Ruling: Lateral Water Hazard

[goldwolf]

Back to the tee or drop two club lengths??

Hi all. I was playing in a foursomes match the other day and there was some controversy that led to some bad feeling between my parther and I and our opponents. What do you think the ruling is?

The scenario

We're 1 up on stood on the 18th tee. Par 5. It's me to drive first. Theres out of bounds left and a lateral water hazard right, starting at 279 yards and extending up the side of the fairway to about 320 yards. The hazard is deep water with a lot of reeds and other plantation so much so that you can't see water. A bird is sat on the ground right next to the hazard.

The shot

My partner tells me to hit driver as I had been nailing it all the way round, and to make them have to do the same. Well, you can probably guess what happened. My drive heads straight down the right half of the fairway, struck out of the middle, but drifts on the breeze into the hazard, and the bird flies away startled as it enters the hazard.

They hit iron safe about 220 yards. They hit their 2nd shot way right beyond the tree lined rough nearly onto the 17th and are blocked out.

The ruling

We look in vain for our ball and we assume that there is no doubt that it went in the hazard (as I've never carried a driver 320 yards!!) my partner asks them if they agree the line of entry for the 2 club drop. They then say that he has to back to the tee as we cannot prove it went in the hazard and it could be lost over it or to the side. After saying about the line of flight, the lenght (bird flew away) they still disagree and insist we go back to the tee.

We lost the hole as my parter put his drive OOB. We lost the match on the 20th hole and my partner is irrate saying it was the wrong ruling and that they had bad etiquatte (one of them would stand directly behind us on each shot, to be honest I hadn't noticed until my partner puts a stop to it during the extra holes!).

I'm not bothered about the match, but who was in the right? Just so I know for future. There was no doubt that it was in the hazard. In matchplay if there is no doubt, can you still play dumb and say it's a lost ball just to get the advantage?

[DaveyH]

if you know its gone in the hazard you play from nearest point.

[KevCarter]

Hi all. I was playing in a foursomes match the other day and there was some controversy that led to some bad feeling between my parther and I and our opponents. What do you think the ruling is?

 

The scenario

 

We're 1 up on stood on the 18th tee. Par 5. It's me to drive first. Theres out of bounds left and a lateral water hazard right, starting at 279 yards and extending up the side of the fairway to about 320 yards. The hazard is deep water with a lot of reeds and other plantation so much so that you can't see water. A bird is sat on the ground right next to the hazard.

 

The shot

 

My partner tells me to hit driver as I had been nailing it all the way round, and to make them have to do the same. Well, you can probably guess what happened. My drive heads straight down the right half of the fairway, struck out of the middle, but drifts on the breeze into the hazard, and the bird flies away startled as it enters the hazard.

 

They hit iron safe about 220 yards. They hit their 2nd shot way right beyond the tree lined rough nearly onto the 17th and are blocked out.

 

The ruling

 

We look in vain for our ball and we assume that there is no doubt that it went in the hazard (as I've never carried a driver 320 yards!!) my partner asks them if they agree the line of entry for the 2 club drop. They then say that he has to back to the tee as we cannot prove it went in the hazard and it could be lost over it or to the side. After saying about the line of flight, the lenght (bird flew away) they still disagree and insist we go back to the tee.

 

We lost the hole as my parter put his driver OOB. We lost the match on the 20th hole and my partner is irrate saying it was the wrong ruling and that they had bad etiquatte (one of them would stand directly behind us on each shot).

 

I'm not bothered about the match, but who was in the right? Just so I know for future. There was no doubt that it was in the hazard.

 

You need knowledge or virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard. You do not need to prove it. Ask yourself the question "could it be anywhere else?" Could it be in a tree or an area with long grass? Generally, if the area around the hazard is closely mown, there is your virtual certainty.

 

Kevin

[goldwolf]

You need knowledge or virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard. You do not need to prove it. Ask yourself the question "could it be anywhere else?" Could it be in a tree or an area with long grass? Generally, if the area around the hazard is closely mown, there is your virtual certainty.

 

Kevin

 

Honestly, this is with no bias, there was no doubt it went into the hazard. No trees nearby and the grass is fairway one side and light rough the other (it was closer to the fairway side)

[KevCarter]

You need knowledge or virtual certainty that the ball is in the hazard. You do not need to prove it. Ask yourself the question "could it be anywhere else?" Could it be in a tree or an area with long grass? Generally, if the area around the hazard is closely mown, there is your virtual certainty.

 

Kevin

 

Honestly, this is with no bias, there was no doubt it went into the hazard. No trees nearby and the grass is fairway one side and light rough the other (it was closer to the fairway side)

 

Based upon the facts, I would have allowed you to proceed under rule 26.

 

Kevin

[mat562]

Good enough for me by the sounds of it.

 

I'd have been happy it was in the hazard on the available evidence and you'd be having a drop alongside the pond if I were your opponent.

 

I know there's an old saying that it's better to win ugly than lose pretty - but I don't attach that rule to shady gamesmanship or underhand tactics.

[goldwolf]

Well as my partner and one of them argued as they walked up to the green, he turns round to me and says "what do you think?" (angrily) and I replied that I thought there was no doubt it was in the hazard, he said "well, you would say that".

[BCS]

Just wanted to make a point or correction in some of your terminology. Line of flight has zero bearing on the rules. Just point of entry. But if you took a two club drop from the point of entry then you proceed correctly

[goldwolf]

Just wanted to make a point or correction in some of your terminology. Line of flight has zero bearing on the rules. Just point of entry. But if you took a two club drop from the point of entry then you proceed correctly

 

 

Sorry, yes you're right there. What I meant by that was, when we were "arguing" with them to prove beyond doubt it went in, we were saying the line of flight of the ball came straight into the hazard rather than curving across or anything (so as to miss the hazard). Yes, the drop would be line of entry.

 

Cheers.

[marrigo]

I don't think this is as straight forward as everyone is making it out to be. USGA just revised this rule for this exact exact reason. Old terminology refers to "reasonable evidence" that the ball went in the hazard. New terminology is "known or virtually certain". The actual wording of Rule 26-1 is:

 

"It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found

after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard.

In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain

that the ball is in the hazard. In the absence of such knowledge

or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1."

 

Actually this is covered in this months Golf Digest. They end it with "In other words, there must be almost no doubt about where the ball is". Seems to me that the ball is most likely in the hazard, but I don't think you can say that it virtually certain or as the rule says a "a fact" that it is in the hazard. Could have hit a rock, could have plugged, could have done a lot of crazy things. It doesn't seem like the most likely scenario holds here. Essentially I think you either need to find the ball in the hazard, see it splash, or have the hazard be so large that there is no way it is anywhere else (Pacific Ocean on the 18th at Pebble comes to mind).

 

What I think you should have done is played two balls, one as if it were in the hazard and one from the tee. Hole out with both, record both scores, then bring the issue to the tournament committee after the round for final decision. This is absolutely permissible under the rules. That way you are covered. Worst that could happen is that they rule against you.

[KevCarter]

Marrigo,

 

I believe the following decision mirrors my original answer.

 

Kevin

 

 

26-1/1 Meaning of “Known or Virtually Certain”

 

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term “known or virtually certain” indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

[hbear]

When in doubt, ALWAYS play 2 balls then take it up with the ruling commitee later.

 

But the key is virtually certain.

 

For example.

If there were a lot of trees and brush before the hazard, and you didn't see your ball actually get to/cross the hazard line, your ball might not have reached the hazard and instead was lost in the trees/brush before it.

If it was a flare type shot, (just an example) for myself I'd have a hard time believing somebody hit a "Ric Flare" and carried it 279....

 

That being said if you are 1up with a par 5 finishing hole with OB left AND hazard right, WHY WOULD YOU HIT DRIVER??? :black eye:

Play safe and lay it up. Put your tee shot in play...lay up to a good wedge yardage and ensure you make no worse than 5 (with still a good oppurtunity to make 4) and FORCE them to make a birdie a worst to win the hole.

[goldwolf]

That being said if you are 1up with a par 5 finishing hole with OB left AND hazard right, WHY WOULD YOU HIT DRIVER??? :black eye:

Play safe and lay it up. Put your tee shot in play...lay up to a good wedge yardage and ensure you make no worse than 5 (with still a good oppurtunity to make 4) and FORCE them to make a birdie a worst to win the hole.

 

To be honest, that was the play I wanted to do, make a par and put the pressure on them, but my partner was confident in me hitting driver.....ooops!

[hbear]

Fair enough, lesson learned I'm sure.

 

I'm always in favor of keeping pressure on my opponants and forcing them to make a birdie putt to win the hole over handing it to them after 1 swing from the box.

:black eye: