the ball is lost if you have any integrity at all.

This seems a bit over the top, it appears to me that he asked a reasonable question about the Rules.  And he got two informative answers, explaining the principle of "Known or Virtually Certain".  I'll add, the OP should really review the Definition of Known or Virtually Certain on his own, use either the R&A or USGA website, to make sure he understands it correctly.  But to dismiss the question as an issue with integrity is too far.  If he doesn't know the applicable Rule, how can anyone question his integrity in complying with the Rule?

Edited September 26, 2022 by davep043

[Bushwood Country Club]

The OP states:

- "striped a drive down the left side of the fairway, 25 yards inside the hazard"

- "couldn't find the ball"

- "the rough is a wet area"

 

If you are sure (95%) the ball landed in the fairway, and wasn't headed toward the hazard, it seems you have another option. What if the ball plugged in the wet area and you just can't find it?

[Krt22]

15 minutes ago, Bushwood Country Club said:

The OP states:

- "striped a drive down the left side of the fairway, 25 yards inside the hazard"

- "couldn't find the ball"

- "the rough is a wet area"

 

If you are sure (95%) the ball landed in the fairway, and wasn't headed toward the hazard, it seems you have another option. What if the ball plugged in the wet area and you just can't find it?

Casual water and "wet area" are not the same thing. 

[Newby]

36 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Casual water and "wet area" are not the same thing. 

I thought the 'wet area' was simply implying the ball would/could not be found and wasn't in the PA.

[Krt22]

46 minutes ago, Newby said:

I thought the 'wet area' was simply implying the ball would/could not be found and wasn't in the PA.

Same, that since it was wet it's not like it was going to run through into the PA. 

 

I think BCC is alluding to the notion that it might be lost in casual water since he said there is "another option". 

[Bushwood Country Club]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

Casual water and "wet area" are not the same thing. 

I wasn't suggesting casual water was a consideration.  If  the drive was 25 yards inside the fairway (as stated), and was not headed toward the hazard (not stated) , and he is 95% certain the ball was in the fairway then the situation could be different (abnormal ground condition / plugged ball in the wet area of the rough? outside agency?).  

[Krt22]

Just now, Bushwood Country Club said:

I wasn't suggesting casual water was a consideration.  If  the drive was 25 yards inside the fairway (as stated), and was not headed toward the hazard (not stated) , and he is 95% certain the ball was in the fairway then the situation could be different (abnormal ground condition / plugged ball in the wet area of the rough? outside agency?).  

If it's a plugged ball, you still need to find it in order to be given relief. He also said it was going along the left side of the fairway, not 25yards inside the fairway.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Bushwood Country Club said:

then the situation could be different (abnormal ground condition / plugged ball in the wet area of the rough

An Embedded Ball is not an Abnormal Course Condition, under the Definitions of the rules, its a separate issue, and governed by a different Rule (16.1 for ACCs, 16.3 for Embedded Ball).  As @Krt22 says, you don't get Embedded Ball Relief unless you find the ball and it is indeed embedded.  

[jordan2240]

Just curious, if I'm only 94.6% certain of where the ball might be, do I round up or down?

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, jordan2240 said:

Just curious, if I'm only 94.6% certain of where the ball might be, do I round up or down?

 

At that point you recalculate and get a number exceeding 95%, just to get your group moving.

[antip]

6 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

Just curious, if I'm only 94.6% certain of where the ball might be, do I round up or down?

Rules are very clear, less than 95 per cent, S&D. There's no provision for rounding.

[limegreengent]

2 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

Just curious, if I'm only 94.6% certain of where the ball might be, do I round up or down?

And that is where Jordan ‘s tongue in cheek remark hits the mark.👏👏

The rules say 95% - who can possibly calculate this .

What the authorities are really saying ( without using 100%) is that the player must be nearly absolute certain that the ball cannot be lost anywhere else but in the penalty area.

This very high standard is not really understood / or supposedly understood by the majority of players - who when they cannot find their ball within the 4/5 minutes they have searched  -

“well it must be in the penalty area”

 

The vagaries of the correct application of this rule.😱😱😱

 

The number of times I have searched for my ball - knowing the “exact position “ and have not found it.

How I could have wished that there was a penalty area within 50 yards!😂😂😂😂😂

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by limegreengent

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, limegreengent said:

And that is where Jordan ‘s tongue in cheek remark hits the mark.👏👏

The rules say 95% - who can possibly calculate this .

What the authorities are really saying ( without using 100%) is that the player must be nearly absolute certain that the ball cannot be lost anywhere else but in the penalty area.

This very high standard is not really understood / or supposedly understood by the majority of players - who when they cannot find their ball within the 4/5 minutes they have searched  -

“well it must be in the penalty area”

 

The vagaries of the correct application of this rule.😱😱😱

 

The number of times I have searched for my ball - knowing the “exact position “ and have not found it.

How I could have wished that there was a penalty area within 50 yards!😂😂😂😂😂

 

I support this high standard (95%) for "virtually certain".  The 95% can be phrased/explained as "the decision being made will be correct 19 times out of 20".  Some people find this easier to grasp and apply.

[davep043]

11 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I support this high standard (95%) for "virtually certain".  The 95% can be phrased/explained as "the decision being made will be correct 19 times out of 20".  Some people find this easier to grasp and apply.

I agree.  Of course nobody can make an exact computation for the odds of a ball being in a certain area, but the 95% standard means, to me, the player has to be pretty dang sure the ball is in there.  19 of 20 says the same thing slightly differently, and may as you say be understood better.  I'm not sure what detractors would prefer, they tend not to offer solutions.

[Augster]

What the 95% got rid of was the phrase “COULD the ball be anywhere else?” Of course it COULD. So one would never have VC it’s in the PA. 
 

A fox could have taken it and stayed out.  It could have hit a sprinkler head and stayed out.  It could have hit a rock and stayed out. A bird could have flown by and picked it up and it stayed out. 
 

All of those situations COULD have happened. The point is, if you add up the odds of them happening, you’re nowhere near 5% of the time. 
 

The addition of 95% gets rid of all the very low percentage happenings that COULD have kept your ball out of the PA. Things that happen 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, 1 in an hundred thousand etc. 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

25 minutes ago, Augster said:

What the 95% got rid of was the phrase “COULD the ball be anywhere else?” Of course it COULD. So one would never have VC it’s in the PA. 

 

That is precisely why it has been changed, people are just plain s****d. Us referees used to ask that particular question from the players but we understood not to take into the equation things happening once in 10 years.

[Newby]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Us referees ....

We referees ...

 

Today's English grammar lesson  😉

[jordan2240]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

 the player has to be pretty dang sure

Ooo, I like that wording.  "If you are pretty dang sure...". That would be easier to calculate.