Rules Q.. puzzled - Definition of "Abnormal Ground"

[noddy]

Hi All,

 

Would love to hear from anyone who knows the rules of golf better than I do.

 

Today in club championships rd 2 (course is quite wet due to recent rain) my playing partner hits a drive which just turns over left, goes about 250-260 yards and should be in the left rough. We all scout around and can't find the ball. It is possible that the ball came down and buried itself in the now thick mud (i.e no casual water). It is also possible that the ball is just lost.

 

Should this be played as

 

a. Lost ball i.e Go back to the tee and play 3 from the tee

 

or

 

b. Abnormal ground it is virtually certain that the ball went in the mud

 

As the ball went in the rough I could not be virtually certain that it was in the mud, but could have gone there. His marker is a 30 handicap duffer with no appreciation for the rules.

 

His judgement was whatever you want to do is fine (i.e he doesn't know or want to know the correct ruling).

 

What should actually occur here?

 

Thanks in advance.

[KevCarter]

Without the possibility the ball is lost in casual water...

Back to the tee hitting 3.

Kevin


[quote name='noddy' date='30 May 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1275221032' post='2475899']
Hi All,

Would love to hear from anyone who knows the rules of golf better than I do.

Today in club championships rd 2 (course is quite wet due to recent rain) my playing partner hits a drive which just turns over left, goes about 250-260 yards and should be in the left rough. We all scout around and can't find the ball. It is possible that the ball came down and buried itself in the now thick mud (i.e no casual water). It is also possible that the ball is just lost.

Should this be played as

a. Lost ball i.e Go back to the tee and play 3 from the tee

or

b. Abnormal ground it is virtually certain that the ball went in the mud

As the ball went in the rough I could not be virtually certain that it was in the mud, but could have gone there. His marker is a 30 handicap duffer with no appreciation for the rules.

His judgement was whatever you want to do is fine (i.e he doesn't know or want to know the correct ruling).

What should actually occur here?

Thanks in advance.
[/quote]

[noddy]

Thanks for the quick reply Kev,

So am I right in saying that casual water is considered abnormal ground.

But mud that would not qualify as casual water (dried up enough so that water would not rise to the surface if taking a stance in it) is NOT abnormal ground?

That is what I couldn't satisfy in my own head after reading the rules of golf.

[KevCarter]

Correct Sir.

The committee would be justified in marking such areas as ground under repair. If so marked, no penalty for a ball lost in the condition using KVC (known or virtually certain.)

Kevin

[b]Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]
An "abnormal ground condition" is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

[quote name='noddy' date='30 May 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1275222384' post='2475928']
Thanks for the quick reply Kev,

So am I right in saying that casual water is considered abnormal ground.

But mud that would not qualify as casual water (dried up enough so that water would not rise to the surface if taking a stance in it) is NOT abnormal ground?

That is what I couldn't satisfy in my own head after reading the rules of golf.
[/quote]

[marrigo]

[color=#1C2837][color=#474747][size=2][color=#474747][font=arial][size="3"][color="#808080"][size=3][size="3"][color="#474747"][size=2]Back to the tee.[/size][/color][/size][/size][/color][/size][/color]

[color=#474747][font=arial][size=2][size=3][b][u][color="#808080"]Decision 25/1[/color][/u][/b][/size]

[color=#7F7F7F][size=3][size=3][size=2][b][b][color="#808080"]Q.[/color][/b][/b][/size][color="#808080"] Is soft, mushy earth casual water?[/color][/size]

[size=3][size=2][b][b][color="#808080"]A.[/color][/b][/b][/size][color="#808080"] No. Soft, mushy earth is not casual water unless water is visible on the surface before or after the player takes his stance — see Definition of "Casual Water."[/color][/size]

[/size][/color]

[/size][/color]

[/size][/font][/color][/font][/color]
[color=#1C2837][color=#474747][size=2][/size][/color]In addition you say that "it is [u]possible [/u]that the ball came down and buried itself". That does not fulfill the "virtual certainty" clause of rule 25-1. So even if water was[/color][color="#1C2837"] visible he still would have had to go back to the tee unless he found his ball. [/color]

[noddy]

Thanks very much guys - appreciate it.

You have confirmed my gut feel.

Now - what should happen post round as the player played the ball as a free drop incorrectly? DQ'ed or penalised shots on the hole?

[KevCarter]

In stroke play it would be DQ for signing an incorrect card.

Kevin

[noddy]

Thanks Kevin, you are a rules guru!

Cheers.

[marrigo]

[quote name='noddy' date='30 May 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1275224482' post='2475958']
Thanks very much guys - appreciate it.

You have confirmed my gut feel.

Now - what should happen post round as the player played the ball as a free drop incorrectly? DQ'ed or penalised shots on the hole?
[/quote]


Rule 20-7.c DQ. He committed a serious breach of the rules and gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from the wrong place. Since he did not correct this before completing the hole he is DQ'd once he tee'd off the next hole. If he had figured it out after hitting from the wrong place but before teeing off the next hole he could have gone back to the tee and played from the correct place with a two stroke penalty. So he would have been hitting five from the tee (stoke and distance plus two stroke penalty).

If there was a doubt as to how to proceed, he should have put two balls in play; one back from the tee and one with the free drop. Announced which ball he wants to count if the rules permit. Record both scores and let the rules committee decide.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='marrigo' date='30 May 2010 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1275224189' post='2475955']
[color="#1c2837"][color="#474747"][size="2"][color="#474747"][font="arial"][size="3"][color="#808080"][size="3"][size="3"][color="#474747"][size="2"]Back to the tee.[/size][/color][/size][/size][/color][/size][/color]

[color="#474747"][font="arial"][size="2"][size="3"][b][u][color="#808080"]Decision 25/1[/color][/u][/b][/size]

[color="#7f7f7f"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][b][b][color="#808080"]Q.[/color][/b][/b][/size][color="#808080"] Is soft, mushy earth casual water?[/color][/size]

[size="3"][size="2"][b][b][color="#808080"]A.[/color][/b][/b][/size][color="#808080"] No. Soft, mushy earth is not casual water unless water is visible on the surface before or after the player takes his stance — see Definition of "Casual Water."[/color][/size]

[/size][/color]

[/size][/color]

[/size][/font][/color][/font][/color]
[color="#1c2837"][color="#474747"][size="2"][/size][/color]In addition you say that "it is [u]possible [/u]that the ball came down and buried itself". That does not fulfill the "virtual certainty" clause of rule 25-1. So even if water was[/color][color="#1c2837"] visible he still would have had to go back to the tee unless he found his ball. [/color]
[/quote]


I'll make a fine point here, although I believe it doesn't really conflict with marrigo's "In addition . . . " statement. If the general area was in fact casual water, whether or not the ball buried itself in the ground is unimportant. One could be unable to find a ball in casual water irrespective of whether or not it buried -- as long as one is virtually certain that it ended up in the casual water area, you get a free drop. The ultimate point is that you have to be virtually certain it's somewhere in the casual water, not virtually certain it buried itself.

[marrigo]

Back to the tee.

 

Decision 25/1

 

Q. Is soft, mushy earth casual water?

 

A. No. Soft, mushy earth is not casual water unless water is visible on the surface before or after the player takes his stance — see Definition of "Casual Water."

 

 

 

In addition you say that "it is possible that the ball came down and buried itself". That does not fulfill the "virtual certainty" clause of rule 25-1. So even if water was visible he still would have had to go back to the tee unless he found his ball.

 

 

I'll make a fine point here, although I believe it doesn't really conflict with marrigo's "In addition . . . " statement. If the general area was in fact casual water, whether or not the ball buried itself in the ground is unimportant. One could be unable to find a ball in casual water irrespective of whether or not it buried -- as long as one is virtually certain that it ended up in the casual water area, you get a free drop. The ultimate point is that you have to be virtually certain it's somewhere in the casual water, not virtually certain it buried itself.

 

I concur

[xmc]

similar situation...if anybody is still paying attention.

what if a player hits a ball towards a muddy area in the rough, not marked ground under repair, but did not see the ball go into the area, only towards it, and is unable to find the ball after five minutes of looking for it? lost ball or drop under 25c? the "virtually certain point" is pretty subjective is it not? i'm inclined to believe that means you or a partner has to see the ball enter that area? - thanks

[i]It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward an abnormal ground condition is in such a condition. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition, the player may take relief under this Rule. If he elects to do so, the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition must be determined and, for the purpose of applying this Rule, the ball is deemed to lie at this spot and the player must proceed as follows:[/i]

[Sawgrass]

similar situation...if anybody is still paying attention.

 

what if a player hits a ball towards a muddy area in the rough, not marked ground under repair, but did not see the ball go into the area, only towards it, and is unable to find the ball after five minutes of looking for it? lost ball or drop under 25c? the "virtually certain point" is pretty subjective is it not? i'm inclined to believe that means you or a partner has to see the ball enter that area? - thanks

 

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward an abnormal ground condition is in such a condition. In order to apply this Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the abnormal ground condition. In the absence of such knowledge or certainty, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

 

If it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in an abnormal ground condition, the player may take relief under this Rule. If he elects to do so, the spot where the ball last crossed the outermost limits of the abnormal ground condition must be determined and, for the purpose of applying this Rule, the ball is deemed to lie at this spot and the player must proceed as follows:

 

Yes, the meaning of "virtually certain" is subjective, but the rules provide some guidance:

 

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)

 

Changing Relief Option When Re-Dropping Required — See 20-2c/5.

 

 

[xmc]

I still think you could argue the virtual certainty either way. If you only know that the ball was hit in the direction of an abnormal ground condition, but didn't see it go in, it's a pretty big leap of faith just to claim abnormal ground don't you think?

What if there was a lateral hazard ten yards beyond the abnormal ground condition? Does that add an additional layer of complexity as to whether the ball that you didn't see went into the hazard (drop with penalty) or in the abnormal g.c. (free drop/lost ball)? I guess what I'm saying is if you couldn't see it enter the abnormal g.c. or the hazard, virtual certainty can't be claimed. What would you do?

[Sawgrass]

First of all, the muddy ground you described in your earlier post may or may not be an abnormal ground condition. Water would have to be evident everywhere for the mud to be considered casual water and therefore an abnormal condition. If it just plugged in mud that's not covered by a layer of at least slightly visible water, and you can't find it, it's a lost ball.

As I've seen this whole thing ruled upon, even the possibility that a ball stayed up in a tree outside a hazard excludes the "virtual certainty" that it is in a hazard. Similarly that it may be lost in the high rough.

My interpretation of the whole thing is along the lines of, "If you didn't see the ball go and stay in the water, but there's hard, closely mowed grass which runs to the hazard edge with no long rough or bushes, you can make a valid agrument that it's virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard because it can't be seen elsewhere. Anything much short of that and you've got yourself a lost ball.

[xmc]

Thanks by the way, this is very helpful..

This muddy area had water in it, but not a full layer covering everything. Just a very muddy wet spot in a low area the grounds crew mowed around. Add in the hazard beyond and rough in general, and no clear sight of the ball entering either the mud or the hazard, hard to claim the threshold of virtual certainty was cleared. Lost ball.

[Sawgrass]

[url=""][/url]Here is why I said the water had to be everywhere. If it wasn't, the ball could have plugged in a muddy area that wasn't technically casual water, and therefore would simply be "lost".[b]

Abnormal Ground Conditions
[/b]An "[i]abnormal ground condition[/i]" is any [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#CasualWater"]casual water[/url], [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#GroundUnderRepair"]ground under repair[/url][/i] or hole, cast or runway on the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Course"][i]course[/i][/url] made by a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#BurrowingAnimal"]burrowing animal[/url][/i], a reptile or a bird.

[url=""][/url][b]Casual Water
[/b]"[i]Casual water[/i]" is any temporary accumulation of water on the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Course"][i]course[/i][/url] that is not in a [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#WaterHazard"][i]water hazard[/i][/url] and is visible before or after the player takes his [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Stance"][i]stance[/i][/url]. Snow and natural ice, other than frost, are either [i]casual water[/i] or [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#LooseImpediments"][i]loose impediments[/i][/url], at the option of the player. Manufactured ice is an [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Obstructions"][i]obstruction[/i][/url]. Dew and frost are not [i]casual water.[/i]

[elunoputter]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='02 June 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1275513084' post='2482829']
First of all, the muddy ground you described in your earlier post may or may not be an abnormal ground condition. Water would have to be evident everywhere for the mud to be considered casual water and therefore an abnormal condition. If it just plugged in mud that's not covered by a layer of at least slightly visible water, and you can't find it, it's a lost ball.

As I've seen this whole thing ruled upon, even the possibility that a ball stayed up in a tree outside a hazard excludes the "virtual certainty" that it is in a hazard. Similarly that it may be lost in the high rough.

My interpretation of the whole thing is along the lines of, "If you didn't see the ball go and stay in the water, but there's hard, closely mowed grass which runs to the hazard edge with no long rough or bushes, you can make a valid agrument that it's virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard because it can't be seen elsewhere. Anything much short of that and you've got yourself a lost ball.
[/quote]


and the rules are pretty clear what happens if you would find your ball afterwards. if you just drop it, the ball is in play and now you have a penalty stroke. If you play the second ball and find the first one, you have played from a wrong place, two strokes and could be dq'ed if you gained a significant advantage..

personally, I thin this rule change sucks. The word virtually makes it more complicated that it used to be. Unless the course has forecaddies, there is always a chance you will get it wrong.

a few weeks back, I hit a ball that ran along the ground to a lake...one of the guys told me I went in. So I dropped and finished the hole..

when we were done, the group behind me gave me my ball. it had hit a rock on the edge of the pond and bounced over it into an area I could have played from.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='elunoputter' date='02 June 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1275524660' post='2483173']
and the rules are pretty clear what happens if you would find your ball afterwards. if you just drop it, the ball is in play and now you have a penalty stroke. If you play the second ball and find the first one, you have played from a wrong place, two strokes and could be dq'ed if you gained a significant advantage..

personally, I thin this rule change sucks. The word virtually makes it more complicated that it used to be. Unless the course has forecaddies, there is always a chance you will get it wrong.

a few weeks back, I hit a ball that ran along the ground to a lake...one of the guys told me I went in. So I dropped and finished the hole..

when we were done, the group behind me gave me my ball. it had hit a rock on the edge of the pond and bounced over it into an area I could have played from.
[/quote]


I don't think you've interpreted the rule correctly. It is possible to be virtually certain that your ball is in a water hazard, but be wrong. If you have grounds to be virtually certain, but later learn that you were wrong about the ball being in the hazard, you don't get a d q or an addtional penalty. If, on the other hand, you had no right to deem yourself virtually certain, then you've got troubles. In my view it is entirely possible that you were reasonable in believing it was virtually certain that your ball had gone in the hazard (depending on other circumstances that you might have observed). Here is the decision (26-1/3) that backs this up:

[b]Q.[/b] A player believed his original ball had come to rest in a water hazard. He searched for about a minute but did not find his ball. He therefore dropped another ball behind the hazard under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14304#26-1"]26-1[/url] and played it. He then found his original ball outside the hazard within five minutes of having begun to search for it. What is the ruling?

[b]A.[/b] When the player dropped and played another ball behind the hazard, it became the ball in play and the original ball was lost.

[b]If it was known or virtually certain that the original ball was in the water hazard, the player was entitled to invoke Rule [/b][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14304#26-1"][b]26-1[/b][/url][b]. [/b]In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that the original ball was in the water hazard, the player was required to put another ball into play under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14306#27-1"]27-1[/url]. In playing the ball dropped under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14304#26-1"]26-1[/url], the player played from a wrong place.

[xmc]

Found it. This speaks to my question perfectly, and addresses "known or virtually certain".

25-1c/1 Ball Not Found Is in Casual Water or Rough

Q. An area of casual water preceded by high rough is in a hollow not visible from the tee. A ball driven into this area is not found. The ball may be in the casual water or it may be in the high rough. May the player treat the ball as being in the casual water?

A. No. In such circumstances, it is neither known nor virtually certain that the ball is in casual water. The player may not proceed under Rule 25-1c

[youraway2]

Lost ball - a mud area would have to be declared by the committee as "abnormal".

[xmc]

Yep. Even if it was declared abnormal, ground under repair or other, virtually certain means you have to see it enter that area. Not just heading that way.

I think it's safe to say the burden of proof falls on the party taking relief.

[paulyb]

[quote name='kevcarter ' date='30 May 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1275225441' post='2475972']
In stroke play it would be DQ for signing an incorrect card.

Kevin
[/quote]

Wouldn't a DQ for serious breach of playing from a wrong place be more appropriate?



Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='paulyb' date='06 June 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1275843647' post='2489579']
[quote name='kevcarter ' date='30 May 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1275225441' post='2475972']
In stroke play it would be DQ for signing an incorrect card.

Kevin
[/quote]

Wouldn't a DQ for serious breach of playing from a wrong place be more appropriate?



Note 1: A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place.
[/quote]

Post #9. I agree...

Kevin

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE=Sawgrass]
If you have grounds to be virtually certain, but later learn that you
were wrong about the ball being in the hazard, you don't get a d q or
an addtional penalty. If, on the other hand, you had no right to deem
yourself virtually certain, then you've got troubles. In my view it is
entirely possible that you were reasonable in believing it was
virtually certain that your ball had gone in the hazard (depending on
other circumstances that you might have observed). Here is the decision
(26-1/3) that backs this up:
[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is, as posted above, even seeing a splash is not cause for 'virtual certainty'. If seeing a splash isn't enough, then I question if anything could possibly be enough evidence to support virtual certainty, according to the rules as written.

With such a high standard of proof required, I'd argue that any ball which is out of sight is 'lost' and there is no such animal as 'virtual certainty', or for that matter, water hazards. Think about it, have you ever hit a ball into water where you were absolutely positive that it didn't skip, or hit a submerged rock, or otherwise escape its watery grave? I don't mean 'pretty sure', I mean absolutely would-bet-your-childrens'-lives-on-it sure. That's basically what is required by 26 1/1.

Yet another example of why we need to burn all the rulebooks, and start from scratch. The current rules are unusable, which is why no one plays by all of them.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='08 June 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1276034516' post='2495916']
Yet another example of why we need to burn all the rulebooks, and start from scratch. The current rules are unusable, which is why no one plays by all of them.
[/quote]

I actually believe the rules of golf are quite brilliant, especially considering the number of people with such a wide variety of abilities, and an unlimited number of varying fields of play with so many different problems that can arise at any time. combine that with the fact the game is played outside in the elements of nature... I can't imagine starting over and trying to create the rules taking all the potential situations under consideration.

Kevin

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='08 June 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1276034516' post='2495916']
[QUOTE=Sawgrass]
If you have grounds to be virtually certain, but later learn that you
were wrong about the ball being in the hazard, you don't get a d q or
an addtional penalty. If, on the other hand, you had no right to deem
yourself virtually certain, then you've got troubles. In my view it is
entirely possible that you were reasonable in believing it was
virtually certain that your ball had gone in the hazard (depending on
other circumstances that you might have observed). Here is the decision
(26-1/3) that backs this up:
[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is, as posted above, even seeing a splash is not cause for 'virtual certainty'. If seeing a splash isn't enough, then I question if anything could possibly be enough evidence to support virtual certainty, according to the rules as written.

With such a high standard of proof required, I'd argue that any ball which is out of sight is 'lost' and there is no such animal as 'virtual certainty', or for that matter, water hazards. Think about it, have you ever hit a ball into water where you were absolutely positive that it didn't skip, or hit a submerged rock, or otherwise escape its watery grave? I don't mean 'pretty sure', I mean absolutely would-bet-your-childrens'-lives-on-it sure. That's basically what is required by 26 1/1.

Yet another example of why we need to burn all the rulebooks, and start from scratch. The current rules are unusable, which is why no one plays by all of them.
[/quote]

David, there is the "animal" of virtual certainty, and it's quoted in post #13 above. And no children's lives must be lost, nor books burned. In fact, the rules are so well written that they use the word "virtually", and therefore explicitly don't require you to be "bet-your-childrens'-lives" sure.

Unfortunately for me, I've hit many balls that I'm absolutely certain remained within the boundaries of a water hazard. When a ball drops almost straight down several yards into a large hazard, there is no other consideration. Or when a ball skips into a wide one, and you see it stop skipping.

In my heart I think this "virtually certain" rule is quite reasonable. If, after taking all things into consideration, you find that a ball disappeared after being hit towards a water hazard which is well manicured at its edge, and there are no trees or bushes or rough around, and the ball has been bouncing along hard ground, you can be virtually certain it's in the hazard without even having seen it go in. Of course maybe it didn't. Maybe a hawk picked it up unseen by you, and your proper drop was in a different place. But the rules absolve you from this error, in a rather eloquent and fair way IMO.

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE=Kevin]
I actually believe the rules of golf are quite brilliant, especially
considering the number of people with such a wide variety of abilities,
and an unlimited number of varying fields of play with so many
different problems that can arise at any time. combine that with the
fact the game is played outside in the elements of nature... I can't
imagine starting over and trying to create the rules taking all the
potential situations under consideration.
[/QUOTE]

They can't be brilliant if no one plays by them. And no one in the world can possibly play by all of the USGA Rulebook.

If they were brilliant, they wouldn't have pages of decisions which frequently contradict the Rules ( eg 8-2.b which is over-ruled in a Decision ). The root of the problem lies in your last few sentences. The rules try to specifically address every possible scenario. This is wildly unnecessary. One page, such as <http://trga.info/trgabasics.html> would suffice ( although I don't agree with those rules, the point is that you don't need many ). If the rules were even decently-written, professionals would be able to remember and apply them without assistance. That is demonstrably false. If they were 'brilliant', recreational golfers would be able to remember and apply them... which is obviously incredibly far from being the case.

Take, as a counter-example, bowling. The playing rules are a page or two, and almost universally known and applied. I hate bowling, but that's how it should be. Golf should not have rules which are impossible to correctly apply ( who can definitely determine a hole dug by a borrowing animal from one dug by a non-borrowing animal? Are you kidding me? ). It should not have equipment rules that make it impossible to build a legal club. Golf should have a rule book, not a travesty.

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE=Sawgrass]
David, there is the "animal" of virtual certainty, and it's quoted in
post #13 above. And no children's lives must be lost, nor books burned.
In fact, the rules are so well written that they use the word
"virtually", and therefore explicitly don't require you to be
"bet-your-childrens'-lives" sure.
Unfortunately for me, I've hit many balls that I'm absolutely certain
remained within the boundaries of a water hazard. When a ball drops
almost straight down several yards into a large hazard, there is no
other consideration. Or when a ball skips into a wide one, and you see
it stop skipping.
[/QUOTE]

Straight down yards from shore is actually quite likely to hit a submerged rock and bounce ( somewhere, maybe out, maybe not ). I've done that many times. And since 26 1/1 explicity states that even seeing a splash is not sufficient, I don't know how you can just to the conclusion that seeing the ball headed in the general direction of water, is. I actually agree with you, I think seeing a splash or multiple skips SHOULD be sufficient for KVC. But the Rules don't agree with either of us, unfortunately. There has to be no other possibility, which to me, means you basically have to see the ball submerged, and be able to identify it. If there is nothing surrounding the water but fairway and green, then you might be able to claim KVC under the rules... but I can't ever remember seeing a water hazard that was that well-manicured. Around here, there is always at least some rough.

It sounds to me like you are reading the rules as you'd like them to be, not as the Decisions indicate they are. Which is what most people do when the rules are nearly non-sense.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='11 June 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1276297086' post='2503739']
. . . I think seeing a splash or multiple skips SHOULD be sufficient for KVC. But the Rules don't agree with either of us, unfortunately. There has to be no other possibility, which to me, means you basically have to see the ball submerged, and be able to identify it.

It sounds to me like you are reading the rules as you'd like them to be, not as the Decisions indicate they are. Which is what most people do when the rules are nearly non-sense.
[/quote]

It sounds to me like you are not actually reading the rules, because they don't say what you state they say. They do say this:


------------
"If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14304#26-1"][color="#000000"]26-1[/color][/url] 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 [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14306#27-1"][color="#000000"]27-1[/color][/url].

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."

---------------------

"Almost no doubt" and "all available evidence" sound pretty reasonable to me, and are far from your "There has to be no other possibility, which to me, means you basically have to see the ball submerged, and be able to identify it."

The bottom line is that I don't know why you feel you should be entitled to the relief available for a water hazard if you don't have a virtual certainty that you're in it.