- The term ¡§reasonable evidence¡¨ in Rule
26-1 is purposely and necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments
to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular
- As applied in this context, a player may not
deem the ball lost in a water hazard simply because one thinks
the ball may be in the hazard.
- The evidence must be preponderantly in
favor of its being in the hazard.
- Otherwise, the ball must be considered lost
outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
- Physical conditions in the area have
a great deal to do with reasonable evidence
- For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which
a ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that
the ball is in the hazards would be more likely than if there was deep
rough in the area.
- Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide
reasonable evidence as splashing balls sometimes skip out of hazards.
- It would depend on all the circumstances.