Virtual Certainty

Sometime back, R&A replaced the phrase "Reasonable Evidence" with "Virtual Certainty" in interpreting decisions related to R 18-1( Ball moved by an outside agency), Rule 26-1(Ball in water Hazard), R 24-3(ball in obstruction not found) and R 25-1c(ball in abnormal condition not found) Meaning of known or virtual certainty is explained in Decision 26-1/1.Strict interpretation of the term virtual certainty in most cases will go against the player.In PGA tours and majors, detailed camera coverage, large gallery and army of volunteers makes it easier for Rules officials to collect evidence and interpret decisions. This is not the case in India in many of the Amateur and Pro tournaments, except a few like the Indian Open.Most of the time we have to rely on evidence provided by the players,fellow competitors and caddies.Fore caddies are placed in strategic points to look for balls and confirm entry points for ball in water hazards. When there are not enough fore caddies or if they are not efficient, players suffer heavily as the chances of lost balls increase.Also, because of some doubts, players do not get rulings in their favour for ball in water hazard(R 26). They have to proceed under the ball lost rule(R 27)
AS said earlier, incompetent fore caddies escalate the problems for players. Recently in one of the Amateur tournaments in KGA, Bangalore, one player played his tee shot on Hole 5 towards the lateral water hazard on the right. The fore caddie stationed there categorically informed the player that the ball went to the hazard and the player in good faith dropped a ball under R 26-1 and proceeded further.one of the journalists covering the event noticed a ball near the 6Th fairway and informed me that this may be the ball deemed to have been in the water hazard. I went to the concerned player who was nearing the 5th green and took him with me to identify the ball on the 6th fairway. He confirmed that the ball was his.He claimed he dropped a ball under R 26 in good faith on the basis of the confirmed report of the fore caddie.On investigation with other fellow competitors, it was clear that the player had proceeded under R 26 with known or virtual certainty.I ruled that the player proceeded correctly under R 26, even though the original ball was subsequently found outside the water hazard.(Decision 26-1/3 and 26-1/3.5)