Ball hits tree and it's exit can't be seen-how to play?

[RoyalMustang]

This happened to me the other day: I snap-hooked my drive about 180 yards down and hit a tree on the left side of the fairway: a big oak. It had lots of leaves and I figured it would have dropped out below instead of smacking a limb and flying elsewhere. The tree is 30 yards to the right of a water hazard.

 

Needless to say, I couldn't find the ball. Scenarios of what could have happened, from most to least likely:

 

1) ball hit the tree and ricocheted into the hazard (ball would have ended up in hazard had the tree not been in the way)

2) ball ricocheted into a different direction that I didn't see and was lying somewhere in play (I looked, but if it hit something solid, it could have been 80 yards in a different area given that I hit driver. I was playing solo and walking; I didn't feel like canvasing the entire hole up and down)

3) ball got stuck in tree

 

In this instance, I took a hazard drop from the hazard left of the tree and punched out. It "could" have been a lost ball situation which would require a re-tee, but do I play the most likely scenario?  It meant very little in the scheme of things score-wise of course: a punch from there and lying 3 is the same as a re-tee and hitting a good drive on ball 3. 

[davep043]

to use PA relief, you must be 95% sure it's in that PA.  if not, it's a Lost Ball.

[Colin L]

Well, your action was inventive, if little else.  It certainly wasn't within the Rules.  😁

 

 If you can't find and identify your ball after looking for 3 minutes, it's lost.  Stroke and distance or play your provisional if there is one.  

 

Playing to the most likely scenario. I love it.  🤣

 

 

[RoyalMustang]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

to use PA relief, you must be 95% sure it's in that PA.  if not, it's a Lost Ball.

 

So in a tournament, you would ask your playing partner if it's likely a hazard 95% chance? If they agree then it's OK.

 

Based on the tree and hazard right next to it, plus direction of ball, it would have had a 95% chance of being in the hazard. Looking for the ball (short grass all around) would have turned it up if playing in a group, so the only other option would be a "stuck in tree" which is less than 5% probability chance. 

[RoyalMustang]

9 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Well, your action was inventive, if little else.  It certainly wasn't within the Rules.  😁

 

 If you can't find and identify your ball after looking for 3 minutes, it's lost.  Stroke and distance or play your provisional if there is one.  

 

Playing to the most likely scenario. I love it.  🤣

 

 

 

According to the post above, if the probability is above 95%, then the most likely scenario is the correct play. I've never heard anyone say that in a tournament: it is always stated that we can "reasonably assume" that the ball went into the hazard next to the tree it hit. I've probably heard that 7-8 times now. I've hit 100's of trees and only ever had one stuck, so it's <5% probability. 

[Mr. Bean]

4 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

According to the post above, if the probability is above 95%, then the most likely scenario is the correct play. I've never heard anyone say that in a tournament: it is always stated that we can "reasonably assume" that the ball went into the hazard next to the tree it hit. I've probably heard that 7-8 times now. I've hit 100's of trees and only ever had one stuck, so it's <5% probability. 

 

Reasonably assume can mean very different than 95% certainty.

[RoyalMustang]

41 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Reasonably assume can mean very different than 95% certainty.

 

Sure: Interesting point. Basically we are looking at a yes/no outcome, which we can statistically derive the chances of happening once we get reliable, repeatable data. It would take a robot test of hitting the ball at the tree, use the results while getting an alpha (probably .025 two-tailed test), choosing a z-stat, developing a sample variance and SD and then determining with more than 95% confidence that the ball would, in fact, go out of bounds or be visible when dropping with that swing. The other outcome being "stuck in the tree" as a lost ball.  

 

Without all of that, 95% is just another guess, no different than to "reasonably assume", and people are notoriously adept at overestimating their competence (Richard Thaler is a great resource on this). I bet you could find any number of people who would tell you that their investment picks are 95% likely to go up next year: because they picked them. And yet they can't beat an S&P index fund. 

The fact that there is no way to prove 95% in an actual golf course setting aside, I know what you are getting to.  

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

Sure: Interesting point. Basically we are looking at a yes/no outcome, which we can statistically derive the chances of happening once we get reliable, repeatable data. It would take a robot test of hitting the ball at the tree, use the results while getting an alpha (probably .025 two-tailed test), choosing a z-stat, developing a sample variance and SD and then determining with more than 95% confidence that the ball would, in fact, go out of bounds or be visible when dropping with that swing. The other outcome being "stuck in the tree" as a lost ball.  

 

Without all of that, 95% is just another guess, no different than to "reasonably assume", and people are notoriously adept at overestimating their competence (Richard Thaler is a great resource on this). I bet you could find any number of people who would tell you that their investment picks are 95% likely to go up next year: because they picked them. And yet they can't beat an S&P index fund. 

The fact that there is no way to prove 95% in an actual golf course setting aside, I know what you are getting to.  

Aside from all that, you should read the definition of Known or Virtually Certain to understand what the Rule of Golf have to say.  That's where the 95% certainty comes from.  it's possible to be Virtually Certain the ball is in the PA, but it's a bit more than "reasonably certain".

[Mr. Bean]

Basically KVC inversed means "can the ball with slightly greater probability than close to infinite be elsewhere than in the PA?"

 

In gereral terms: you need to be very sure, not just quite sure to fulfil that 95%.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[Colin L]

And, to be clear, virtual certainty does not come into whether a ball is up a tree or not.  If your ball is in a tree you must be able see it or  identify it or there is clear evidence that your ball went into that specific tree and stayed there - such as from a spectator who watched the flight of your ball all the way into the tree.   Not possibly in a tree, not maybe, not probably, not virtually certainly, not most likely but  definitely in a particular tree on the basis of clear evidence.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Colin L

[Augster]

If a ball hits a tree and nobody sees it exit the tree, there is no possible way to be KVC it went into a PA, unless the tree is in the middle of the PA and there is ONLY PA around the tree in all directions. Then I’d buy it. 
 

The 95% is this: after hitting the tree, could the ball be somewhere besides the PA 1 out of 20 times? If your answer is “sure it could be” or “probably”, you can’t take PA relief as you don’t have KVC. 
 

To make it easier going forward, if a ball is headed toward a PA, and it clearly hits a tree and nobody sees it exit the tree, the player simply can not have KVC the ball is in the PA. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but that’s pretty much how I gauge it. 
 

If you aren’t using MLR E-5, then your only option is to retee. 

[Schulzmc]

Based on your original description this is a lost ball. There is no way you could have KVC that the ball was in the hazard. 

[nsxguy]

On 8/8/2023 at 12:30 PM, RoyalMustang said:

 

According to the post above, if the probability is above 95%, then the most likely scenario is the correct play. I've never heard anyone say that in a tournament: it is always stated that we can "reasonably assume" that the ball went into the hazard next to the tree it hit. I've probably heard that 7-8 times now. I've hit 100's of trees and only ever had one stuck, so it's <5% probability. 

 

[buzzer]

 

Nope. Sorry but that is not correct.

 

You gave 3 possibilities; PA, in tree, and 80 yards to the right. If those 3 were ranked by you it sounds like you'd come to about 34%, 33%, 33%.

 

So the "most likely result would be the 34% chance and that is nowhere near 95%.

 

Known or Virtually Certain (KVC)

 

Known - Basically, you see the splash.

 

Virtually certain - Ground preceding the PA is very firm and cut fairly low. You see NO splash but see either a big bounce near the water, and/or the ball is traveling very fast on hard ground and you see it running with speed towards the PA.

 

Then you get to the area and (pretty much) there's nowhere else it could be. That's virtually certain.

 

You've presented no case for KVC. Lost ball.

 

As for the tournament situation, I believe you are the one who decides what's reasonable BUT, if there's an official around call him/her in and let them guide you.

 

If no officials around, I would suggest, to be safe, play 2 balls and let the committee decide which ball counts.

[antip]

"Reasonably assume" does not exist in the Rules. The requirement is Knowledge or Virtual Certainty. You hit a big tree 30 yards from a penalty area hard and can't find your ball it is a lost ball, stroke and distance required.

[Newby]

On 8/8/2023 at 5:28 PM, RoyalMustang said:

 

So in a tournament, you would ask your playing partner if it's likely a hazard 95% chance? If they agree then it's OK.

 

No. You make the decision. No one else other than a nearby referee can decide. But you can confer with another player.

If you have any doubt at all then play two balls and report the action to the Committee on completion of the round. See Rule 20.1c(3)

[antip]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:22 AM, RoyalMustang said:

This happened to me the other day: I snap-hooked my drive about 180 yards down and hit a tree on the left side of the fairway: a big oak. It had lots of leaves and I figured it would have dropped out below instead of smacking a limb and flying elsewhere. The tree is 30 yards to the right of a water hazard.

 

Needless to say, I couldn't find the ball. Scenarios of what could have happened, from most to least likely:

 

1) ball hit the tree and ricocheted into the hazard (ball would have ended up in hazard had the tree not been in the way)

2) ball ricocheted into a different direction that I didn't see and was lying somewhere in play (I looked, but if it hit something solid, it could have been 80 yards in a different area given that I hit driver. I was playing solo and walking; I didn't feel like canvasing the entire hole up and down)

3) ball got stuck in tree

 

In this instance, I took a hazard drop from the hazard left of the tree and punched out. It "could" have been a lost ball situation which would require a re-tee, but do I play the most likely scenario?  It meant very little in the scheme of things score-wise of course: a punch from there and lying 3 is the same as a re-tee and hitting a good drive on ball 3. 

Just to be clear what the implications are for taking a "hazard drop" as though the ball was lost in the penalty area in this situation (which as multiple folk here are explaining to you, would not be KVC lost in penalty area): the Committee assigns the applicable rule - which is stroke and distance (1 stroke penalty) and a further general penalty for playing from a wrong place (2 stroke penalty) and it is a serious breach which requires you to return to play stroke #5 from the tee - and failure to do so would mean you are DQed.