Virtual Certainty

                                                                     Virtual Certainty

Though decision 26-1/1 explains how to apply the term known or virtually certain, it is one of the most difficult exercises for referees. The gathering of evidence in India is mostly limited to getting it from players, caddies, and if available, fore caddies  We do not have a crew of photographers or spectators to support with credible evidence.

This situation was highlighted in the recent Poona Club PGTI event. On hole 11, we had marked a very large area as GUR. A player’s tee shot hit an adjacent tree. The ball could not be found. When I reached the spot, the search was in the GUR area. The player informed me that according to the fore caddie  the ball hit the tree and fell in the GUR area. Nobody else has seen the ball hitting the tree and the dropping of the ball. I was almost convinced that it was virtually certain that the ball not found was in the GUR. However, on persistent questioning the fore caddie changed his version. He could only confirm that the ball hit the tree which was bordering the GUR. He was about 75 yards away. He was not certain about the ball falling in the GUR area. The area close to the GUR area also had thick roughs. This revised evidence of the fore caddie changed the status drastically. The evidence did not pass the test of virtual certainty. I had no choice but to ask the player to proceed under stroke and distance Rule 27.

In another incident at Aamby valley, on hole 12, par 5, the 125 yard third shot of a player sailed over the green. A high ridge was bordering the green. Beyond the Green was a narrow strip marked as Lateral water Hazard. The depth of this hazard was about 5 yards. The water hazard was closing on a short metal fence which was the margin of the Out of Bounds. The player could not find his ball in the water hazard. The hazard did not have water but only contained thick grass. The player wanted to proceed under the water hazard Rule 26. I denied the request as it was not virtually certain that the ball not found was in the water hazard. It may be in the water hazard or it may have gone Out of Bounds which was close by. Nobody has seen the ball landing in the water hazard because of the contour and high ridge surrounding the green. The Player was required to proceed under lost ball Rule 27.

Another fellow referee who was officiating in the same tournament made a player to proceed under Rule 26 and dropped a ball at the point of entry of the lateral water hazard margin. After dropping and stroke played, the ball was found in the Out of bounds fenced area which was close to the lateral water hazard.

These incidents highlight that the test of virtual certainty has to very strict. It will be hard on the players. The R&A has good reasons for shifting the weight of evidence from reasonable to virtual certainty.