Allenby Ruling Pretty Harsh

[firstbatch]

Allenby hooks his ball into a the barranca that is marked with a red line........marshall gives him the perp walk back to the tee. Did you guys see that ruling today at the San Diego Open?? Seems a harsh interpretation.

[marrigo]

Yeah, that whole "virtual certainty" clause the USGA uses when it comes to hazards seems to invite this kind of an issue. Surprised we have not seen it more. I mean the rules even say that seeing a ball splash in a water hazard may not constitute "virtual certainty".

[Cut Off 6-iron]

Allenby was really steamed after that ruling... I'm just glad he made that putt on the 18th

[ahl3bomber]

i didnt see this happen, could anyone explain?

[Rohlio]

That ruling was brutal...but not as brutal as watching him dismantle his own chance of winning coming down the stretch. I felt bad for the guy watching him go belly up on the back 9.

[Samps]

looking down on the hole from the blimp is was very obvious that there was no place else for that ball to go. it was either in the fairway, the 5 feet of rough along the fairway or in the hazard. if it was not in the hazard it would have clearly been in sight.

[BugsyinNC]

[quote name='Samps' date='31 January 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1264982810' post='2217541']
looking down on the hole from the blimp is was very obvious that there was no place else for that ball to go. it was either in the fairway, the 5 feet of rough along the fairway or in the hazard. if it was not in the hazard it would have clearly been in sight.
[/quote]

That is 3 potential spots, so much for "virtual certainty", if it was in the rough it wouldn't necessarily have been clearly in sight. I like Allenby and was pulling for him today but he got a tough but fair ruling.

[drew123]

That ball was clearly in the hazard...terrible ruling for Allenby to have to go back to the tee, he should have gotten a drop

[dpb5031]

Could it have been that because no one saw it clearly end up in the hazard that there was a possibility that it could have struck and become lodged in one of those eucalyptus trees? If there was a possibility of that happening, or the ball hiding in tall grass or some other area not inside the hazard line then the ruling was fair.

[bogey train]

Couldnt they use the cameras to clarify where the ball went ?
Last season they did that with one player when he went in a hazard
the commentaters replayed the ball flight quite a few times and then relayed to the ground commentator as to where the ball actually went
and they also clarified whether it crossed over the hazard line before it went in the water
the ground commentator then relayed to the player and marshalls etc how it happened
player got a penalty drop and carried on
If this technolgy is available surely it should be used for all players
not just a selected few and if it cant then it shouldnt be used by anyone

Tough result for Allenby or anyone who doesnt get they same benefit

[firstbatch]

So was the blimp camera conclusive on whether the ball entered the hazard? I never saw the blimp camera view.

Funny how people can call in after seeing replays on balls moving after address and the player can then be sanctioned after the round. I wonder if a post round blimp review by the PGA Tour Officials would be in order to see if a wrong was done? Of course nothing can be done for Robert now, but that was a tough triple bogey. I think the 3 putt was due to him losing his focus, but with Robert you never know since his putting is so suspect.

[Fatsack540]

It was a pretty "iffy" call but did you see how hard he smashed his second on 18, WOW that was an angry swing with some very good results.

[J.R.]

Yeah I thought it was really harsh considering you KNOW it went out there, but rules are rules.

[dlygrisse]

Tough ruleing but probably the correct one, you would think they would have a spotter or forecaddy on every hole watching that kind of thing.

I can see the day when they put a micro chip in the ball so you can easily find it with a directional finder. Would be great for the average guy as well, would speed up play, but the manufacter's wouldnt go for it because they want you to lose balls so you buy more.

[hoganfan924]

Tough break. Doesn't seem fair but it is the letter of the law:

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.
The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

I'd say though, that due to the design of that hole, they should have forecaddies and/or more marshalls watching for just such a situation, especially considering that there is no gallery on that side of the fairway.

[bfactor]

Whatever "virtual certainty" means, it was not an absolute that the ball was in the hazard. It can easily be lost in the rough. No spectators are allowed on that side of the hole, only one ShotLink spotter who may not have ever found the ball in the air. From experience, I'm not exactly sure how one manages to hit the ball over there to begin with. I suppose today's flag warranted the left side of the fairway, but that was WAY left.

[dan360]

[quote name='ahl3bomber ' date='31 January 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1264982447' post='2217518']
i didnt see this happen, could anyone explain?
[/quote]
Allenby's drive went off into the crud, but because no eye witness was there to absolutely confirm it absolutely, postively, went into the hazard, the "virtual certainty" thing came into play and John Munch (official) would not let Allenby drop a ball laterally and made him re-tee.

Allenby was fuming...Munch offered him a cart ride back to the tee, which Allenby refused and walked back to the tee. Munch then offered Allenby a ride from the tee back to down the fairway, which Allenby again refused and walked back down the fairway...

To say he was 'fuming' is a bit of an understatement...

[Hstead]

I thought the ruling was complete BS. I hope Allenby let the guy know what he thought of it too.

[dpb5031]

[color=#1C2837][b]"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."[/b][/color]
[color="#1C2837"][b]
[/b][/color]
[color="#1C2837"]Because no one could confirm that the ball did "in fact" end up in the hazard, and upon observing that there were other areas including some high rough and trees in which the ball could have become lodged (physical conditions referenced in the rule above), the ruling was appropriate.[/color]
[color="#1C2837"]
[/color]
[color="#1C2837"]No doubt most recreational golfers take generous liberties with this rule.[/color]

[CheckJV]

[quote name='hoganfan924' date='31 January 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1264990543' post='2217842']
Tough break. Doesn't seem fair but it is the letter of the law:

26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"
...in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. ...[/quote]

What I don't understand is that I thought I heard Allenby say to the rules official "..it flew 100 feet down into the hazard.." which implies that he saw the ball cross the margin of the hazard and "knew" the ball was, in fact, in the hazard. Why can we trust a player to call a penalty on himself but not to know that his ball was in the hazard? Seems contradictory.

[Newby]

[quote name='firstbatch' date='31 January 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1264980320' post='2217449']
Allenby hooks his ball into a the barranca that is marked with a red line........marshall gives him the perp walk back to the tee. Did you guys see that ruling today at the San Diego Open?? Seems a harsh interpretation.
[/quote]

Apparently the TV commentators said the ball was heard to hit a tree.
That would seem sufficient reason to rule [b]no KVC[/b] given there was no actual sighting.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Newby' date='01 February 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1265036604' post='2218819']
Apparently the TV commentators said the ball was heard to hit a tree.
That would seem sufficient reason to rule [b]no KVC[/b] given there was no actual sighting.
[/quote]

EXACTLY.

One of the tests of KVC is "Could it be anywhere else?"

In this situation, look at what happened the first 2 days of the tournament. 2 guys lose balls up in trees. This was fresh in everybody's mind. When he said the ball hit a tree outside the hazard first, his fate was sealed. Some weeks, maybe not... There will always be gray areas while we play the game outdoors and not on a controlled field of play.

Kevin

[Milo]

Allenby's a bit of a tart anyway. As well as being perfectly correct a tough but fair ruling will help build some backbone.

[chip]

ditto on hearing the commentators discuss the fact that the ball first hit the tree and no one saw what happened from there. If there is a non-trivial chance that the ball lodged in the tree then it was definitely the correct ruling. A harsh rule no doubt, but correct under the rules.

When Allenby was saying, "the ball fell off the cliff" he was expressing his frustration and making the point that searching in the first line of bushes was pointless because even if it went into the hazard, it would be deep...

[Tmiller72]

I was inolved in a ruling like this once. I was playing a mini-tour event and this guy decided to try driving a green. The hole was a dogleg with a pond in front and to drive it you have to go over trees making it a blind shot to the green (14 at Emerald Bay in Destin, FL). He tees off and we get to the green and can't find his ball. He thinks it's in the lake and wants to go drop. There were other places that the ball could have ended up, 1 being the large area of trees over the green. I told him to be safe he needed to play it as a lost ball and re-tee. He got pissed off and took a drop. Needless to say, he was DQ'd.

[KYMAR]

it's the proper enforcement, or lack of, of rules like this that go over looked by amateurs all the time. This is why guys want to know why scratch shooting club champs aren't out on some tour. It's because, to a man, 99% of us on this board are taking a drop right there. And while rules are rules, on a packed Saturday afternoon round, I'm glad for it. For you 1%'s out there, I respect and admire your commitment to the tradition's and self governance of the game. Now, Golf Your ball, and watch your head.

[swing the clubhead!]

i bet anthony kim had a little chuckle to himself!

[Tmiller72]

[quote name='swing the clubhead!' date='07 February 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1265551936' post='2233760']
i bet anthony kim had a little chuckle to himself!
[/quote]

I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

[AcesAZ]

I had that similar issue in a tourney. I hit a drive that was pretty aggressive but went to far amost certainly into a pond/hazard. We couldnt see the pond from the tee and there was no other place the ball could be. It was all fairway and pond. So I was certain it went in there, even though no one saw it go in. No rules officials or marshalls around, I ended up taking a drop which is what I and my playing competitors felt was the right play.